Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, yes, that is absolutely true. That, therein, lies the problem. We had a system for about two decades whereby people made a deal with the Government to run for President, and that is we will take millions of dollars in public money and we don't raise any private money. The Supreme Court held that up, it worked fine, no scandal, no constitutional problem, until we decided that there was not enough money in the system and that there were ways that we could get more money for our Presidential campaigns. We have just seen the results of that. The soft money situation started. We figured out a way that money could be given to the parties for the benefit of the Presidential candidates, and you could just add that, to the public financing that we already had. And so in this last campaign we had about $262 million in soft money, in addition, which was about 10 times what it had been a decade before. And that is the situation that we have now. So some people are saying, look, let's basically go back to what we thought we were doing in 1974. A lot of people disagree with that, certainly. A lot of people don't think we ought to do that. A lot of people don't like things that smack of public financing at all. A lot of people don't realize that we have public financing for Presidential campaigns in this country, as anathema as that phrase is. But now, after a situation that worked pretty good for a while, nobody was saying there wasn't enough money in our Presidential campaigns. I don't think anybody was saying we didn't have enough commercials during the Presidential years. It worked pretty good. But now we have this additional influx. We had a system that some people opposed and that some people thought was good. It was our system. To say that it was totally laissez faire, free market, unregulated is simply unfair. We had a system. Now we have seen a gaming of the system, whereby millions of dollars in addition though that is put on the plate. Now, at a minimum, if that is what we ought to want to do, we ought to revisit this as Congress. This is not something Congress came up with. Congress didn't say soft money was a good idea. Congress didn't say the current system we have is what we want. It was done little by little, by the FEC, by a court decision here, and by the FEC; advisory opinions. And then one party would see an opportunity for soft money and the other party, instead of blowing the whistle, would jump on the bandwagon, too. So we now have tremendous sums of money poured into our Presidential campaigns that we did not envision in 1974. Now, again, if we think that is a great idea, let's come back as a Congress and put our stamp of approval on that. But just under the idea of congressional prerogatives alone, under the idea that we should not let some commission downtown set such important rules for us, where we have legislated something quite different, under those ideas, we ought to revisit it. That is another good reason why we are having this debate. On the other hand, some of us don't think that is such a good idea, that we should not only revisit it, but we should do something about it. I think that, basically, what we are doing in the soft money debate here is going back originally to where we were when we last legislated in this area. When we passed the current law in 1974, we did not say it was OK for major corporations and major labor unions to give hundreds of thousands of dollars for the benefit of Presidential candidates in addition to what was publicly financed. We have gotten totally away from what we said we wanted.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to acknowledge and honor an event that has long been a source of great civic pride for many of us in Tennessee: the Smithville Fiddlers' Jamboree and Crafts Festival. A spectacular 2-day event held annually over the Fourth of July holiday, the Smithville Fiddlers' Jamboree is dedicated to the furtherance and preservation of old-time Appalachian country music, dance, and authentic Appalachian art and culture. The jamboree and I go a long way back, and yet I never cease to be amazed by the hospitality, the fellowship, the crafts, and, of course, the outstanding music. This past Fourth of July weekend marked the 26th anniversary of the jamboree. It all began back on July 1, 1972, when musicians from 16 states delighted an audience of 8,000 people. While that in itself was quite an accomplishment, the event's founders were not content to stop there. By comparison, this year's event drew a record crowd of 125,000 and featured more than 600 contestants from 42 States and 4 foreign countries. More than 300 artisans and craftsmen were on hand to sell and display authentic pioneer and contemporary Appalachian crafts. These days, the Smithville Fiddlers' Jamboree is broadcast on television worldwide and has been featured in National Geographic Traveler, Southern Living, and several other national publications. The Jamboree has been named one of the top 100 tourist events in North America, according to a list compiled by the American Bus Association. The event was selected as a ``Top 20 Tourist Favorite'' by the Southeast Tourism Society, which includes the States of Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, and Virginia. Earlier this year, the Tennessee General Assembly passed a resolution designating the Smithville Fiddlers' Jamboree and Crafts Festival as the official jamboree and crafts festival of the State of Tennessee. Without a doubt, knowledge of the Smithville Jamboree's accomplished musicians, inspiring music, skilled artisans, and authentic crafts has now reached the four corners of the globe, and I applaud the organizers, committees, volunteers, and the people of Smithville and DeKalb County, TN, for their unique and substantial contribution to the rich tradition of Appalachian art and culture.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to comment on Title XI of this legislation, the District of Columbia Revitalization Act. This is a major piece of legislation, and in many ways a major accomplishment, given that it was hammered out by a broad group of interested parties, including members and staff from the Governmental Affairs Committee, over a relatively short period of time. Agreement on this package was preceded earlier this year by considerable work in the Governmental Affairs Subcommittee chaired by Senator Brownback. Similar efforts were undertaken by the House Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. This Revitalization package was put together quickly, in a combined effort by all concerned parties, because of a mutual recognition that the District of Columbia's problems had become untenable. The broad recognition of the magnitude of the problem plus the possibly unique opportunity to come to agreement and enact reforms was what led so many people to agree on a package that virtually everyone regards as less than their ideal. One significant concern I have about this package is the major financial responsibility the Federal