Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I yield the Senator from South Carolina 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I yield such time to the Senator from West Virginia as he may consume.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I want to make sure that we reserve plenty of time for the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, who is really in many ways the author of this legislation and has been such a guiding light and firm supporter for so long a period of time. Article II, section 2 of the Constitution provides that The President shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law, but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or the heads of departments. This is an important provision of the Constitution's system of checks and balances. The Supreme Court, in 1997, said that the appointments clause ``is more than just a matter of etiquette or protocol; it is among the significant structural safeguards of the constitutional scheme.'' By requiring the participation of the Senate with the President and selecting officers, the framers believed that persons of higher quality would be appointed than if one person alone made those appointments. One of the ways in which those persons would be better would be in respecting individual liberties. So the appointments clause serves to protect better government administration and the rights of the American people. The appointments clause was also adopted because manipulation of official appointments was one of the revolutionary generation's greatest grievances against executive power. As participants in the appointments process, we Senators have an obligation, I believe, to ensure that the appointments clause functions as it was designed, and that manipulation of executive appointments not be permitted. Nonetheless, we also need to recognize that despite the appointments clause, there will be times when officers die or resign in office. Their duties should continue to be performed by someone else on a temporary basis. It may not be possible as a matter of logistics that each temporary official serving as an acting officer in a position subject to the appointments clause will himself or herself receive Senate confirmation. Early Congresses recognized the need for persons to serve temporarily in advice and consent positions when vacancies arose, even when the person had not received Senate confirmation. The Vacancies Act has existed one way or another since then, with length of temporary service increasing to 120 days in legislation that was passed in 1988. The 1886 Vacancies Act was intended to provide the exclusive means for filling temporary appointments. And it has operated that way for several years. However, in 1973, the Justice Department, in seeking to appoint a temporary FBI Director in the midst of the Watergate scandal, appointed L. Patrick Gray without complying with the terms of the Vacancies Act. The Department for the first time made a public declaration that its organic statute created an alternative method for designating temporary appointments at the Department of Justice not subject to any time limit was there position. Since 1973 the Department has continued to make acting appointments outside the strictures of the Vacancies Act. The Justice Department relies on its organic statute's ``vesting and delegation'' provision, which states that the Attorney General can designate certain other powers to whomever she chooses in the Department, since specific statutory functions were not given to the subordinate officials. The Department makes this claim although current law states that a . . . temporary appointment . . . to perform the duties of another under the Vacancies Act . . . may not be made otherwise than as provided by the Vacancies Act. But the Justice Department's organic statute was designed simply to coordinate all Federal Government litigation, and did not change the Vacancies Act. The legislative history of the Department's organic statute confirmed this. In 1988, Congress, recognizing that the Justice Department was not applying the Vacancies Act as Congress clearly intended, sought to amend the act to make it more clear. They changed the law to eliminate this unsupported position of the Justice Department largely through the efforts of Senator John Glenn of Ohio. The Department of Justice, however, refused to read the language as Congress intended, relying on its same old arguments. As a result, the Department of Justice believes that the Attorney General can designate acting officers for 2 or even 3 years. The head of the Criminal Division--an important position with respect to guidance in Federal prosecutions, including independent counsel--was vacant for 2\1/2\ years without a nomination. An acting Solicitor General served an entire term at the Supreme Court, and no nomination for the position was ever sent to the Senate. Even the administration claims that an acting person can serve for only 120 days. But after an acting person served for 181 days, the administration designated another person to serve as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. Today all 14 Departments have similar language in their organic statutes. Now many Departments, at DOJ's urging, are claiming similarly that the Vacancies Act doesn't apply to them either as an exclusive means for filling vacancies. There is no time limit on temporary services. That has been adhered to under the organic statutes, making both the Vacancies Act and the appointments clause effective nullities, according to the Comptroller General. The Comptroller General disagrees with the Justice Department's reading of current law, and all of the other Departments who have tagged along after the Justice Department. Each Department has at least one temporary officer now who has served longer than 120 days, allowed by the Vacancies Act. The nomination should be able to be sent to the Senate within 4 months. Since the President lacks any inherent authority to make appointments for offices that require Senate confirmation, the President's noncompliance with the Vacancies Act means noncompliance with the Constitution. As of earlier this year, when the Governmental Affairs Committee held its hearing on oversight of the Vacancies Act, of the 320 executive Department's advice and consent positions, 64 were held by temporary officials. Of the 64, 43 served longer than 120 days before a nomination was even submitted to the Senate. Other Departments are following Justice's lead. The acting head of the Census Bureau is neither the first assistant, nor a person who has been confirmed by the Senate, which is what the Vacancies Act currently requires. Of the nine vacant advice and consent positions at Commerce, seven have been filled by acting officers for more than 120 days. And one had been acting temporarily for 3 years. It is true that the Senate has not always acted on nominees as soon as it should. But that issue should be addressed separately. Many of the criticisms of the Senate's handling of the nominations is unwarranted since vacancies often remain open for lengthy periods before nominations are submitted. The Senate is now being publicly criticized for holding up the confirmation of Richard Holbrooke to be the U.N. Ambassador, for example, when in fact the administration has not even submitted his nomination to the Senate. The fact is that the administration is under a current statutory duty to have acting officers serve for 120 days, which can be extended simply by the administration sending the Senate a nominee. That means that if the Senate does not act it has to bear the responsibility for an acting person's service at that point. Responsibility is clearly placed where it belongs if an acting person continues to serve. But since the administration does not follow existing law, the Senate in many instances never gets a chance to even consider a permanent nominee. Under the administration's view, the entire set of confirmed officials in our Government could resign the day after they were confirmed, and acting officials who have not received the advice and consent of the Senate can run the Government indefinitely. That situation is completely at odds with what constitutional scheme and the framers created to protect individual liberties. There is another reason this bill should be enacted--the Court ruling recently that undermines the Vacancies Act further. Under the current law, if a vacancy in a covered position occurs, the first assistant to that officer becomes the acting officer for up to 120 days. In the alternative, the President can designate another Senate confirmed officer to act as the acting officer for 