Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to support S. 2037, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This legislation implementing the World Intellectual Property Organization Treaty is of vital importance to the American economy. No nation benefits more from the protection of intellectual property than the United States. We lead the world in the production and export of intellectual property, including the many forms of artistic intellectual property and computer software. These industries are among the fastest growing employers in our country. When the owners of intellectual property are not fairly compensated, that hurts Americans and it decreases incentives for creating additional intellectual property that educates, entertains, and does business for us. New technology creates exciting opportunities for intellectual property, but the digital environment also poses threats to this form of property. Unscrupulous copyright violators can use the Internet to more widely distribute copyrighted material without permission. To maintain fair compensation to the owners of intellectual property, a regime for copyright protection in the digital age must be created. Technology to protect access to copyrighted work must be safeguarded. Copyright management information that identifies the copyright owner and the terms and conditions of use of the copyrighted material must be secured. There are new issues with respect to copyright in the digital age that never were issues before. The bill addresses such issues as on- line service provider liability in a way that is fair to all parties. And it governs a number of other issues that have been accommodated in the new era. Passage of this bill is important if American intellectual property is to be protected in other countries. I was pleased to be an original co-sponsor of the initial bill, and to have supported the bill in the Judiciary Committee and now on the floor. I strongly support its enactment.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues. Mr. President, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton underscored the importance of foresight. He said, ``preparing for a far off storm that may reach our shores is far wiser than ignoring the thunder until the clouds are just overhead.'' He was not talking about weapons proliferation and national missile defense, but he could have been--and he probably should have been. Well, we are hearing the thunder now. It is coming from Iran, where the Shahab-3 missile program made up years of development time in just one year, reminding us that some countries are more technically clever than we give them credit for, and that outside assistance can dramatically accelerate technical progress. It is coming from Pakistan which has now launched a missile with five times greater range than their next most capable missile, and five times what the United States had given them credit for just six months earlier. It's coming from North Korea, where the Taepo-Dong 2, capable of striking Alaska and Hawaii, is nearing flight testing, and where the No-Dong is now being deployed, despite the administration's assurances that North Korea would never deploy that missile after only one flight test. It is coming from Russia, where the government appears either disinclined, or incapable of controlling the flood of hardware and technical assistance flowing to rogue states around the globe. It is coming from India, where this week their government exploded five nuclear weapons, to the complete and admitted surprise of the United States policy-making and intelligence community. It is coming from China, where the government repeatedly breaks its nonproliferation promises, and is then rewarded with technology transfers from the U.S. Despite these and other ominous examples, the United States continues to maintain a non-proliferation policy of self-delusion and a missile defense policy of vain hope. For years, we convinced ourselves that developing countries could not, or would not, fully develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, or the missiles to effectively deliver. Now we know they have. They continue to hope that maybe rogue states will prove less clever than they have in the past, or that our intelligence community will prove more clever, or that our luck just holds out. My friends, it is time to wake up. The technology to develop nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction is widely available. Many nations, some quite hostile to the U.S. now possess them and are on a crash course to acquire the missiles to carry them to America. And third countries, Russia and China in particular, appear happy to help. Weapons of mass destruction are not going away. The United States will soon face this threat and it's time to prepare. When the day arrives that America is handcuffed by our vulnerability to ballistic missile attack, when our world leadership is in question because of that vulnerability, or when--heaven help us--an attack actually occurs, what will we tell the American people? That we had hoped this would not happen? That we believed the threat was not so serious? It should now be clear to all that our present non-proliferation and missile defense policies are out-dated and insufficient. We must prepare now for that ``far-off storm.'' The first step in doing so is to pass S. 1873, the America Missile Protection Act, and commit the United States to a policy of deploying national missile defenses. I commend Senator Cochran for his thoughtful leadership on this bill and the many hours he has spent working as Chairman of the International Security and Proliferation Subcommittee to highlight America's vulnerabilities in this area.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. On its face, this legislation is necessary to correct the Congressional Budget Office's interpretation of the law as it applies to large entitlement programs. But more fundamentally, it is a bill to force Congress to abide by the spirit of the law we passed in 1995 to discourage Congress from imposing costly new mandates on States and local governments. CBO's performance in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has been commendable. CBO cost estimates have been timely and sound, and analysts have been responsive. However, I have serious concern that CBO is misinterpreting the definition of ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' as provided in the law. The result is a loophole that makes the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act inoperative for two-thirds of all federal aid to all governments for all purposes. Every State, every municipality is justifiably concerned; indeed, it is with the strong backing of the National Governors' Association that I introduce this bill today. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act defined ``federal intergovernmental mandate'' with the intent to cover new requirements or a cap on the federal share of costs under Medicaid or other large entitlement programs--unless the legislation imposing the new mandates also provides new flexibility in the program to offset the cost. However, CBO has taken the position that existing flexibility is sufficient to offset the cost of new mandates. For example, CBO has determined that the current ability of States to reduce ``optional'' Medicaid services is, in effect, the flexibility called for in the law. If this had been the intent of the drafters, there would have been no reason for them to cover Medicaid under the Act in the first place. CBO's interpretation of the law largely removes the point of order as a tool to discourage new mandates or cost-shifts to States under the large entitlement programs where mandates tend to be the most burdensome and expensive. Let's stop for a moment and consider why it is so important that we act to correct this problem. Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 with the recognition that State and local governments are not wayward subordinates who cannot be trusted to run their own affairs, nor are they just more entities for the Federal Government to regulate. They are our partners in government. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was intended to force Congress to stop and think twice before violating this partnership. It does not preclude new mandates, but it does give any member the right to raise a point of order against new mandates which would cost States or localities more than fifty million dollars. To avoid the point of order, the House and Senate intended that the flexibility required under the Act be new flexibility, concomitant with the mandate-imposing legislation, for States to amend their responsibilities to provide ``required services''--not optional services. CBO is not reading the law as Congress intended. The bill I am introducing today amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to clarify that new flexibility is required to offset any new federally-imposed costs that States or localities will incur under large entitlement programs. I am pleased that Senator Glenn, an original cosponsor and conferee on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, has joined me in cosponsoring this bill to clarify its application. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill to clarify the application of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. On its face, this legislation is necessary to correct the Congressional Budget Office's interpretation of the law as it applies to large entitlement programs. But more fundamentally, it is a bill to force Congress to abide by the spirit of the law we passed in 1995 to discourage Congress from imposing costly new mandates on States and local governments. CBO's performance in fulfilling its responsibilities under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act has been commendable. CBO cost estimates have been timely and sound, and analysts have been responsive. However, I have serious concern that CBO is misinterpreting the definition of ``Federal intergovernmental mandate'' as provided in the law. The result is a loophole that makes the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act inoperative for two-thirds of all federal aid to all governments for all purposes. Every State, every municipality is justifiably concerned; indeed, it is with the strong backing of the National Governors' Association that I introduce this bill today. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act defined ``federal intergovernmental mandate'' with the intent to cover new requirements or a cap on the federal share of costs under Medicaid or other large entitlement programs--unless the legislation imposing the new mandates also provides new flexibility in the program to offset the cost. However, CBO has taken the position that existing flexibility is sufficient to offset the cost of new mandates. For example, CBO has determined that the current ability of States to reduce ``optional'' Medicaid services is, in effect, the flexibility called for in the law. If this had been the intent of the drafters, there would have been no reason for them to cover Medicaid under the Act in the first place. CBO's interpretation of the law largely removes the point of order as a tool to discourage new mandates or cost-shifts to States under the large entitlement programs where mandates tend to be the most burdensome and expensive. Let's stop for a moment and consider why it is so important that we act to correct this problem. Congress passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act in 1995 with the recognition that State and local governments are not wayward subordinates who cannot be trusted to run their own affairs, nor are they just more entities for the Federal Government to regulate. They are our partners in government. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was intended to force Congress to stop and think twice before violating this partnership. It does not preclude new mandates, but it does give any member the right to raise a point of order against new mandates which would cost States or localities more than fifty million dollars. To avoid the point of order, the House and Senate intended that the flexibility required under the Act be new flexibility, concomitant with the mandate-imposing legislation, for States to amend their responsibilities to provide ``required services''--not optional services. CBO is not reading the law as Congress intended. The bill I am introducing today amends the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act to clarify that new flexibility is required to offset any new federally-imposed costs that States or localities will incur under large entitlement programs. I am pleased that Senator Glenn, an original cosponsor and conferee on the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, has joined me in cosponsoring this bill to clarify its application. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we brought this amendment up yesterday and had a brief discussion. My understanding is we have 30 minutes equally divided; is that correct?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. THOMPSON. I do not think it is wise to have such a representative on the board. That is another question. In fact, I think the Office of Government Ethics has the same opinion. They do not think it is wise to have a union member on the board. My position is that if there is a union member on the board, they should not be exempt from the ethics laws.