taxpayer is undertaking in the years to come. Technically, the D.C. Revitalization package meets the scoring requirements of this Balanced Budget Act, but the out-year costs are enormous and have not been dealt with. We are still evaluating the full impact of this package, but Members should be aware that the $4.8 billion in pension liability the Federal Government will be assuming is actually closer to $48 billion over time. I do believe it may be possible for these potential out-year costs to be reduced. The Revitalization package includes a provision which I requested requiring the Secretary of the Treasury to conduct a study of the D.C. pension assets and report back within a year on how the Federal Government might put them to best use. The Governmental Affairs Committee will then have the opportunity to consider whether additional legislation in this area could improve the financial outlook. The Administration has indicated a willingness to work further on this issue with the Committee, and I certainly look forward to that. We should be working together to institute reforms that make the District work independently, not simply encouraging a Federal Government takeover of all of its problems. There are assets currently in the D.C. pension fund, and rather than simply spending down those assets, we should build upon the assets so the funds are available to make payments in the future. Another area in which I question estimates of future costs is with the transfer of D.C. Corrections to the Federal Bureau of Prisons. I know the pressure was intense to close the Lorton Correctional Complex in Virginia, but here again this bill makes the federal bureaucracy responsible for absorbing the District's prison population. While the bill incorporates provisions for privatization, I believe the record will show that the Bureau of Prisons has consistently stood in the way of increased privatization in the Federal prison system. I have no reason to believe they will have a different response with regard to the Lorton prisoners. Many may not know that the District of Columbia was already engaged in a program to privatize the corrections function and has already entered into private contracts for housing 2,400 prisoners. I know well from my experience in Tennessee that private corrections facilities are a cost-effective, efficient and safe alternative to publicly-operated facilities. I am disturbed that Congress has substituted its judgment for the District's in this instance without evaluating whether the District's privatization initiative for corrections would work. Privatization can save valuable taxpayer dollars. In this instance, it is conceivable that the Federal Government could save the entire $885 million estimated for construction of new facilities if the District were allowed to continue on its current course. Because I believe these cost savings are important--and because this agreement was reached without sufficient debate--I want my colleagues to be aware that I, and other of my colleagues, want to work on follow-up legislation in this area as well. I think we can do better and I want to work toward that end. In conclusion, while this D.C. Revitalization Act is the result of a major, almost unprecedented effort by many with the best interest of the citizens of the District in mind, the reforms will require some additional thought and work to make the package live up to its full potential.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has oversight responsibility for the U.S. Postal Service, I want to comment on H.R. 1585. This measure directs the Postal Service to issue a semipostal stamp, at a price of up to 8 additional cents per first-class stamp, to raise funds for breast cancer research. Clearly this measure has the votes to pass; a similar measure passed the Senate last week by a vote of 83 to 17. But I want the record to reflect my strong disagreement with it. I think it is a bad idea for several reasons. It will create a precedent for congressional authorization for the issuance of many other fundraising postal stamps for many other worthy causes. As all Members are aware, the Postal Service has plenty of challenges on which it should concentrate. Not all costs of undertaking this new program are quantifiable, and we will be distracting the Postal Service from its responsibility of providing the best delivery service at the lowest price. Note that it is likely that we will soon see an increase in the cost of mailing a first-class letter. If Congress believes additional funds should be spent for this or another purposes, Congress should appropriate the funds directly. That is our responsibility.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to express my support for the regulatory accounting provision in Section 625 of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, S. 1023. This continues last year's effort by Senator Stevens, and as the new Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I strongly support it. I believe the public has the right to know the benefits and burdens of Federal regulatory programs. And Congress needs this information to better manage the regulatory process. Currently, Federal regulatory programs cost hundreds of billions of dollars per year--$700 billion by some estimates. That comes to several thousand dollars for the average American household--perhaps $7,000 per year. Our regulatory goals are too important, and our resources are too precious, to spend this money unwisely. This provision is identical to last year's Stevens Amendment. It requires the Office of Management and Budget to provide Congress with a report on: (1) the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs; (2) the costs and benefits of rules costing $100 million or more; (3) the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local government, and the Federal government; and (4) recommendations to streamline and improve regulatory programs. Before issuing the report in final form, OMB must provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on the draft report--its substance, methodologies, and recommendations. In the final report, OMB must summarize the public comments. Now we know that regulatory accounting is doable, and it does not impose an unjustifiable burden on the agencies. First, OMB has done its first draft report under last year's regulatory accounting provision, and we expect the draft to be published in the Federal Register early next week. While this report is not perfect, it shows that regulatory accounting can be done and can help us better understand the benefits and burdens of regulation. In the past week, the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution released a primer on how to do regulatory accounting, entitled ``Improving Regulatory Accountability.'' This should be helpful to all of us as OMB revises its draft report. Estimating the total annual costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs is like assembling a jigsaw puzzle, and some of the major sections have been assembled. OMB's first draft report will provide a foundation for further improvements that can be proposed during the public comment period. Private studies have estimated the annual costs of regulation, and many of its benefits. These include Bob Hahn's ``Regulatory Reform: What Do the Numbers Tell Us?,'' Tom Hopkins' ``Cost of Regulation,'' and Hahn and Hird's ``The Costs and Benefits of Regulation.'' Moreover, Executive Order 12866, like the preceding Orders for the last 15 years, requires a cost-benefit assessment for significant regulations, which constitute most of the puzzle. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act also requires detailed cost-benefit analyses of $100 million rules. In addition, the paperwork burden--and I do think it should be addressed--constitutes about 1/3 of the cost puzzle, and paperwork burden hours already are estimated under the Paperwork Reduction Act. Those burdens can easily be monetized by estimating the value of the time needed to comply with paperwork requirements. In addition, the cost of environmental regulation--about \1/4\ of the cost puzzle--is estimated in EPA's study, The Cost of a Clean Environment (1990), in annual estimates by the Department of Commerce, and by other sources. Finally, regulatory accounting should not create a resource drain for OMB. OMB should issue guidelines requiring the agencies to compile needed information, just as OMB does in the fiscal budget process. This regulatory accounting provision requires OMB to do a credible and reliable report on the costs and benefits of Federal regulation. First, subsection 625(a)(1) requires OMB to provide estimates of the ``total annual'' costs and benefits of Federal regulatory programs. This includes those regulatory costs and benefits that will impact the nation during the upcoming fiscal year. These costs and benefits would include impacts from rules issued before this upcoming fiscal year, not just new rules. OMB should do its best to estimate and quantify that figure on the cost side, and to explain what benefits we are getting for the costs of these programs. When estimating the costs and benefits of ``Federal regulatory programs,'' OMB should use the valuable information already available, and supplement it where needed. Where agencies have or can produce detailed information on the costs and benefits of individual programs, they should make full use of this information. For example, EPA produces reports on the costs of their major environmental programs. Since EPA has program-by-program information, EPA should include such detail in its estimates. Other agencies may not have program-by-program estimates of costs and benefits, nor be capable of producing it, so they may need to rely on less detailed information. I expect a rule of reason will prevail: Where the agencies can produce detail that will be informative for the Congress and the public, they should do so. Where it is extremely burdensome to provide such detail, broader estimates should suffice. Information generated during the public comment period should assist OMB. Subsection 625(a)(3) requires OMB to assess the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules on the private sector, State and local government, and the Federal Government. As many studies show, regulatory impacts go beyond compliance costs. Regulation also creates a drag on real wages, economic growth, and productivity. Complex economic models can quantify these adverse impacts. However, OMB is not mandated to devote vast resources to create such models. Instead, OMB may use available reports, studies, and other relevant information to assess the direct and indirect impacts of Federal rules. In addition, OMB should discuss the serious problems posed by unfunded federal mandates for State, local and tribal governments. OMB should inform Congress of its efforts to address these problems. Ultimately, OMB must provide Congress with a credible accounting statement on the regulatory process. This report should show clearly the benefits and burdens of the regulatory process, and it should help Congress to see which programs are cost-effective and which are wasteful. We have received a copy of OMB's first draft report prepared under last year's Stevens Amendment. The draft is an important first step, and I agree with many recommendations it provides. For example, I strongly agree that OIRA should lead an effort to raise the use and quality of agency analyses for developing regulations. I also agree that OIRA should develop a database on the costs and benefits of major rules and a system to track the net benefits of all new federal regulations and reforms of existing regulations. This information could be used to determine what improvements to recommend. However, I also think that there are several more areas that would be fruitful for OMB to consider. First, OMB should estimate the total costs of all federal mandates, not just environmental, health, safety and economic regulation. In particular, OMB should estimate the entire costs of paperwork, including from tax collection. Second, OMB should estimate, where feasible, the quantifiable indirect costs and the indirect benefits of regulation. This includes, for example, the costs associated with product bans and marketing limitations, as well as the indirect benefits associated with the preservation of endangered species. Third, OMB should examine the impact of regulation on wages, innovation, employment, and income distribution, including employment impacts on particular sectors of the economy. OMB should leverage the expertise and resources of other agencies, especially the President's Council of Economic Advisors, to do these analyses. Finally, OMB should do more to recommend improvements to the regulatory process, as well as particular programs and regulations. OMB does not have to be omniscient to propose such improvements, and its recommendations do not have to be based on perfect empirical data. Let's also use common sense and work together for the public good. In closing, I should note that this regulatory accounting provision is founded on broad support. Last year's Stevens amendment was adopted by voice vote. It was modeled on more detailed provisions strongly supported in the 104th Congress--in the Roth bill, S. 291, the Dole- Johnston bill, S. 343, and the Glenn-Chafee bill. Regulatory accounting is widely endorsed--by those who labor under the growing regulatory burden, as well as by those who want to assure the benefits of regulation and to enhance the public's right to know about important governmental decisions.