120 days. The 120 days can be extended if the President submits a permanent nominee for the position to the Senate. That creates an incentive for the President to submit nominations to the Senate. Recent court interpretations have greatly confined the operation of the Vacancies Act. In March, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit approved the legality of actions taken by an acting director of the Office of Thrift Supervision who had served for 4 years without a nomination for the position ever having been submitted to this body. The Senate-confirmed director resigned in 1992 and purported to delegate all of his authority to OTS' deputy director for Washington operations. This person, who was neither the first assistant nor the Senate-confirmed individual, served as the acting director until October 1996. The President then invoked the Vacancies Act to designate a confirmed HUD official to serve as the acting director and submitted the nomination to the Senate for the position within 120 days. The bank challenging the legality of the acting officer's appointment argued that the 120 days had expired 120 days after the Senate-confirmed director's resignation created a vacancy, long before the Senate- confirmed person was named the acting officer. But the Court held that the 120 days is a limitation only on how long an acting officer can serve, not a limitation on how soon after the vacancy arises that the President must submit a nomination. It allowed the later Senate-confirmed director to ratify the actions of the prior acting director. Thus, if there is no first assistant, the President can wait for 4 years to send a nomination to the Senate while an acting official, in this case selected by the head of the agency, not the President, runs an important agency. This is not what the framers thought that they had established. It runs contrary to the Vacancies Act itself and corrective action therefore is necessary. In any case, this administration, as stated above, has allowed many acting officers to serve for more than 120 days as permitted by the Vacancies Act without submitting a nomination to the Senate. The Vacancies Act presently has no enforcement mechanism, so once again the Senate's constitutional advice and consent prerogative is undermined. In Federalist Paper 76 Hamilton cautioned that: A man, who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body; and that body, an entire branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. So by disregard of the Vacancies Act and installing at its sole disposition numerous officials to important positions in the Government who escape the independent body's review is contrary to the original intent of the framers. Without a possibility of rejection, there is much less care taken in the proposing. S. 2176 will restore the constitutional balance and cloture should be invoked on the bill. Madam President, let me briefly discuss the provisions of S. 2176. Upon the death, resignation or inability to serve of an officer of an executive Agency, the first assistant to the officer becomes the acting officer subject to the bill's time limits. Because of additional background processing that is now required of nominees, the bill proposes lengthening the time of acting service from the current 120 days to 150 days. If the President so directs, a person who has already received Senate confirmation to another position can be made the acting officer in lieu of the first assistant. This is basically the framework, Madam President, that is currently the law except we are extending the time period that the President has within which to make his decision. The first assistant has to have served 180 days in the year preceding the vacancy in order to be the acting officer, in order for someone to be put in in a very short period of time to be the first assistant so that they may then be appointed the acting officer. The acting officer may serve 150 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs. The acting officer may continue to serve beyond 150 days if the President submits a nomination for the position even if that occurs after the 150th day. So at the 150-day expiration, the President still has it within his sole discretion to make the nomination; just simply send the nomination up and the acting officer can come back once again and assume his duties. If a first or second nomination is withdrawn, rejected, or returned, the person can serve as the acting officer until 150 days after the withdrawal, rejection, or return. Recognizing the large number of positions that are to be filled in a new administration, the bill extends the 150-day period by 90 days for any vacancies that exist when a new President is inaugurated or that arise in the 60 days following a new Presidential inauguration. The bill will extend the provisions of the Vacancies Act to cover all advice and consent positions in executive Agencies except those that are covered by express specific statute that provide for acting officers to carry out the functions and duties of the office. Forty-one current statutes now allow the President or the head of an executive Department to designate or provide automatically for a particular officer to become an acting officer. The bill also exempts multimember commissions, and it retains holdover provisions of current law. The bill expressly states that vesting and delegation statutes do not constitute statutes that govern the appointment of acting officers to specific positions. The bill will thus end the specious argument of the Justice Department that it and other Departments' organic statutes provide an additional means, and really a superseding means of appointing acting officials apart from the Vacancies Act. The bill also creates an enforcement mechanism for the Vacancies Act, something that is also sorely needed. Today, acting officers regularly exceed the 120-day limitation without consequence. Under 2176, an office becomes vacant if 150 days after the vacancy arises no Presidential nomination for the position has been submitted to the Senate. For offices other than the heads of Agencies, the functions and duties that are specifically to be performed only by the vacant officer can be performed by the head of that particular agency. That means that all functions and duties of every position can be performed at all times. But if a nomination is not submitted within the Vacancies Act period, only the head of the Agency can perform the specific duties of the vacant offices. Hopefully, that will create an incentive for the President to go ahead and submit a nomination. As soon as the nomination is submitted, the acting officer can then resume performing the duties and functions of the vacant office. No one may ratify any actions taken in violation of the bill's vacant office provisions. Madam President, this approach will not penalize the acting person in any way, but it will encourage the submission of nominees within 150 days without jeopardizing the performance of any Government function if that deadline is missed. The Vacancies Reform Act also establishes a reporting procedure. Each Agency head will report to the General Accounting Office on the existence of vacancies, the person serving in an acting capacity, the names of any nominees, and the date of disposition of such nominee. The Comptroller General will then report to the Congress, the President, and the Office of Personnel Management on the existence of any violations of the Vacancies Act. This will provide useful information to the President so he will know the progress of the 150-day clock and will benefit the Senate as well. This bill has been modified to take into account objections raised by members of the committee and elsewhere as well as the administration. In committee, we lengthened the Presidential transition period. We permitted the President to name an acting officer by submitting a nomination even after the 150-day period has expired. We agreed to consider shortening the length of service prior to the vacancy a first assistant must satisfy to become an acting officer. This bill is institutional and not partisan. Members should vote for cloture in recognition of the fact that the Senate and the Presidency will not always be controlled by the parties that control these institutions today, and in recognition of the duty that we all share to uphold the Constitution and protect the legitimate prerogatives of this institution. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, September 28, 1998, at 1 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226, Senate Dirksen Building, on: ``Administrative Oversight of Financial Control Failures at the Department of Defense.''