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as you know, part of the IRS reform bill has to do with the creation of an IRS Oversight Board. One of the new members of the IRS Oversight Board is delineated as a representative of an IRS employees union. However, because of the inherent conflict of interest in this new member's position, the union representative was exempted from four essential ethics laws in the criminal code. That is what our amendment addresses, because the ethics experts in the Office of Government Ethics say these provisions are unprecedented and inadvisable and antithetical to sound Government ethics policy; thus, to sound Government. In an era in which we seem to receive an awful lot of very general and hazy messages from the bureaucracy, we are getting a quite definitive, clear-cut opinion out of the Office of Government Ethics with regard to this exemption, and that is that these provisions are unprecedented and, therefore, inadvisable. I think it makes common sense. I must say that my primary interest in this as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee has to do with the rules under which our Federal employees operate. We do have an Office of Government Ethics. We do have ethics provisions. They are for good reason. We could talk about these provisions in some detail, but, generally speaking, one of the main things they try to address is to keep people from being compensated by outside entities and outside groups while they are on the Federal Government's payroll. In other words, if an employee is going to be on the Federal Government payroll, they should not be compensated by some outside group when they come and lobby the Federal Government. That is just sound common sense. I understand that an agreement was reached, or at least it was voted on in the committee, to have this representative on this nine-member board. We could debate back and forth whether or not that is a good idea. But this amendment does not say that a person of this kind cannot be on the board. All it says is that this person is going to be treated like every other member of the board, and that is that they will not be exempt from the ethics laws. The private members who are on this board are certainly going to have to live under the ethics laws. For example, the day after appointment of the board, the private board member could not meet with representatives of the IRS or Treasury on behalf of a client or the board members' corporate employer with respect to proposed tax regulations. These prohibitions apply across the board to all members. It said that it creates somewhat of a hardship on the union representative. Perhaps in all cases there will not be a conflict. As I look at some of the provisions that were discussed in committee in terms of the reasons for the creation of the board and the various functions that the board will have, I see where part of the function is to review and approve IRS strategic plans; for example, including the establishment of mission and objectives and long-range plans. I can see an argument being made that this union representative would not have a conflict of interest regarding that particular function of this board. Another function is to review the operational functions of the IRS. Another is to recommend to the President candidates for the Commission. I can see an argument being made that this would not create a conflict of interest. So it is indeed arguable that there will be certain functions in which this board member could participate. It is not our position to sit and factually delineate every possibility that might come up. Quite frankly, it is going to be primarily on the board member to determine that themselves. I see other functions where, to me, there is a clear conflict of interest, and that is, to review the operation of the IRS to ensure the treatment of taxpayers, to review procedures of IRS relating to financial audits. I can see where someone representing the IRS employees union --a paid employee of the employees union would have a real problem in sitting on this board and trying to determine what the rules ought to be with regard to those employees concerning the way they conduct their audits. That is just common sense. Now, there is one thing I think we need to keep in mind. We all know that we have many--certainly the great majority--IRS employees who are loyal, dedicated public servants. But let's not forget the reason why we have this IRS reform bill on the floor to start with; and that is, we saw an absolutely appalling, unprecedented array of rogue activities, which you would not see in a lot of good police states, conducted by some of these IRS agents out in the field. We saw people like Howard Baker and Former Congressman Quillen, who were actually targeted, and they attempted to set up these individuals. These are the kinds of things that are part of the reason that we have the bill and part of the reason that we have this oversight board. So in order to say that a union member is going to have some problem some time about sitting on this board as they represent those very employees--the ones that are good, bad and indifferent--is no reason to carve them out and exempt them from these ethics provisions. So I think it is a bad step, Mr. President, if the very first thing we do in starting out and trying to reform IRS is to say that with regard to some of these employees we are going to exempt them from the ethics laws. I might point out also that as I read the bill, it doesn't seem to me like it necessarily has to be a paid employee, a paid union official of the IRS employees union. In other words, I would think that a member could serve on this board who would simply be a union member and could be a representative. If they were not taking payment and compensation from the union, as a professional union representative, then perhaps a lot of these conflicts would be alleviated. So we are trying to work out something reasonable here on the front end. But make no mistake about it, it would be a terrible mistake in the face of the clear advice of the Office of Government Ethics to say the first thing we are going to do is exempt these people who are, in some cases the source of their problem, from the ethics laws under which everybody else is going to have to live. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, very briefly, it is not unusual to have an oversight board or an agency or a panel that does not have on it the subjects of that panel's inquiry; in other words, the comparable situation with regard to this oversight board would be U.S. taxpayers. That is whose lives we are really affecting. We don't have any taxpayer members on this particular board. I would also point out, as the Senator from Alabama did, that these are criminal laws. We are waiving four primary criminal laws of title 18 of the United States Code with regard to one individual who represents some of those who have caused the problem. I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, waiving these conflict of interest statutes establishes a very bad precedent. We have an opportunity here to avoid a serious conflict of interest pitfall, and I hope all Senators will agree and approve adoption of this amendment. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, the amendment I am offering, with Senator Sessions and with the support of Chairman Roth, strikes the provision of title I of the bill which provides for a special waiver of the criminal conflict of interest laws for the employee organization representative on the newly organized oversight board. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have a specific interest in the application of Government ethics laws and any waivers of these criminal statutes which might be granted to Federal employees. During markup of the measure, the Finance Committee adopted an amendment adding a member to the oversight board who would be a representative of an employee organization representing substantial numbers of IRS employees. However, because of the inherent conflict of interest in the new member's position, the committee adopted a subsequent amendment waiving four essential ethics laws as they would apply to this particular board member. It is this specific provision that I propose to strike. Under the waivers as granted, the employee organization representative would not be subject to the same ethics rules as the other members of the oversight board and would not be subject to the same ethics that apply to other public employees. The bill, as reported, exempts the employee organization representative from key ethics laws when the representative is acting on behalf of his or her organization. The Office of Government Ethics reviewed these waivers and found them very troubling. In a letter addressed to the majority leader, Senator Lott, minority leader Senator Daschle, and the floor managers of this bill, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, Stephen Potts, described these conflict of interest waivers as unprecedented and inadvisable and antithetical to sound Government ethics policies and, thus, to sound Government. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the referenced letter.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I refer to the position of the Office of Government Ethics on this. They have considered this matter and wrote to the minority leader. One provision of the bill provides for waivers of applicable conflict of interest laws for one member of that board. I am quoting now: We believe that this provision is antithetical to sound Government ethics policy and thus to sound Government. Such across-the-board statutory waivers for someone other than a mere advisor is unprecedented and, we believe, inadvisable. So the comparisons to Mr. Rossotti, who formerly had a position in the private sector, are inapplicable. As far as this body is concerned, we spent a great deal of time answering to perceived conflict of interest situations. I doubt if we would ever be in a situation of exempting ourselves from any of those considerations here. So this is a very narrowly tailored provision. I understand the sentiment of having some input, having as broad an input as possible. Hopefully, there would be a way to have that kind of input from the employees on perhaps a less formalbasis. But there is an overriding issue here, Mr. President. I don't think we can willy-nilly say that any time we want to make an exception to the ethics rules because we want to get the thing done. We can say that in almost every situation. So I must agree with the ethics letter that has been made part of this Record, which says it is unprecedented and antithetical to good Government ethics policy and therefore to good Government. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. It seems the criticism of the amendment, first of all, is that there is no conflict anyway with regard to these employees serving on this board. Of course, if that is the case, there was no reason for the exemption. So by having the exemption in there, it is an open admission there is an inherent and obvious conflict of interest. The question is whether we want to do something about it. Do we want to single out this particular individual and say, ``With regard to you--nobody else, but with regard to you--these conflict of interest provisions will not apply; we don't care if you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest''? Secondly, it is said that this is very, very narrow as far as the exemption is concerned, but the bill, as reported, exempts a union representative from four key ethic laws when the representative is acting on behalf of his or her union. Those four laws are a part of chapter 11, title 18, United States Code, entitled ``Bribery, Graft, and Conflicts of Interest.'' What are those provisions that we are exempting here? Generally speaking, title 18, section 203, makes it a crime to ``demand, seek, receive, accept, or agree to receive or accept'' any compensation as an agent or attorney for a third party when a person is working as an officer or employee of the Federal Government. That is one of the things we would be exempting this employee from. The other section, section 205 of title 18, which is the criminal title, makes it a crime for any Federal employee to appear as an agent or attorney on behalf of anyone in a proceeding to which the United States is a party. So that is the second thing we would be exempting this particular member from. Thirdly, section 207, makes it a crime to make certain communications to an official of the Federal Government on behalf of any other person if the communications are made ``with the intent to influence.'' This is the third exemption that would apply. Lastly, section 208, which is a general conflict-of-interest provision which makes it a crime for a Federal employee to participate ``personally and substantially'' in any way in a matter where he, himself, his family, a partner, or certain others have ``a financial interest.'' So, one just has to make a decision as to whether or not you feel that this particular employee on this particular board--whether or not you feel the employee ought to be on the board or not; we are not taking them off the board by this amendment; presumably, there are some things that this member could decide that would not present a conflict of interest--but you simply have to decide whether or not you want to take this particular employee and treat him or her differently than anybody else in the Government. This is the sort of thing that we have spent substantial time in Governmental Affairs on with regard to the ethics provisions and their applicability to employees. I do not think it would be a good policy to have this exemption. As I say, if there is no particular conflict with regard to any particular matter that is before the board, all this is irrelevant anyway. There is no need for the exemption anyway. But if, in fact, they are on the board and they are seeking compensation from a third party while working for the Federal Government, or if they are appearing as an agent on behalf of anybody else who has a matter before the board, or if they are making communications with intent to influence when they are on the payroll of somebody else, this basically has to do with whether or not it is a good idea to put somebody on the board to make decisions with regard to themselves and their fellow employees, who they represent. Certainly, they would have the ability to give their input in lots of different ways. But as far as decisions are concerned, we have seen the problems that we have had with regard to IRS employees. Do we think we should place a representative of the IRS employees on this board to make decisions as to what to do with the people with the problem? Certainly they should be heard, but should they be on the board? Number one, OK, put them on the board; number two, should we exempt them from all of the ethical rules, or these four particular ethical conflict of interest provisions? I think we should not. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize the outstanding victory of the University of Tennessee Lady Volunteers in capturing their third consecutive national basketball championship. And I ask my colleagues to join me in formally recognizing the Lady Vols as our country's newest sports dynasty. Under the leadership of Coach Pat Summitt, the Lady Volunteers went undefeated this season. Only a few weeks ago, Sports Illustrated compared Coach Pat Summitt to the great John Wooden. I think the magazine was right on the mark. Of course, many of my colleagues had their own home-state favorites in the tournament. But Mr. President, I say that they shouldn't be too disappointed with the outcome. They might want to keep in mind that all those other teams were, after all, up against a basketball dynasty that just finished an undefeated season of 39 wins, coming off back-to-back national championships. Plus, we're talking about a Tennessee team here, so what else could you expect? Frankly, Mr. President, my heart goes out to anybody who would get between the UT players and the win that marks their third consecutive national championship. Back home in Tennessee we are very, very proud of this team. We're proud of the scholar-athletes. We're proud of the coaching staff. We're proud of the parents and the friends and the faculty who support them. We're proud of a program that has made women's basketball into a national phenomenon. And we're proud that at the end of this season, this team wrote itself into the sports history books with six championships in twelve years. This is just about as flawless a season of athletic performance as you're ever going to see, and we're fortunate in Tennessee to have this tremendous program and these gifted, talented young people. So today, I congratulate them. My colleagues have enjoyed this kind of excitement with teams from their own states. And I know they appreciate just how pleased we are in Tennessee to get bragging rights for 1998. Year after year, this tremendous program and these outstanding young people make us proud. So, Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to join me in declaring the University of Tennessee Women's Basketball program a certified, world-class sports dynasty.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to talk about a man who served the people of Connecticut and America with dignity, honor and great style. Abraham Ribicoff spent most of his life in the public service. Before he became a Senator in 1962, he was a Congressman, the Governor of Connecticut, and the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare in the Kennedy administration. He was a true leader in the Senate on many issues and his style of leadership and public service will be greatly missed. During his time in the Senate, Senator Ribicoff served on the Government Operations Committee, which was renamed the Governmental Affairs Committee during his tenure. He began his service on the committee on February 25, 1963 and served as Chairman from 1977 to 1980. As Chairman, Senator Ribicoff oversaw the passage of many initiatives we now take for granted in the government. One such bill was the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which was the first substantive reform of the Federal civil service in nearly 100 years. He also helped to enact the Ethics in Government Act, which mandates public disclosure for high-ranking officials in the three branches of the Federal Government. He navigated to passage legislation that created Inspectors General in each of the major federal agencies to serve as public watchdogs to combat waste, fraud and abuse in federal programs. During his tenure as Chairman of the Committee, Senator Ribicoff also oversaw the implementation of legislation that established a permanent, Cabinet-level Department of Energy in the executive branch. By doing so, all of the federal government's major energy programs were brought together in one place, including those programs relating to economic regulation of energy supply systems. He also worked closely with Senator Glenn to help enact the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, which established a more effective framework for international cooperation to meet the energy needs of nations. It also ensured that the worldwide development of peaceful nuclear activities and the export by any nation of nuclear materials, equipment, and nuclear technology intended for the use in peaceful nuclear activities did not contribute to proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. An area in which Senator Ribicoff and I shared a great interest is that of federal regulation and how to make it more effective, and at the same time, less burdensome. On July 26, 1975, Senate Resolution 71, introduced by Senator Ribicoff and Senator Glenn, was agreed to by the Committee. This resolution authorized a study of Federal regulatory agencies to be undertaken jointly by the Committee on Commerce and the Committee on Government Operations. The first two of these studies which the Committee on Government Operations compiled were entitled ``Study on Federal Regulation: The Regulatory Appointment Process,'' and ``Study on Federal Regulation: Congressional Oversight of Executive Agencies.'' These two studies set the groundwork for the regulatory reform work that the committee undertook at that time and which we continue to pursue today. I want to acknowledge Senator Ribicoff for having the foresight, some twenty years ago, to examine the regulatory process. As I have found out this is not an easy task, but well worth the effort. While Senator Ribicoff's leadership and public service will be greatly missed, it is my hope that we can carry on his pioneering work and establish a better and smarter regulatory process.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today's vote for prosecuting Saddam Hussein as a war criminal is important for at least two reasons. First, it highlights again the outrageous and murderous actions Saddam Hussein has taken over the past seven years. Second, it injects new thinking into the U.S. approach toward Iraq--something that has been sorely lacking. Much commentary has been offered among the general public--and in this body--about the wisdom of the latest deal between U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan and Saddam Hussein. Much of this commentary has focused on whether or not that agreement is a ``good'' one--one that will really curb Saddam. In my view, this question is misdirected. Almost certainly, the latest deal will do little but buy time. As long as Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction, there's going to be another showdown somewhere down the road. So the real question becomes what we are going to do in the meantime to develop a comprehensive, long-term policy to protect our interests