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I seek to withdraw an amendment I have filed to the fiscal year 1998 Defense authorization bill because I see that pressing ahead with this amendment at this time would only delay passage of this important legislation. Before I formally withdraw my amendment, however, I wish to inform my colleagues about the circumstances which prompted me to introduce this measure-- circumstances which continue today. A basic unfairness exists within the current regulations for membership in the National Guard. This inconsistency arbitrarily penalizes some patriotic Americans who serve their country well. It also hinders the ability of some National Guard units to attract and retain the most qualified individuals, thereby undermining the effectiveness of those units. This situation was brought to my attention because of a constituent of mine, Robert Echols, of Nashville. Mr. Echols, a Federal district court judge in the Sixth Judicial Circuit in Tennessee, is also a colonel in the Tennessee National Guard where he has served with distinction for 27 years. In September 1995, Colonel Echols was recommended for promotion to the rank of brigadier general. Although Colonel Echols' promotion was supported by the chief judge of the sixth judicial district, the Tennessee National Guard, and the National Guard Bureau here in Washington, to date his promotion has been delayed. The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Manpower and Reserve Affairs has cited a regulation limiting Guard service by certain Federal officials to explain this delay. Further exacerbating the unfairness to Colonel Echols is the fact that this regulation is inconsistently applied. Other Federal officials who should fall within the scope of the regulation serve in the Guard unhindered. I have been working with the Pentagon since early this year to rectify this unfair situation. Thus far, no solution has been found. Indeed, the Pentagon has been unwilling to reconsider Colonel Echols' circumstance. They have also opposed my amendment to this legislation. I offered my amendment in an attempt to address the specific situation of district court judges serving in the National Guard. Considering that the chief of the sixth circuit has written that Mr. Echols' Guard service does not hinder his ability to serve as a judge, it is clear to me that civil servants in this category should be considered for National Guard service on a case-by-case basis. That is what my amendment would have done. Nevertheless, it has become clear to me that pressing forward in this fashion at this time will only delay passage of the critical Defense authorization bill, probably without rectifying the underlying problem. I will, therefore, withdraw the amendment at this time. I do intend, however, to continue working to find a solution to this unfair situation which penalizes Americans seeking to serve their country and undermines the effectiveness of National Guard units.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to thank the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Strom Thurmond, and the other members of the committee for supporting my amendment, which will designate the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, TN as a ``National Prototype Center.'' Mr. President, for the first time in nearly half a century, the United States is neither designing nor producing any new nuclear weapons. The size of the U.S. nuclear stockpile is shrinking, and the size of the nuclear weapons complex is shrinking along with it. That is appropriate. However, as we reduce the physical size of our nuclear weapons complex, we must not allow the unique experience and expertise that have developed at the nuclear weapons production plants to simply disappear. Instead, we should use these unique resources to further enhance our national security and economic competitiveness. The Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge has played a critical role in our nuclear weapons complex since 1943. Every weapon in the current U.S. nuclear stockpile contains some part that was manufactured at Y-12. In the course of fulfilling this critical mission, Y-12 and its workforce have developed applied manufacturing expertise that is unsurpassed anywhere in this country. This makes Y-12 perfectly suited to become a National Prototype Center. Prototypes provide the first concrete test of a product after the initial research and development have been performed. Businesses and the military use prototyping to test their designs and to anticipate and prevent problems later in the production cycle. However, circumstances in the 1990's have made prototyping more difficult for both the military and industry. The threats facing our military today are fundamentally different from those we faced during the Cold War, and the defense budget has shrunk as well. This means that the military must now produce defense systems in relatively small volumes--sometimes as small as one. Commercial industries are facing some of the same challenges, as they strive to produce smaller numbers of more customized products. These trends have made prototyping even more important, but they have also made it prohibitively expensive in many cases. I believe that we will benefit as a nation if we find a way to preserve these important prototyping capabilities, and I believe the solution lies with Y-12. Y-12 has already helped to develop numerous prototypes for the Department of Defense, NASA, and others, from components for the Seawolf submarine's propulsion system to a new and more advanced type of pencil lead. Designating Y-12 as a National Prototype Center will highlight Y-12's ability to rapidly transform complex hardware designs into precision prototypes through the use of advanced manufacturing techniques. It will also allow customers to take advantage of the resources of a world-class national laboratory--the Oak Ridge National Laboratory--which is located in close proximity to the Y-12 plant. Mr. President, this National Prototype Center will not only enhance our national security by preserving vital weapons manufacturing expertise, it will also enhance our economic security by helping to solve tough problems for U.S. industries so that they can get their products to the global marketplace more quickly. And it will be cost- effective. The American taxpayers have already invested billions of dollars in the equipment and expertise that reside at Y-12. It makes little sense for that investment to be duplicated by other Federal agencies or U.S. industries. At a time when cost control is a major consideration in developing new weapons systems and commercial products, it makes sense instead for others to take advantage of existing state-of-the-art facilities at Y-12. My amendment would allow them to do just that, and I thank my colleagues for supporting it.