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin very much. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. I do so not only because of what I believe to be the inherent merits of the amendment but because I think it has broader implications for us today in the times that we live in. We have had good times in this country for some time now-- economically, we have low unemployment, we have low inflation, and we have prosperity. When we look abroad, we have had peace. We are the lone remaining superpower in the world. It seems that during times like this, Washington becomes irrelevant to a lot of people, and in some ways perhaps that is good. But we are not very mindful of the need for leadership in times of trial and times of trouble. But the fact of the matter is that in more recent times we have seen the beginnings of such times of peril and trouble. Many people think that we have some serious chickens coming home to roost and that both peace and prosperity are at issue now. As we look at what is going on in this country and the fact that we cannot forever remain the only buying nation in a world of sellers-- that we cannot be immune to what is going on in the Pacific rim, the Soviet Union, perhaps Japan and South America, and the troubling economic conditions there--we cannot forever be immune, and our economy cannot be immune, from what is going on in the rest of the world. We see, as we broaden our perspective, a foreign policy that is in shambles in many respects. We see that we are losing the respect in many ways that the United States has had around the world. It is evidenced by our troubled coalition with regard to Iraq. It is evidenced by a very, very troubling policy with regard to Iraq where the credibility of the Nation's leading figures is at issue. It is at issue when you look at a country such as North Korea, with whom we are supposed to have a nuclear understanding and agreement, as they send missiles across our ally in Japan. We are told by the Rumsfeld Commission that rogue outlaw nations are going to have the capability within just a few years of launching a missile containing biological or nuclear or chemical weapons to hit the continental United States. So all of this is before us now, and the American people, I think, are going through somewhat of a period of readjustment in their thinking because we have not only that, but we have very much of a troubled Presidency. We have seen for some time now that while nobody has been paying much attention to a lot of these things, the level of cynicism continues to go up in this country. We see the Pew report, for example, which shows that our confidence in the leadership in this country is low. We see that this lack of confidence is even greater among our young people. A lot of people used to attribute the growing cynicism and lack of confidence in many respects--and it is somewhat affected by the economy as it goes up and down--but fundamentally the cynicism grows and lot of people say because of Watergate, because of Iran Contra, because of various other things, the assassinations of one generation that we saw, Dr. King and the President, and so forth, but what we are seeing now in these reports is that the cynicism and the concern is the greatest among our young people who have never witnessed or had to experience many of these things. So it makes it even more troubling. So all of this goes to the point of now that we see the need for strong leadership, after we have done so much to destroy the confidence that the American people ought to be having in the leadership of this country, who is going to listen to our leaders? I have been saying for well over a year now that with peace and prosperity we can go on autopilot for a little bit. But if our people continue to be distrustful of their own Government and the cynicism levels rise, especially among our young people, when that pendulum swings back, as it invariably does, and we no longer have peace and we no longer have prosperity, where is the leadership going to be, and who is going to follow the leadership of those of us in Washington who stand up and say here is the way; here is what we need to do; this is the way out of this problem. We have been in problems before, and we can get out of this one if you follow us. Who is going to follow us? That is the question yet to be answered. We do not know what we have done to our institutions, in many cases by our own actions, in many cases for other reasons, but we don't know the answer to that. And when the tough times come, as they invariably will in the short term or the long term, I only hope that we are strong enough in our institutions, in the Presidency, in the Congress, and the respect for our court system to be able to lead the American people. Mr. President, that is why this issue that we are discussing today is doubly important. It has to do with the very fundamentals of our Government. It has to do with the way we finance campaigns in this country, the way we elect the elected leaders who in turn are supposed to lead us when we need that leadership. I must say, in my opinion, we now have the worst campaign finance system that we have ever had in this country. In fact, you cannot call it a campaign finance system at all. It is a situation that is an open invitation to abuse. It is an open invitation to corruption. It is an open invitation to cynicism. And after the scandal of the 1996 campaign, if we do not do something about it, the level of cynicism that I talked about earlier, I think, is going to be even higher. If people think that we have gotten over the hump and everyone loves Congress now, you wait until that economy dips just a little bit; it will come back to the trend it has been following for a long, long time. It is a scandal waiting to happen. It is a system that after all this time has come to the point where there is no limitation on big corporate contributions or big labor contributions, and we are spending more and more and more time going after more and more money from fewer and fewer people who have the millions of dollars that is fueling our system, the same people who come back before us wanting us to either pass or defeat legislation. Mr. President, I have said ever since I have been in the Senate, I say here again today, that is a system that cannot last. That is an inherently defective system that cannot last over any period of time. So now because of that system, everybody is onto it and the race is on, and we are seeing the millions go to tens of millions and the tens of millions go to the hundreds of millions being put in by the large corporations and the large labor unions and the large vested interests that have those kinds of dollars. It makes me wonder how the small donor, which has been the bedrock of my party, perceives himself in all this. We are not getting enough checkoff on the tax returns in the Presidential system right now, and that is probably going to fail. Voter turnout is getting down there now with some of the banana Republics, and I think part of that has to be due to the fact that in a system that I have just described the average person does not see that it has a whole lot to do with him or with her. The ironic part about it is that this is not even a system that we created in Congress. We could not. No one would ever come in here and offer a piece of legislation that would create the system that we have today. We can discuss that a little bit further in a moment. We have had a lot of good discussion about the details of the amendment and the details of the legislation and some discussion about the broader principles involved, but the crux of it all has to do with whether or not we think it is a good idea to have unlimited corporate, labor, and individual contributions to political candidates and to incumbents and to have those contributors come in and try to get legislation passed after they have given us all that money. I think asking the question answers it. When you put it out like that, I think it answers itself. I think the answer is, no, we do not want that even though that is what we have. Why do I say that I think we do not want that when people seem to be so afraid of reform? Well, it is because throughout our entire history we have indicated that we do not want that because we ourselves learn some things sometimes from history, and we look around the world and we see that almost 2,000 years ago scholars were saying that this is the sort of thing that brought down the Roman Empire. The Venetians imposed strict limitations on contributions and money that would go to public officials. In their system, if donors had favors to ask, they were not allowed to give anything. We have seen that political influence money brought down entire political systems in times past in Japan and Italy. We have seen corruption in South Korea and Mexico. It is all around us--at the end of the last century, influence buying scandals; the Watergate; campaign finance scandal--time and time again. So, we have seen that. And we also understand that it is a potential problem from our real world experience. People are sometimes surprised that a conservative Republican like myself would feel strongly about campaign finance reform, and they say: Why would