even as Saddam uses the time to further build up his arsenal and weaken international resolve. Trying Saddam for war crimes could be a step in that direction. There is little doubt in most American's minds that Saddam Hussein negotiated the latest agreement to his own advantage. His standard M-O is to agree to some set of conditions, set himself up in the court of world opinion as some sort of victim, and then violate the agreements when it's advantageous for him to do so. He weakens the international coalition arrayed against him by creating, and then expanding, gray areas in the interpretation of international agreements in an effort to keep his most coveted weapons, while wiggling out of the economic sanctions imposed against his country--a strategy which, I am sorry to say, has worked pretty well for him so far. So far, Saddam Hussein has been in control of the situation. He decides what disputes arise and when they come about. And because the United States has developed no creative alternatives to direct conflict, and because we have few international supporters, Saddam forces the U.S. to deploy large amounts of military forces to the Gulf--each time further eroding international cohesion, costing American taxpayers billions of dollars, and weakening our ability to defend other interests. Then, at the last moment, Saddam promises to behave within certain parameters which he negotiates. Later, at a time of his choosing, he tests those parameters and another round of military buildup and feverish hand-wringing among the world's diplomats begins. Mr. President, Saddam is pretty much calling the shots. This is far too serious a business for us to settle for such little administration planning as we have seen. Iraqi weapons of mass destruction are quite real, and quite deadly, but our posture against this threat is almost entirely reactive. We engage in a loose strategy of containment, running pretty much on autopilot, until Saddam decides to challenge the status quo. Then we hear a lot of hot rhetoric about ``a modern Hitler'' and ``grave consequences'' accompanied by military deployments. But after a flurry of diplomatic activity, Americans are told there can be ``peace in our time.'' Mr. President, I am reminded of the boy who cried wolf, and I would remind the Administration that they can only go to the well so many times before the American people-- and the rest of the world--ceases to take them seriously on this matter. Our credibility is one of our first lines of defense. We don't make idle threats or rattle sabers--or rather, we shouldn't make such threats. Otherwise, this roller coaster of international gamesmanship ends up putting dents in our credibility, and that's destructive to our security. And rather than advancing America's security and our interests in the Middle East, this cycle of military build-up and appeasement plays right into Saddam's hands. Our foreign policy needs to be made firmly and unequivocally by the President with the discrete counsel of Congress. Instead of forceful leadership in this matter, we have seen the administration attempt to insulate itself from the consequences that might come from a conflict with Iraq by staging public relations opportunities. The fiasco at Ohio State University marked a new low. Mr. President, this nation's foreign policy should not be set on the basis of pep rallies. When Americans are sent to war, it must be done on the basis of sober and rational decisions. Sadly, it appears that for this administration, we've reached the point where stagecraft has replaced statecraft. Americans are uneasy with the lack of a comprehensive plan for Iraq. Untended sanctions, followed by military build-ups, followed by a return to sanctions, do not constitute a serious foreign policy. The President needs to take action, and he needs to make the case for that action confidently and truthfully to the American people, and then he needs to carry out exactly what he says he'll do. Mr. President, Saddam Hussein is a brutal authoritarian who oppresses the Iraqi people, menaces his neighbors, and threatens the international community by developing weapons of mass destruction and potentially interrupting oil trade. Sadly, the United States currently has only two options for confronting him, both of them poor choices: (1) maintaining sanctions and continuing diplomacy in an environment of eroding international support, and; (2) launching military strikes, which Saddam has thus far been able to withstand. Obviously, Americans are always glad when loss of life can be avoided, and there's no question that military strikes would have cost lives. But if by putting off a confrontation with Saddam we have enabled him to grow stronger and perhaps emboldened him to use chemical or biological weapons somewhere in the world, then delaying strikes will have been short-sighted with tragic consequences for many, many innocent people. Given the lack of a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Iraq, however, the result of strikes would have been a collapse of any remaining international cooperation on Iraq, the end of weapons inspections, a politically strengthened Saddam Hussein, and the continuation of Iraq's WMD program. At least the current agreement buys time. It's now up to the Administration to use this window of opportunity to develop better options for the next time Saddam becomes belligerent. Building an international record of war crimes against Iraqi leaders could be one way to expand options for dealing with Iraq. Members of this body have also suggested other ideas like supporting an Iraqi opposition; developing, in cooperation with our Middle Eastern allies, better chemical and biological defenses; working more closely with allies to develop sustainable sanctions targeted against the Iraqi Government and its WMD program; and, working to convince other Gulf countries that, if we strike, they will not be left to confront a wounded but still-in-power Saddam who will grow even stronger. These may provide kernels of alternative policies. But Mr. President, every plan that works begins with leadership, accountability, and a seriousness of purpose. So far, these qualities have largely been lacking in the Administration's Iraq policy. I hope they take to heart the ideas offered today by the Senate. Whatever we do, the U.S. must have more options than sanctions and military strikes the next time Saddam flouts his agreements. If the Administration does not develop new alternatives, we will soon repeat the well-worn cycle of military build-up and stand-down, and the next time we're at these crossroads with Iraq, our options will be even fewer and support both at home and abroad will be even more scarce. Mr. President, we cannot afford to leave American interests open to that kind of risk. And we will have no excuse for our position if the administration comes to these crossroads again in six months or a year no better equipped--and with no better planning--than we have just seen. We must stand up to Saddam with confidence, clear goals, and resolute purpose. And we have to do it soon, or the time bought by the latest agreement will be solely to Saddam's advantage.