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself as chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator Glenn, the committee's ranking minority member. We thank the chairman and ranking member of the Armed Services Committee for their cooperation and assistance in preparing this amendment which will benefit not only the procurement process within the Department of Defense, but other agencies across the Federal Government as well. The amendment which we offer today began as a request from the administration to include additional procurement-related reforms to those enacted over the last 4 years and those already included in S. 936. Our amendment includes the following provisions: First, it would amend current Governmentwide procurement law which requires the development and implementation of a Governmentwide Federal Acquisition Computer Network architecture--called FACNET and enacted as part of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 [FASA]. At the time, Congress intended to require the Government to evolve its acquisition process from a paper-based process to an electronic process. The specific intent of FACNET was to provide a common architecture to implement electronic commerce within the Governmentwide procurement system. However, GAO recently reviewed the Government's progress in developing and implementing FACNET, and concluded that, in the short time since passage of FASA, alternative electronic purchasing methods have become readily available to the Government and its vendors. Given these advances in technology, the overly proscriptive requirements of FASA and problems with implementation by the agencies, GAO questioned whether and to what extent FACNET makes good business sense. GAO recommended that if the FACNET requirements were an impediment to the implementation of a Governmentwide electronic commerce strategy, then legislative changes should be enacted. This amendment would provide those changes to give flexibility to implement electronic commerce at DOD and other Federal agencies in an efficient and cost-effective manner consistent with commercial practice. Further, the amendment would make technical changes to current procurement law to: First, conform civilian agency statutes to DOD statues regarding performance-based contracting; and second, revise a pilot program for the purchase of information technology to make it more competitive by allowing more than one vendor in the pilot.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join with Senator Levin and several of our colleagues in introducing legislation to improve how the federal government regulates. This legislation is an effort by some of us to devise a common solution to the problems of our regulatory system. We have some real political differences among us, but we all share the same goals: clean air and water, injury free workplaces, safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation. We also all share the goal of avoiding regulation which unnecessarily interferes in people's lives and businesses, which costs more than it benefits, or which-- inadvertently--causes actual harm. I am pleased we are introducing this bill with Senators Glenn, Abraham, Robb, Roth, Rockefeller and Stevens. They have all toiled in the fields to improve regulation. It was in this spirit that the legislation we are introducing today was drafted. The Regulatory Improvement Act will promote the public's right to know how and why agencies regulate, improve the quality of government decisionmaking, and increase Government accountability and responsiveness to the people it serves. The problem is that agencies sometimes lose sight of common sense as they create regulations. Then even well-intentioned rules can produce disappointing results. Consider the airbag issue that has been in the news lately. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration required high- force airbags to maximize the odds of survival for adult males in highway crashes. But the deployment force from these airbags can be so severe that they can injure children, women, and the elderly. Senator Kempthorne has spoken about the tragic death of a young girl from Idaho who was decapitated when an airbag deployed during a low-impact collision. The agency is now considering the use of an airbag cut-off switch to avoid these tragedies. But Mr. President, tragedies like this never should have occurred. We could have avoided needless deaths and injuries if the agency had carefully considered the risks that high- impact airbags pose to certain populations. I hope today's proposal will correct mistakes like this before they occur. A second example is the removal of asbestos from our schools and other public buildings. Early in the 1980s, government scientists argued that asbestos exposure could cause thousands of deaths. Congress responded by passing a sweeping law that led cities and states to spend nearly $20 billion to remove asbestos from public buildings. After further research, EPA officials eventually concluded that ripping out the asbestos had been an expensive mistake. Ironically, removing the asbestos actually raised the risk to the public--because asbestos fibers become airborne during removal. This mistake never would have occurred if these increased risks had been considered in the first place. I hope that would change under the Regulatory Improvement Act. Finally, let me mention our Superfund requirements. Superfund was passed with the good intention of cleaning up America's toxic waste- sites. Unfortunately, things are not working as well as intended. Superfund has become a legal and regulatory maze where a good 90 percent of insurers' costs and 20 percent of liable parties' costs are spent on lawyers and consultants--not on cleaning up the environment. We also have to ask if we are focusing on the most important priorities. For example, Superfund imposes extremely stringent standards for cleaning up lead in groundwater. Now, this is a good rule in many cases, because lead can be very toxic to children. The problem is that we may be overlooking more direct threats to children from lead. For example, lead paint in old houses can be a greater threat to children's health than lead that may be under some industrial site where there are no children. Last congress, our committee heard testimony about how the Superfund law requires groundwater in a Newark railyard to be cleaner than drinking water--at enormous cost. Now, if land is going to be used for industrial purposes, and no children will be there, does this make sense? The answer may be no--those requirements may not improve the environment much, but they may drive businesses out of Newark. Nobody wants to open a business near a Superfund site and risk being sued. No wonder our inner cities are starved for jobs. In the end, we may be hurting the very people we should be concerned about--the inner-city poor, those who already have to live with many risks in their daily lives, those who do not have clout here in Washington. Virtually every serious student of the regulatory process agrees we can do better. One study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that if agencies simply set their priorities in a smarter way, we could save an additional 60,000 lives per year at no additional cost. Mr. President, we don't have a moment to lose when we could save more lives. We can set aside partisan politics, and we all can agree this is the right thing to do. Since I became chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have been working closely with Senator Levin to forge bipartisan legislation with three major purposes: First, to promote the public's right to know how and why agencies make regulatory decisions. This legislation helps the public to understand agency decisions