that be? I say for the same reason Barry Goldwater was for campaign finance reform. We will talk about that in a minute, too. But I think it has more to do with the fact that up until 3 or 4 years ago I was not involved in the political system, I was not running for office or holding office. But I did prosecute cases. I did defend cases. And I am very familiar with the idea that if you have people making decisions, you have to be very careful about how those decisions are influenced. If you are a purchasing agent, for example, you cannot take favors from someone from whom you are considering to buy something. If you are a loan officer at a bank, you cannot take favors from people whom you are considering for a loan. People get prosecuted for things like that all day, whether or not it was the real reason that the loan was made. The point being--the analogy is not perfect-- but the point being, we have always been very concerned about that. We have gratuity laws in this country where, regardless of whether or not it bought anything, there are some people under some circumstances that you cannot give gifts to, because we are very mindful of the appearances of that. We even do that with regard to our own activities. We passed gratuity laws that pertain to the Congress so now a friend cannot buy you dinner. He can go out here and raise $100,000 for a committee and, in turn, it will go to your benefit, he can bundle a few hundred thousand dollars for you, but he cannot buy you dinner. So at least we are paying some lip service to the idea that we have to be somewhat mindful of money going to those who are in positions of decisionmaking power. We recognized that in 1907 when, as a Congress, as a nation, we prohibited corporate contributions. We recognized it again in 1943 when, in the same manner, we prohibited labor contributions and set up political action committees. We recognized it further as a Congress when we set up the current system of $1,000 limitations and $5,000 limitations on PACs, and so on and so forth. You can argue over the amounts. I certainly think those amounts now are ridiculously low. They ought to be raised. The hard money limits ought to be raised. That is a debate for another time. But the fact of the matter is, we have been mindful of that. We addressed that. We always said, in this country, it is a bad idea to have wealthy individuals being able to give large amounts of money, unlimited amounts of money, to politicians. It is a bad idea to have big corporations who are usually involved in government contracts giving unlimited amounts to politicians or big labor unions. Yet that is what we have. By the same token, we are mindful of that, especially with regard to our Presidential campaigns and our Presidential elections. That is why we set up a public finance system for our Presidential elections. It is in shambles now because we have an Attorney General who is not doing her job and has a singular, a unique way of interpreting laws. But the fact of the matter is, we set up a system to take our candidates for President out of the money grubbing system. If you agree to take public financing, then you get public money, and the public, the taxpayers, were willing to run those campaigns on their own money, on their dime, in order to keep their candidates above and separate and apart from having to raise large amounts of money from these large contributors. We have always been mindful that large amounts of money and the decisionmaking of government are things that we have to be very, very careful about. We do allow some contributions. We do have a system--it takes money to run campaigns and all of that. We can argue over the amounts and so forth. But hardly ever has anybody, really, in this country, carried on a serious debate espousing the idea that all bets ought to be off, that any big corporation or any big labor union could give any amount that they wanted to regardless of whether or not they had legislation pending. So, if that is the case, how in the world did we get to where we are today, where, I say, there are no limitations anymore? You have to jump through a few hoops and you have to be hypocritical--which is no big hurdle to overcome--and you have to run it through the right kind of committee and so forth, and you have to word the ad a little bit correctly, and a few other things that 100 years from now we will look back on--somebody will look back on, and laugh at, as to how we ever had a deal like this. But essentially, whether you are running for President now--under the Attorney General's current interpretation, running for President now or to be a Member of Congress or a Member of the U.S. Senate, you can basically take any amount of money or get the benefit from any amount of money from anywhere, including the other side of the world. That has not been fully pushed yet, but I assure you, unless things change, that will be the next shoe to drop. There are people arguing in courts in this country right now that there is no limitation, under current law, on foreign contributions--foreign soft money contributions to our political parties. So that is the next step. So, how did we get here? If Congress, if we as a people, have always been mindful of this problem and Congress has legislatively set up a restrictive framework, then how did we get to where we are? It is really pretty simple when you distill it all down. It happened over a period of time, but essentially the FEC, Federal Election Commission, decided to open up a little soft money crack and said parties can use a little soft money in their party-building activities. Then they went a little bit further and said parties can use some soft money, a certain percentage of soft money, in their TV issue ads. And what happened then? The Clinton-Gore campaign took that crack and ran a Sherman tank through it and basically said, not only are we going to do that, but we are going to totally coordinate that entire activity so it will not be independent at all, and that we will sign the certification that we will take public financing and raise no more money, but we will really pretend like this is not money for our campaign.

Mr. THOMPSON. All right. I was not aware that there was a time agreement. So I apologize for the necessarily abbreviated nature of the rest of my remarks, which basically have to do with the fact that we have an interpretation now by the Attorney General which permits that. Therein lies part of the problem of those who advocate for campaign finance reform, because those who advocate it in many cases have lost the high ground. The President certainly lost the high ground because of his behavior, and I must say that after our congressional hearings on this subject where we saw foreign money coming in, people taking the fifth amendment, unlimited access to the White House, shakedowns with regard to American Indians and Buddhist nuns, use of the White House, setting people up in positions with classified information, and then raising money and all of the coverups attendant to that, while we need to address that from a campaign finance standpoint for the future, we have not adequately addressed what has gone on in the past. When we look around for blame to assess with regard to the fact we can't move this legislation, we have to come to terms with the fact that those who want to reform cannot be content with saying all we need is reform and forget about the past. We have not adequately addressed the past. Those who have let those things go by without blowing the whistle on them, without seeing anything wrong, without saying that is wrong conduct, as we saw for the last year in this country in our hearings, have lost the moral high ground with regard to this legislation. I am hoping we can do better in the future. I think those of us who want reform have to understand, yes, we need to clean up the past, but we cannot let this hold us hostage for what we need to do in the future. Those of us who promote campaign finance reform need to understand that before we can really have it, we have to have justice for the past. I thank the President and yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, last May, in the wake of India's nuclear weapons tests, the Senate rejected by one vote a motion to allow us to consider the need for a national missile defense. At that time I came to the floor and urged my colleagues to support defending our nation against missile attack. I recalled how the President, in his State of the Union address, underscored the importance of foresight and the need to prepare ``for a far off storm.'' The President wasn't talking about weapons proliferation and national missile defense, but I suggested he should have been--and that the thunder clouds of proliferation were gathering. Since that vote in May, the storm has picked up force and is not so ``far off.'' That weapons proliferation is a serious threat to our nation is more obvious today that even a few month ago. Allow me to remind my colleagues of a few developments since the Senate last considered missile defense: Following India's nuclear tests, Pakistan conducted six of its own tests. The South Asian subcontinent--rife with smoldering disputes--is now perched on the edge of a nuclear arms race. The