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the attention being given to the Government Secrecy Act, S. 712, by Senator Lott and Senator Daschle. I also wish to commend Senators Moynihan and Helms for the hard work they have put into this issue as Senate members of the Commission on Protection and Reducing Government Secrecy. To review the entire secrecy system, Congress established the Secrecy Commission in 1994. Last year, the Commission issued its final report. The Governmental Affairs Committee held a hearing on the Commission's recommendations when they were first issued. Among the recommendations of the Commission was establishing a statutory basis for our secrecy system. Apart from nuclear secrets, there has never been a coordinated statutory basis for establishing and maintaining government secrets. Consequently, there is little coordination among agencies on how information is determined to be secret, little accountability among classifying officials, and little Congressional oversight of the government's secrecy activities. The Commission also described how the secrecy system functions as a form of government regulation, imposing significant costs on the government and the private sector. It is time to begin reviewing these costs and identify which secrets really need to be kept and which do not. Like other areas of government regulation, we need to inject a cost/benefit analysis into the process to be sure that those secrets we do keep are worth the cost. The Government Secrecy Act is an issue of good government reform that needs consideration by Congress. I intend to work with Senator Glenn, the Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, to report an amended S. 712 very soon. The United States needs a secrecy system that does a better job of identifying those secrets which truly must be kept, and which then can truly keep them secret.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I wish to take note of a woman of character and accomplishment who has recently been recognized in a unique and public way for her outstanding talent and tireless work. University of Tennessee Lady Vols Basketball Coach Pat Summitt is on the cover of the March 2, 1998 issue of Sports Illustrated, and I can't think of a better choice. On the caption of the cover, it asks what Coach Summitt's place in basketball history might be, and suggests that she is perhaps the greatest college basketball coach of all time. Mr. President, I think that's a pretty accurate assessment. As I have pointed out with more than a little pride before to the Senate, the Lady Vols have taken home the national championship trophy the last two years in a row, and five years out of the last eleven. Every one of those victories was both hard-fought and well-deserved, and Coach Summitt was always at the helm. In Tennessee, we're all very proud of what she's done, and fans everywhere have come to appreciate just how much of the success of women's basketball is owed to her efforts. She has helped to make women's basketball a major interest of sports fans, and she has helped create a great deal of opportunity for young scholar-athletes. Coach Summitt has never let ``no'' stand in the way of getting what she wanted. As the Sports Illustrated article tells it, Pat grew up on a farm where she learned to work hard and stick to a job until it was done--and done right. Later, after a potentially career-ending knee injury, she defied the odds and the predictions of her doctors not only to play again but to join the 1976 Women's Olympic Basketball team as the oldest player, and come home with a Silver Medal. Her rise is impressive. She was made head coach at age 22 at the University of Tennessee while she was finishing a graduate degree. And she rose to the task, doing more than she had to do in all her jobs. Anybody else might have settled for second best under the workload. Not Pat. She wanted to succeed. Pat didn't just show up for practice and blow the whistle while the players ran laps. She built the women's program from nearly the ground up. She drove the team to and from games, she made sure everyone had uniforms and towels, she swept the floor and she looked after her players' injuries. And she finished her degree. Pat did it all, and her dedication has paid off. Pat has spoiled us in Tennessee. We're more accustomed than most to winning the big games. But as long as Pat's in charge, and as long as she keeps bringing in the best young players out there and bringing out their potential, I think we can look forward to a long run of great teams, first-rate competition and championship seasons. So I am pleased that Sports Illustrated has acknowledged what so many of us already know. She's on the cover--for anyone involved in athletics, this is one of those moments that you never forget. Mr. President, we are proud of Coach Pat Summitt in Tennessee. We're honored to see her on the cover of Sports Illustrated. She deserves this recognition and I send along my best wishes to her.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed at preventing private property owners from being caught by surprise when a private company asks the Federal Government for the power to take their land. We had a situation in Marion County, TN, recently where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided to grant the power of eminent domain to a private company for the purpose of building a natural gas pipeline through the county and then into Alabama. This pipeline will exclusively serve a new wallboard plant that the company plans to build in the area. And that is fine. But in the process, about 50 private property owners--homeowners, businessmen, farmers--are being forced to allow their property to be used for the exclusive benefit--and profit--of this private company. Now, that in and of itself raises a serious question in my mind. I wonder whether some greater public benefit needs to be demonstrated than simply the economic value of having this plant in the community. Again, we are talking about a situation where a private company is essentially being allowed to stand in the shoes of the Federal Government and seize an interest in the property of ordinary citizens but without committing that property to the direct use and benefit of the larger public. Now, that is the law as it stands today, as permitted, but it is a very serious matter and one which should not be taken lightly. But what I find especially troubling is the fact that these private land owners--my constituents--were never given personal notice that their lands could be taken for this private pipeline. Current regulations require only that notice be published in the Federal Register. If you do not happen to read the Federal Register on a daily basis you will never know that your property is about to be taken. Quite frankly, the Federal Register is not likely read in Marion County, TN, not by them and not by me, either, I might add. If you do not read it, the fact that your land is in jeopardy might be