by directing agencies to-- Allow the public to comment and participate as rules are developed; disclose the benefits and burdens of major rules; disclose any environmental, health and safety risks a rule is designed to reduce, and make those risks understandable by comparing them with other risks familiar to the public; and identify major assumptions and uncertainties considered in creating rules. Second, to improve the quality of government decisionmaking. Careful thought, grounded in science, will help us to target problems and to find better solutions. We must carefully craft new rules to be effective and efficient. Agencies will carefully consider the benefits and burdens of rules and use good scientific and technical information. Agencies will seek out smarter ways to regulate, including flexible approaches such as outcome-oriented performance standards and market mechanisms. We must modernize and improve rules already on the books. Independent committees will advise agencies how to revise rules to substantially increase the benefits to the public. And finally, to increase Government accountability to the people it serves. The Act will require agencies to-- Clearly present regulatory proposals so the public, the Congress, and the President can understand the problem at hand and help find a solution; explain any legal impediment or other factor hindering the agency from issuing cost-effective and sensible regulations, and describe any superior alternatives; disclose realistic estimates of any risks addressed; document changes made to proposed rules when the rules are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]; disclose contacts from persons outside the executive branch with OMB when it is reviewing proposed rules, since such contacts may represent outside influence. Mr. President, while it is important to review what this legislation will accomplish, it also is important to note that this proposal avoids the contentious issues that thwarted agreement on legislation last Congress. First, this legislation does not contain a supermandate. That is, while we believe that cost-benefit analysis is an important tool to inform agency decisionmaking, the results of the cost-benefit analysis do not trump existing law. The bill explicitly recognizes that sometimes an agency will issue a rule that would not pass a cost- benefit test. We only ask the agency to explain why it selected such a rule, including any legal impediment that hindered the agency from issuing a cost-justified rule. Second, this bill does not contain a petition process that would allow outside parties to sue agencies in court to change particular rules that the litigant does not like. While we believe there are fruitful opportunities to update and improve old rules, we do not want to set up a review process that could create a litigation morass. Instead of a petition process, agencies will use independent advisory committees that would recommend a list of rules that could be improved to substantially increase net benefits to the public. The agency would defer to the recommendations of the advisory committee, but they could not be dragged into court if someone wanted a different rule to be reviewed. Finally, this bill strikes a balanced approach to judicial review. We allow limited judicial review under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard to ensure that agencies issue reasonable regulations using the tools of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. But this legislation does not provide a series of trip wires that could hinder agencies from performing their missions. In other words, we realize the agencies may not be perfect in complying with this law. They may make mistakes from time to time. We won't imperil important regulations because the agency made honest mistakes. We just ask the agency to make reasonable and honest decisions, and the public deserves no less. Mr. President, we are devoting vast resources to achieve our regulatory goals. By some estimates, the annual regulatory burden is nearly $700 billion per year--almost $7,000 for the average American household. Our regulatory goals are too important, and our resources are too precious, to spend this money unwisely. The Regulatory Improvement Act will ensure that agencies conduct better economic and scientific analysis before they issue regulations. Government will be more open to the public, will better explain the problem, and will consider the best available information to solve the problem. Agencies will consider the benefits and burdens of different regulatory alternatives so we can reach the most sensible solutions. And agencies will modernize old rules on the books to increase the benefits to the public. In the process, we won't sacrifice our important national goals and values. We can make our Government more effective, more open, and more accountable than ever.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to be able to join with Senator Levin and several of our colleagues in introducing legislation to improve how the federal government regulates. This legislation is an effort by some of us to devise a common solution to the problems of our regulatory system. We have some real political differences among us, but we all share the same goals: clean air and water, injury free workplaces, safe transportation systems, to name a few of the good things that can come from regulation. We also all share the goal of avoiding regulation which unnecessarily interferes in people's lives and businesses, which costs more than it benefits, or which-- inadvertently--causes actual harm. I am pleased we are introducing this bill with Senators Glenn, Abraham, Robb, Roth, Rockefeller and Stevens. They have all toiled in the fields to improve regulation. It was in this spirit that the legislation we are introducing today was drafted. The Regulatory Improvement Act will promote the public's right to know how and why agencies regulate, improve the quality of government decisionmaking, and increase Government accountability and responsiveness to the people it serves. The problem is that agencies sometimes lose sight of common sense as they create regulations. Then even well-intentioned rules can produce disappointing results. Consider the airbag issue that has been in the news lately. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration required high- force airbags to maximize the odds of survival for adult males in highway crashes. But the deployment force from these airbags can be so severe that they can injure children, women, and the elderly. Senator Kempthorne has spoken about the tragic death of a young girl from Idaho who was decapitated when an airbag deployed during a low-impact collision. The agency is now considering the use of an airbag cut-off switch to avoid these tragedies. But Mr. President, tragedies like this never should have occurred. We could have avoided needless deaths and injuries if the agency had carefully considered the risks that high- impact airbags pose to certain populations. I hope today's proposal will correct mistakes like this before they occur. A second example is the removal of asbestos from our schools and other public buildings. Early in the 1980s, government scientists argued that asbestos exposure could cause thousands of deaths. Congress responded by passing a sweeping law that led cities and states to spend nearly $20 billion to remove asbestos from public buildings. After further research, EPA officials eventually concluded that ripping out the asbestos had been an expensive mistake. Ironically, removing the asbestos actually raised the risk to the public--because asbestos fibers become airborne during removal. This mistake never would have occurred if these increased risks had been considered in the first place. I hope that would change under the Regulatory Improvement Act. Finally, let me mention our Superfund requirements. Superfund was passed with the good intention of cleaning up America's toxic waste- sites. Unfortunately, things are not working as well as intended. Superfund has become a legal and regulatory maze where a good 90 percent of insurers' costs and 20 percent of liable parties' costs are spent on lawyers and consultants--not on cleaning up the environment. We also have to ask if we are focusing on the most important priorities. For example, Superfund imposes extremely stringent standards for cleaning up lead in groundwater. Now, this is a good rule in many cases, because lead can be very toxic to children. The problem is that we may be overlooking more direct threats to children from lead. For example, lead paint in old houses can be a greater threat to children's health than lead that may be under some industrial site where there are no children. Last congress, our committee heard testimony about how the Superfund law requires groundwater in a Newark railyard to be cleaner than drinking water--at enormous cost. Now, if land is going to be used for industrial purposes, and no children will be there, does this make sense? The answer may be no--those requirements may not improve the environment much, but they may drive businesses out of Newark. Nobody wants to open a business near a Superfund site and risk being sued. No wonder our inner cities are starved for jobs. In the end, we may be hurting the very people we should be concerned about--the inner-city poor, those who already have to live with many risks in their daily lives, those who do not have clout here in Washington. Virtually every serious student of the regulatory process agrees we can do better. One study by the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis found that if agencies simply set their priorities in a smarter way, we could save an additional 60,000 lives per year at no additional cost. Mr. President, we don't have a moment to lose when we could save more lives. We can set aside partisan politics, and we all can agree this is the right thing to do. Since I became chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have been working closely with Senator Levin to forge bipartisan legislation with three major purposes: First, to promote the public's right to know how and why agencies make regulatory decisions. This legislation helps the public to understand agency decisions by directing agencies to-- Allow the public to comment and participate as rules are developed; disclose the benefits and burdens of major rules; disclose any environmental, health and safety risks a rule is designed to reduce, and make those risks understandable by comparing them with other risks familiar to the public; and identify major assumptions and uncertainties considered in creating rules. Second, to improve the quality of government decisionmaking. Careful thought, grounded in science, will help us to target problems and to find better solutions. We must carefully craft new rules to be effective and efficient. Agencies will carefully consider the benefits and burdens of rules and use good scientific and technical information. Agencies will seek out smarter ways to regulate, including flexible approaches such as outcome-oriented performance standards and market mechanisms. We must modernize and improve rules already on the books. Independent committees will advise agencies how to revise rules to substantially increase the benefits to the public. And finally, to increase Government accountability to the people it serves. The Act will require agencies to-- Clearly present regulatory proposals so the public, the Congress, and the President can understand the problem at hand and help find a solution; explain any legal impediment or other factor hindering the agency from issuing cost-effective and sensible regulations, and describe any superior alternatives; disclose realistic estimates of any risks addressed; document changes made to proposed rules when the rules are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget [OMB]; disclose contacts from persons outside the executive branch with OMB when it is reviewing proposed rules, since such contacts may represent outside influence. Mr. President, while it is important to review what this legislation will accomplish, it also is important to note that this proposal avoids the contentious issues that thwarted agreement on legislation last Congress. First, this legislation does not contain a supermandate. That is, while we believe that cost-benefit analysis is an important tool to inform agency decisionmaking, the results of the cost-benefit analysis do not trump existing law. The bill explicitly recognizes that sometimes an agency will issue a rule that would not pass a cost- benefit test. We only ask the agency to explain why it selected such a rule, including any legal impediment that hindered the agency from issuing a cost-justified rule. Second, this bill does not contain a petition process that would allow outside parties to sue agencies in court to change particular rules that the litigant does not like. While we believe there are fruitful opportunities to update and improve old rules, we do not want to set up a review process that could create a litigation morass. Instead of a petition process, agencies will use independent advisory committees that would recommend a list of rules that could be improved to substantially increase net benefits to the public. The agency would defer to the recommendations of the advisory committee, but they could not be dragged into court if someone wanted a different rule to be reviewed. Finally, this bill strikes a balanced approach to judicial review. We allow limited judicial review under the deferential arbitrary and capricious standard to ensure that agencies issue reasonable regulations using the tools of cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. But this legislation does not provide a series of trip wires that could hinder agencies from performing their missions. In other words, we realize the agencies may not be perfect in complying with this law. They may make mistakes from time to time. We won't imperil important regulations because the agency made honest mistakes. We just ask the agency to make reasonable and honest decisions, and the public deserves no less. Mr. President, we are devoting vast resources to achieve our regulatory goals. By some estimates, the annual regulatory burden is nearly $700 billion per year--almost $7,000 for the average American household. Our regulatory goals are too important, and our resources are too precious, to spend this money unwisely. The Regulatory Improvement Act will ensure that agencies conduct better economic and scientific analysis before they issue regulations. Government will be more open to the public, will better explain the problem, and will consider the best available information to solve the problem. Agencies will consider the benefits and burdens of different regulatory alternatives so we can reach the most sensible solutions. And agencies will modernize old rules on the books to increase the benefits to the public. In the process, we won't sacrifice our important national goals and values. We can make our Government more effective, more open, and more accountable than ever.