following month, in June, North Korea blatantly announced that it was selling, and would continue to sell, ballistic missiles to any and all comers. The only requirement is cash on the barrel-head. In July, the Congress received stark warning of our under- preparedness from the Rumsfeld Commission. This distinguished, bi- partisan, group of experts concluded that our assessment of the missile threat to America was inadequate, and that hostile countries were closer to developing and deploying ballistic missiles than we thought. As if to prove the Rumsfeld Commission right, Iran test-launched its Shahab-3 missile that same month. This weapon was based on a North Korean design and updated with Russian and Chinese assistance. It is capable of striking U.S. allies and troops in the Middle East. Iran also continues its work on the Shahab-4, which will be able to reach central Europe. Then, just a few weeks ago, North Korea test-launched its Taepo-Dong 1 missile--and they shot it right over our key ally, Japan. The Taepo- Dong 1 is a huge breakthrough for North Korea. It is a multi-stage rocket that puts North Korea over a critical technology threshold. Their next missile, already under development, is the Taepo-Dong 2 which will be capable of striking American shores. When I spoke on this subject in May, I cautioned that developments such as these were on the horizon. Indeed, I noted a few of them specifically. But I truly did not expect to stand here this soon and recount that so many dangerous developments actually occurred. My friends, the past few months demonstrate that the threats from weapons of mass destruction and missiles with increasingly greater range are an imminent threat. We have consistently underestimated that threat and must proceed with development and deployment of a national missile defense as soon as possible. I do not know if there will be another proliferation development to report this month. Given the recent track record, it's very likely there will be. It's certain that missile development in hostile countries will continue apace. Moreover, world events are becoming more and more chaotic each day. The instability in Russia and Asia and the continuing proliferation activities of countries like China and North Korea only heightens the prospect that dangerous weapons technology will be sold to rogue actors. President Clinton was recently quoted in the press that requiring certification regarding other countries' actions only creates the need for the Administration to ``fudge'' its reporting. More recently, it appears the Administration took an active role to limit weapons inspections in Iraq, despite all its rhetoric to the contrary. Mr. President, events like these are highly worrisome because they suggest the President is less than forthcoming to the American people, to our allies and to our foes on issues of national defense and foreign policy. Perhaps even more worrisome, however, is the possibility that Administration policy makers may be fooling themselves. In the case of missile defense, this appears to be so. Their defense policy is based on hollow rhetoric and delusion. It is based on the hope of a three-year advanced warning. My friends, we're receiving our warnings now--over and over again. It's time to act. It's time to wake up and it's time to act. The technology to develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is widely available. If we do not prepare today, when the day arrives that America is paralyzed by our vulnerability to ballistic missile attack, or when an attack actually occurs, we will be reduced to telling the American people--and history--that we had hoped this would not happen. We will have to say we had ample evidence of a growing threat, but did not act for whatever reason. Mr. President, if we're going to err on this issue, we should err on the side of caution. If our choices are to deploy a missile defense either too early or too late, let's make it early. The first step in raising our guard is to pass S. 1873, the American Missile Protection Act, and commit the United States to a policy of deploying national missile defenses.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Thompson pertaining to the introduction of S. 2445 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federalism Enforcement Act, a bill to promote the principles of federalism and to restore the proper respect for State and local governments and the communities they serve. I am pleased that Senators Nickles, Craig, Thurmond, and Hutchinson have joined me as cosponsors of this legislation. Federalism is the cornerstone of our Democracy. It is the principle that the Federal Government has limited powers and that government closest to the people--States and localities--play a critical role in our governmental system. Our Founding Fathers had grave concerns about the tendency of a central government to aggrandize itself and thus encroach on State sovereignty, and ultimately, individual liberty. Federalism is our chief bulwark against Federal encroachment and individual liberty. Our Founders also knew that keeping decision making powers closer to home led to more accountable and effective government. Their federalist vision is clearly reflected in the 10th amendment, which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The legislation I am introducing today requires agencies to respect this vision of federalism when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It will preserve the division of responsibilities between the States and the Federal Government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution and established in Executive order by President Ronald Reagan. The Reagan order on federalism had it right. It directed Federal departments and agencies to refrain from imposing one-size-fits-all regulation on the States. It held that the laws passed by Congress were not presumed to preempt State law unless done so explicitly. It required agencies to assess the impact of agency action on federalism. But the people running the executive branch today, from the top on down, do not seem to feel the Reagan order applies to them. They made this abundantly clear when they tried to revoke it with Clinton Executive Order 13083. In May, President Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13083, which by its terms claims to promote federalism. Ironically, this order that is supposed to promote better communication between Federal and local government was issued in secret--without even talking to State and local officials at all. Worse still, the order would seriously undermine federalism and effectively turn the 10th amendment on its head. The Reagan Executive Order 12612 promoted the 10th amendment and set a clear presumption against Federal meddling in local affairs. The new Clinton order would create, but not be limited to, nine new policy justifications for Federal meddling. The list is so ambiguous that it would give Federal bureaucrats free rein to trample on local matters. The new Clinton order also would revoke President Clinton's own 1993 Executive Order 12875 that directed Federal agencies not to impose unfunded mandates on the States. Understandably, State and local officials were deeply offended by the Clinton order and the White House snub in drafting it. On July 17, the major groups representing State and local officials sent a remarkable letter to the President, urging him to withdraw the order and to restore the Reagan federalism order and the 1993 unfunded mandates order. On July 22, several of my colleagues and I supported State and local officials by sponsoring a resolution calling on President Clinton to repeal his new order. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously. The House also has voiced opposition to the Clinton order. Congressman McIntosh held a hearing, and joined with six of his colleagues to introduce a bill nullifying Executive Order 13083. The White House had a chance to extinguish the firestorm of protest from Governors, State legislators, mayors, county executives, and other local officials around the country by permanently revoking Executive Order 13083. Instead, the White House chose to preserve some wiggle room by ``suspending'' the order on August 5, leading some to ask if that action is permanent or just an effort to delay the order until the opposition dies down. If the President can admit that he made a mistake in signing his federalism order, he should permanently revoke it, plain and simple. Unfortunately, the White House has yet to correct its insult to State and local officials and the communities they serve. Instead of revoking the Clinton order, the administration is preparing for belated consultations with State and local government representatives. This effort at damage control does not hide the fact that the Clinton order is an open invitation for Federal interference in local affairs, and in the administration's eyes, it is still on the table. In light of this threat to the tenth amendment principle of a limited Federal Government, Congress must stand ready to act. The Federalism Enforcement Act is necessary to ensure that the current administration exercises some restraint when regulating in areas that affect our States and communities, and respects the