news to you until it is too late for you to participate meaningfully in the process in order to protect yourself and your interests. I think that is wrong. This legislation is very simple and straightforward. It would simply guarantee that property owners get personal notice by certified mail whenever a private company is seeking to acquire an interest in their property through the power of eminent domain. This would at the very least allow the landowners to meaningfully participate in the Government's decisionmaking process. That is something they did not get in this case. I do not think it is right. I think it is pretty hard to argue that people should not have a right to know when the Federal Government is considering giving a private company the right to take their land. I do not think that anyone would argue that these folks should not be made aware of the rights they already have under the law. If you don't know about it, you can't protect it. That is what this bill would do. Just let me quickly mention a couple of things that this bill would not do. It would not affect State law. It only addresses a situation involving the Federal power of eminent domain. It would not restrict the Federal Government's ability to exercise the power of eminent domain itself. It only deals with situations where the Federal Government is considering whether or not to delegate the power of eminent domain to a private company. No Federal agency will find its right to acquire Federal lands through eminent domain restricted by this legislation. It would not cost the Federal Government any money. Under my bill the private companies seeking the right to exercise eminent domain--not the Government--would be responsible for notifying the property owners whose lands might be affected. What this bill does is state that property owners have the right to be notified when the Federal Government is considering giving a private company the right to take their land. It is basic fairness. They have a right to be notified at the outset of the proceedings in time for them to participate in the process. It gives them a chance to make sure that their voices are heard. That did not happen in Marion County. The folks there were not personally notified that their land was in jeopardy and they did not find out until it was too late. I just don't think that that is right. I hope the Senate will agree and will support this basic commonsense bill that I am introducing today.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes for the purpose of introducing legislation.

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

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill aimed at preventing private property owners from being caught by surprise when a private company asks the Federal Government for the power to take their land. We had a situation in Marion County, TN, recently where the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission decided to grant the power of eminent domain to a private company for the purpose of building a natural gas pipeline through the county and then into Alabama. This pipeline will exclusively serve a new wallboard plant that the company plans to build in the area. And that is fine. But in the process, about 50 private property owners--homeowners, businessmen, farmers--are being forced to allow their property to be used for the exclusive benefit--and profit--of this private company. Now, that in and of itself raises a serious question in my mind. I wonder whether some greater public benefit needs to be demonstrated than simply the economic value of having this plant in the community. Again, we are talking about a situation where a private company is essentially being allowed to stand in the shoes of the Federal Government and seize an interest in the property of ordinary citizens but without committing that property to the direct use and benefit of the larger public. Now, that is the law as it stands today, as permitted, but it is a very serious matter and one which should not be taken lightly. But what I find especially troubling is the fact that these private land owners--my constituents--were never given personal notice that their lands could be taken for this private pipeline. Current regulations require only that notice be published in the Federal Register. If you do not happen to read the Federal Register on a daily basis you will never know that your property is about to be taken. Quite frankly, the Federal Register is not likely read in Marion County, TN, not by them and not by me, either, I might add. If you do not read it, the fact that your land is in jeopardy might be news to you until it is too late for you to participate meaningfully in the process in order to protect yourself and your interests. I think that is wrong. This legislation is very simple and straightforward. It would simply guarantee that property owners get personal notice by certified mail whenever a private company is seeking to acquire an interest in their property through the power of eminent domain. This would at the very least allow the landowners to meaningfully participate in the Government's decisionmaking process. That is something they did not get in this case. I do not think it is right. I think it is pretty hard to argue that people should not have a right to know when the Federal Government is considering giving a private company the right to take their land. I do not think that anyone would argue that these folks should not be made aware of the rights they already have under the law. If you don't know about it, you can't protect it. That is what this bill would do. Just let me quickly mention a couple of things that this bill would not do. It would not affect State law. It only addresses a situation involving the Federal power of eminent domain. It would not restrict the Federal Government's ability to exercise the power of eminent domain itself. It only deals with situations where the Federal Government is considering whether or not to delegate the power of eminent domain to a private company. No Federal agency will find its right to acquire Federal lands through eminent domain restricted by this legislation. It would not cost the Federal Government any money. Under my bill the private companies seeking the right to exercise eminent domain--not the Government--would be responsible for notifying the property owners whose lands might be affected. What this bill does is state that property owners have the right to be notified when the Federal Government is considering giving a private company the right to take their land. It is basic fairness. They have a right to be notified at the outset of the proceedings in time for them to participate in the process. It gives them a chance to make sure that their voices are heard. That did not happen in Marion County. The folks there were not personally notified that their land was in jeopardy and they did not find out until it was too late. I just don't think that that is right. I hope the Senate will agree and will support this basic commonsense bill that I am introducing today.