principles of State sovereignty and limited Federal Government on which our Nation was founded. First, the bill directs Federal agencies to adhere to constitutional principles and not to encroach on the constitutional authority of the States. The Clinton federalism order would have shifted the presumption against Federal intervention to provide new policy justifications for Federal interference in State and local affairs. My bill returns us to the language of the Reagan order. Second, the bill would restore the preemption standards established in the Reagan order. The Clinton order would have encouraged Federal agencies to intrude into State affairs and deleted the Reagan preemption principle that, when in doubt, agencies should err on the side of State sovereignty. Third, the bill would direct agencies to prepare a federalism assessment of certain agency actions, such as regulations that have significant federalism implications. The Clinton order would have deleted this requirement. Finally, the Federalism Enforcement Act would express the sense of the Congress that Federal agencies should not propose legislation that would regulate the States in ways that would interfere with their separate and independent functions, attach conditions to Federal grants which are unrelated to the purposes of the grant, or preempt State law in ways inconsistent with the act. Because only the President can enforce this requirement using his article II constitutional powers, it is expressed as a resolution urging him to do so. The principles of federalism rightly are being reinvigorated. Much of the innovation that has improved this country began at the State and local level. People want important decisions that affect their daily lives to be made in their community--not dictated on high from Washington. And federalism is blossoming in recent constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court. The Federalism Enforcement Act I am introducing today will continue this restoration of the balance between national and State power as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce the Federalism Enforcement Act, a bill to promote the principles of federalism and to restore the proper respect for State and local governments and the communities they serve. I am pleased that Senators Nickles, Craig, Thurmond, and Hutchinson have joined me as cosponsors of this legislation. Federalism is the cornerstone of our Democracy. It is the principle that the Federal Government has limited powers and that government closest to the people--States and localities--play a critical role in our governmental system. Our Founding Fathers had grave concerns about the tendency of a central government to aggrandize itself and thus encroach on State sovereignty, and ultimately, individual liberty. Federalism is our chief bulwark against Federal encroachment and individual liberty. Our Founders also knew that keeping decision making powers closer to home led to more accountable and effective government. Their federalist vision is clearly reflected in the 10th amendment, which states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. The legislation I am introducing today requires agencies to respect this vision of federalism when formulating policies and implementing the laws passed by Congress. It will preserve the division of responsibilities between the States and the Federal Government envisioned by the Framers of the Constitution and established in Executive order by President Ronald Reagan. The Reagan order on federalism had it right. It directed Federal departments and agencies to refrain from imposing one-size-fits-all regulation on the States. It held that the laws passed by Congress were not presumed to preempt State law unless done so explicitly. It required agencies to assess the impact of agency action on federalism. But the people running the executive branch today, from the top on down, do not seem to feel the Reagan order applies to them. They made this abundantly clear when they tried to revoke it with Clinton Executive Order 13083. In May, President Clinton quietly signed Executive Order 13083, which by its terms claims to promote federalism. Ironically, this order that is supposed to promote better communication between Federal and local government was issued in secret--without even talking to State and local officials at all. Worse still, the order would seriously undermine federalism and effectively turn the 10th amendment on its head. The Reagan Executive Order 12612 promoted the 10th amendment and set a clear presumption against Federal meddling in local affairs. The new Clinton order would create, but not be limited to, nine new policy justifications for Federal meddling. The list is so ambiguous that it would give Federal bureaucrats free rein to trample on local matters. The new Clinton order also would revoke President Clinton's own 1993 Executive Order 12875 that directed Federal agencies not to impose unfunded mandates on the States. Understandably, State and local officials were deeply offended by the Clinton order and the White House snub in drafting it. On July 17, the major groups representing State and local officials sent a remarkable letter to the President, urging him to withdraw the order and to restore the Reagan federalism order and the 1993 unfunded mandates order. On July 22, several of my colleagues and I supported State and local officials by sponsoring a resolution calling on President Clinton to repeal his new order. That resolution passed the Senate unanimously. The House also has voiced opposition to the Clinton order. Congressman McIntosh held a hearing, and joined with six of his colleagues to introduce a bill nullifying Executive Order 13083. The White House had a chance to extinguish the firestorm of protest from Governors, State legislators, mayors, county executives, and other local officials around the country by permanently revoking Executive Order 13083. Instead, the White House chose to preserve some wiggle room by ``suspending'' the order on August 5, leading some to ask if that action is permanent or just an effort to delay the order until the opposition dies down. If the President can admit that he made a mistake in signing his federalism order, he should permanently revoke it, plain and simple. Unfortunately, the White House has yet to correct its insult to State and local officials and the communities they serve. Instead of revoking the Clinton order, the administration is preparing for belated consultations with State and local government representatives. This effort at damage control does not hide the fact that the Clinton order is an open invitation for Federal interference in local affairs, and in the administration's eyes, it is still on the table. In light of this threat to the tenth amendment principle of a limited Federal Government, Congress must stand ready to act. The Federalism Enforcement Act is necessary to ensure that the current administration exercises some restraint when regulating in areas that affect our States and communities, and respects the principles of State sovereignty and limited Federal Government on which our Nation was founded. First, the bill directs Federal agencies to adhere to constitutional principles and not to encroach on the constitutional authority of the States. The Clinton federalism order would have shifted the presumption against Federal intervention to provide new policy justifications for Federal interference in State and local affairs. My bill returns us to the language of the Reagan order. Second, the bill would restore the preemption standards established in the Reagan order. The Clinton order would have encouraged Federal agencies to intrude into State affairs and deleted the Reagan preemption principle that, when in doubt, agencies should err on the side of State sovereignty. Third, the bill would direct agencies to prepare a federalism assessment of certain agency actions, such as regulations that have significant federalism implications. The Clinton order would have deleted this requirement. Finally, the Federalism Enforcement Act would express the sense of the Congress that Federal agencies should not propose legislation that would regulate the States in ways that would interfere with their separate and independent functions, attach conditions to Federal grants which are unrelated to the purposes of the grant, or preempt State law in ways inconsistent with the act. Because only the President can enforce this requirement using his article II constitutional powers, it is expressed as a resolution urging him to do so. The principles of federalism rightly are being reinvigorated. Much of the innovation that has improved this country began at the State and local level. People want important decisions that affect their daily lives to be made in their community--not dictated on high from Washington. And federalism is blossoming in recent constitutional interpretations of the Supreme Court. The Federalism Enforcement Act I am introducing today will continue this restoration of the balance between national and State power as conceived by the Framers of the Constitution.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to share with the Senate a courageous story about two female Tennesseans who recently succeeded in their quest to retrace a historic flight around the world. Nikki Mitchell and Rhonda Miles landed their single-engine Maule M-5 plane at the Lebanon, Tennessee airport on Saturday, August 22, 1998. Their trip, dubbed the ``Bridge of Wings Tour,'' was completed 49 days after they took off from the same airport. Their flight commemorates the historical achievement of three female Russian pilots. That journey, known as the ``Flight of the Rodina,'' was a story of courage and stamina in the tradition of Lindbergh and Earhart. It took place in 1938, when the three Russians flew non-stop from Moscow to the southeastern tip of Siberia. The Russian pilots flew with virtually no radio transmission, through skies so overcast no landmarks were visible, yet they broke a world record and opened up the route across Siberia. They were cheered worldwide and received their country's highest award, the Gold Star of Hero of the Soviet Union. Sixty years later, Nikki and Rhonda celebrated the accomplishments of the Rodina on the anniversary of its flight. A portion of their 15,000 mile trip included retracing the steps of the three Soviet women from Moscow to the southeastern tip of Siberia. And for this leg of the route they were joined by two Russian women who flew their plane side by side with the American aircraft in a unified flight of honor and goodwill. As they flew over Russian territory, Nikki and Rhonda were met by crowds and cheers in villages across the Russian Far East. The level of excitement was such that a commercial airline canceled a flight so its fuel could be used for the continuation of their flight. Before returning to Tennessee, Nikki and Rhonda were also warmly welcomed in Alaska, Canada, and Des Moines, Iowa. It goes without saying that upon arrival in Lebanon, Tennessee, they were given a welcome fit for heroes. Nikki and Rhonda, dressed in blue flight suits and holding flowers, couldn't contain their excitement as they stepped out of the plane. Nikki showed how happy she was to be back in the Volunteer State by immediately kissing the Tennessee soil. Also thankful to be home, Rhonda could not stop smiling as friends rushed to greet her. Mr. President, I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in saluting Nikki and Rhonda for their courageous journey. These Tennesseans have recreated one of history's most daring and remarkable flights. Their trip will always be remembered as an international effort to honor one of aviation's most exciting moments. I have no doubt that the example set by these women will inspire others to strive toward achieving their own ambitions and goals.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, S. 314, originally sponsored by Senators Thomas, among others, and Congressman Duncan in the House, was ordered reported by the Governmental Affairs Committee on July 15, 1998. The original S. 314 has had long and contentious past. The bill reported by our Committee represents months of drafting and redrafting to create language which truly represents a consensus. I commend the original sponsors of this bill for their dedication to this issue and their willingness to accommodate the Governmental Affairs Committee's changes in order to develop legislation which could be supported by all sides. Interested industry groups have expressed their support of this legislation. And the Administration and the Federal employee unions, although opposed to the original S. 314, all have indicated they will not object to this legislation. S. 314 would require Federal agencies prepare a list of activities that are not inherently governmental functions that are being performed by Federal employees, submit that list to OMB for review, and make the list publicly available. It also would establish an ``appeals'' process within each agency to challenge what is on the list or what is not included on the list. S. 314 also would create a statutory definition-- identical to current regulation--for what is an ``inherently governmental function'' that must be performed by the government and not the private sector. S. 314 adheres to the seven principles the Administration outlined in its testimony to this Committee. It reflects recommendations made by the General Accounting Office in testimony to this and other committees. And it provides a statutory basis for longstanding administrative policy.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. In response to the leader's request, I ask my colleague from Iowa, is he agreeable to having an up-or-down vote on the Harkin amendment, immediately followed by an up-or-down vote on the Thompson amendment?

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask the yeas and nays on the Thompson amendment be vitiated.

Mr. THOMPSON. If the leader will give us just a moment, I think we can ask for the yeas and nays momentarily.

Mr. THOMPSON. Will the leader yield?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, a couple of comments with regard to the remarks of my distinguished colleague from Iowa. First of all, let's keep in mind my amendment makes the use of child labor grounds for disbarment and suspension. We need to keep that in mind. We set it out in bold type. It is already against the law, and now we are saying in addition to that you can't do business with the Federal Government if you engage in that kind of activity. So we get that out of the way to start with. That is not the issue. The issue here is whether or not we want to set up a mechanism whereby some Federal official has unlimited access to your books and records and persons. Now, this whole area was entirely rewritten in 1994. Senator Glenn's bill, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act, provided for very circumspect, specific audit authorities for agencies, and GAO provided some subpoena authority in a very limited way. All this was debated and considered on a bipartisan basis and the competing interests were balanced out over a period of several days, and we came up with a law that we have now. What we have here in the bill that we are seeking to amend departs from that substantially. There can be no comparison with the bill currently in force with existing law. Existing law under section 2313, chapter 137, procurement generally, is so long and detailed that I am not going to burden the record by going into it, but suffice it to say that there are very limited circumstances. Only certain kinds of contracts, certain circumstances are dealt with where subpoena authority is issued under certain kinds of contracts--limited authority, over contracts over $100,000. Compare that with what we have before us in the bill today that says a clause that obligates the contractor to cooperate fully to provide access for it says any official--I understand that will be changed--but you must agree to provide access for some Government official of the United States to the contractors' records, documents, persons, or premises, if requested by the official, for the purpose of determining whether forced child labor is being issued. It is a total fishing expedition. You are not only going to have to give unlimited access to your books and records, but unlimited access to your person. There is nothing I know of like this in law, much less procurement law. We are really doing something substantially different here. We can cover the child labor situation without opening up Pandora's box and running contractors away from us. One of the reforms that Senator Glenn and others carried out had to do with the fact that we want to bring more contractors in. It is better for the taxpayer to have more competition, more people coming in to compete for these things. My distinguished friend from Iowa suggests that we need to have a certification on the front end. Prior committee action got rid of all certification under the Governmental Affairs Committee and armed services jurisdiction for the simple reason, first, if you are going to violate the law, if you are going to use child labor, you are not going to certify something on the front end. It will not make you quit doing it. Secondly, we got tired of raising so many hoops and intruding so much that we were discouraging people from coming in and contracting with the Government. Therefore, costs of things are higher than they ought to be. This whole area has been addressed. It cannot even be discussed in a limited period of time because it is so extensive. But with regard to the question of opening up books and records and persons by some anonymous Federal official to see whether or not you might have done something wrong, and when they get in there they are not limited to look just for the thing that you say they are looking for. Their eyes can gaze on whatever it is they are to be gazed upon. When you deal with something like that, you are dealing with very, very, important constitutional rights and nobody is going to put up with that. Nobody is going to contract or agree to do business with the Government if they have that kind of burden. It has been well thought out, it has been considered, it has been deliberated upon for a long, long time, and we should not address something this important and this complex in this fashion. I respectfully urge this amendment be adopted.

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

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Colorado that I think I will need perhaps 5 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we brought up yesterday amendment No. 3353 to the bill. Senator Harkin had a situation he had to attend to yesterday, so we set it aside for the consideration of other business. Now Senator Harkin is here. I think he will be joining us momentarily. We wanted to take advantage of the opportunity at this time to bring it up. I have been discussing this item with Senator Harkin to see if we could reach an agreement. I don't believe that we are going to be able to. Just basically, in summary, Mr. President, this has to do with procurement legislation. This is a very complex area. I can't think of an area that is more boring and more complex than the procurement laws. For that reason, the staff of our committee--the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction generally over the procurement laws-- spent many, many hours on this subject. The last two Congresses have produced reform legislation that balances the interest in the procurement field between the government and those who are selling goods and services to the government. This provision, section 642 in this Treasury-Postal bill, essentially is a procurement piece of legislation. It has to do with child labor. It essentially prohibits the Government from buying from those who use child labor any goods or services produced by child labor. That is a laudable goal. I support that. My amendment incorporates that goal. I point out that it is already against the law. But it is certainly fine with me if we put in this Treasury-Postal bill another law that says we cannot procure services or goods from those who do that sort of thing. My problem, other than the fact that I believe the best way to legislate in this matter is to have hearings on a complex subject like this, is that it sets up a procedure that basically is overreaching and unfair, and probably unconstitutional. Because with regard to this area, as in no others, a contractor is required to sign a statement with the Government that will allow a Government official at any time at his discretion to come in and look at the books and records, or talk to the individual at any time at his discretion to see whether or not a child labor law has been violated. He should not be required to give up the fourth amendment rights in order to contract with the Government. As I say, trafficking in those kinds of goods and services is against the criminal law. There is provision that prohibits such immoral activity by that company when dealing with the Federal Government as it is. But it certainly does not call for an abrogation of rights that we otherwise hold near and dear. It says that the Secretary of Labor shall publish a list of items that might have been produced by child labor. And then the contractor has to certify that he is not using any of those items. Evidently, it is difficult to determine sometimes whether or not child labor has been used. The Government's only responsibility is to determine whether or not they might have been used. And, yet, the contractor is required to certify that they have not been used. I am afraid this is a Catch-22 with regard to people in good faith who are out trying to do the right thing and certainly would not consider using child labor; but would allow unlimited access and unfettered access, under the language of this statute as it is now written, and would allow any Government official to come in and have unlimited access to books and records. One other feature of this provision that I think is erroneous is the exception. This does not apply to countries that have signed NAFTA, for example. There are a couple of other exceptions. But I will just concentrate on that. If a foreign country has signed the NAFTA agreement, then presumably companies of that country do not have this law applied to them. We are focusing in on our own companies. We signed NAFTA. But we are focusing in on our own companies requiring this kind of intrusion with regard to our own contractors, and we are not applying the same standard to contractors of another country who might be supplying child labor. I don't think that is right. I don't think that is fair. I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill. I think this is important. I feel a responsibility, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to bring this to the attention of the Senate, and simply say that in matters that are this complex that require a balancing of interests, we should go through the committee process. Senator Glenn had a piece of legislation that we considered last year. We have had the Clinger-Cohen Act, and lots and lots of working hours put into this in trying to reach the right balance. We should not come in with a provision in an appropriations bill that basically upsets that balance and places new responsibilities, new requirements, new intrusions on contractors that in the wisdom of their deliberations the committees, after considering this thing for years, have not decided to do. I respectfully urge the support of my colleagues with regard to my amendment. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Ellen Brown of my staff be allowed floor privileges for the duration of the discussion of the amendment that I am about to bring up.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am offering an amendment to strengthen the regulatory accounting provision in Section 625 of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill. This amendment would require OMB to submit a biannual report to Congress on the costs and benefits of federal regulatory programs. I ask unanimous consent that Majority Leader Lott and Senators Breaux, Shelby, and Robb be added as cosponsors to my amendment. We come from different political viewpoints, but we all agree that we need to improve our regulatory system and make it more open and accountable. This amendment continues the effort begun by Senator Stevens, the former Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, when he passed the Stevens Regulatory Accounting Amendment on the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill in 1996. Our goal is to promote the public's right to know about regulation, increase government accountability, and to improve the quality of regulatory programs. This amendment would not change any regulation or regulatory standard. It just provides important information for smarter and more accountable regulation. Under the Stevens Amendment, the Office of Management and Budget issued its first regulatory accounting report to the Congress in September 1997. While this first Report was an important step toward government accountability, it left a lot to be desired. Following that first Report, Senator Stevens and I wrote to the OMB Director expressing our concern that OMB was not fully complying with the Amendment. Several members of the House sent a similar letter. In addition, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution held a workshop reviewing the first OMB Report in the fall of 1997. At that workshop, a distinguished group of economists unanimously agreed that OMB had fallen short on the Stevens Amendment. Now it's time to take another step toward a more open and accountable regulatory system. This amendment would add a few simple requirements to the Stevens regulatory accounting provision to ensure that: Regulatory Accounting is a permanent requirement. Every two years, OMB would submit the Report with the President's budget. The Report is more informative. To the extent feasible, agencies would provide cost and benefit estimates for agency programs. In addition, the Report will clearly cover paperwork costs, including the large costs of complying with our Byzantine tax system. That was always supposed to be covered. The Report is of higher quality. OMB guidelines to the agencies and peer review will improve future reports. As OMB said in their first regulatory accounting Report, ``regulations (like other instruments of government policy) have enormous potential for both good and harm.'' Better information will help us regulate smarter--to increase the benefits of regulation while reducing needless waste and redtape. This will help ensure the success of important programs, while enhancing the economic security and well- being of our families and our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a letter to former OMB Director Franklin Raines, and a letter from the Alliance USA be printed in the Record following my remarks.