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, it gives me great pleasure to submit this declaration by the Trust for the Future to the U.S. Senate to honor the work of the trust and its founder and president, Charles A. Howell III: Be it known by all present, that, from this day forward, the last Sunday of June is to be known as Descendants Day. Henceforth, this shall be the day in each year when all the world's citizens assess the impact of their activities during the preceding year on their neighbors and their descendants across time. Be it further proclaimed, that the ultimate goal of this endeavor is to reach the day when we can celebrate a year in which the consequences of our activities had no measurable negative impact on our neighbors or our descendants and instead see clearly that the impact of our actions on posterity is decidedly beneficial and sustainable. Each generation of Americans has an unspoken bond and commitment with the previous and next generations to leave the world better than we found it. In many ways, today we are not keeping that commitment. We aspire to encourage others around the world to join in this yearly celebration of courageous accountability in the sure knowledge that we will be followed by billions of persons who will either condemn us or praise us for efforts we may or may not expend on their behalf. On this the Seventeenth Day of the Sixth Month in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-Seven, we affirm our desire to pursue this course with all diligence.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I recognize today a fellow Tennessean, Dr. David Abshire, who last month received the Distinguished Graduate Award before the Corps of 4,000 Cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Dr. Abshire has a long and distinguished record of service to America. Not only has he served as an Army officer, an Assistant Secretary of State, our Ambassador to NATO, and as a special counselor to the President, but he also played an integral role in founding and building the Center for Strategic and International Studies [CSIS]. Mr. President, in addition to recognizing Dr. Abshire's impressive list of past accomplishments, I am particularly appreciative of the work he and the staff at CSIS are doing. Recently, Dr. Abshire and the CSIS staff have developed an innovative approach to working with individual States, counties, and cities in order to maximize the benefits of job creation, investment, exports, and economic growth stemming from a more global economy. I am gratified that Dr. Abshire has chosen Tennessee as the State in which to begin this effort. His work with Governor Sundquist and my office is greatly appreciated. I applaud Dr. Abshire for his dedicated service to America and Tennessee, and on his recent recognition at West Point. I ask to have printed in the Record the full West Point citation on this outstanding soldier, scholar, diplomat, and institution builder. The citation follows: david m. abshire Throughout his forth-six years of national service, institution building, and extraordinary scholarship. David M. Abshire has exemplified outstanding devotion to the principles expressed in the motto of the United States Military Academy: Duty, Honor Country. Dr. Abshire began a lifetime of public service upon his graduation from West Point in 1951. After infantry branch training, he was assigned to Korea, where serving in combat as a front line infantry platoon leader and company commander, he was cited for valor. In 1955, he left the Army to enroll in the graduate program at Georgetown University from which he received a Ph.D., with honors, in History in 1959. He then joined the staff of the House Minority Leader and subsequently became Director for Special Projects at the American Enterprise Institute in 1961. While there, he conceived the idea and, together with Admiral Arleigh Burke, organized the founding of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Since its inception, Dr. Abshire has been the principal architect and institution builder of what has become widely recognized as a world leading public policy institution. Over the years, he was has recruited world statesmen and strategists to the Center's ranks, and has involved a wide range of Members of Congress and corporate leaders, in working groups to solve national and international problems. Throughout his tenure as President, the Center produced incisive studies that have been instrumental in formulating national public policy. An early study was pivotal in the drafting and passage of the Goldwater Nichols Act. In 1992, the Center produced the report of the 58-person Nunn/Domenici Commission on Strengthening of America. In March of 1997, the Center published a definitive study of Professional Military Education, providing much needed scholarly rationale supporting the military educational system and, in particular, validating the roles of West Point and the other Service Academies as the linchpins of that system. As a public policy practitioner, Dr. Abshire has held a series of high-level Presidential appointments. He served as Assistant Secretary of State for Congressional Relations from 1970 to 1973 and played a pivotal role in maintaining bipartisan Congressional coalitions that sustained the U.S. military effort in Vietnam. He negotiated the compromise to the Cooper-Church Amendment that otherwise would have seriously restricted military operations in Southeast Asia. He also developed the Congressional compromise that insured the survival of Radio Liberty and Radio-Free Europe under a public board, in the face of an attempt to cut off CIA funding and let the Radios die. These stations thus continued to play a key role in the Cold War battle to open East European and Russian society President Ford, in 1974, appointed him as the first chairman of the U.S. Board for international Broadcasting. As President Carter later wrote: ``You have rendered a distinguished service in getting the Board solidly established as sponsor of Radio Free Europe and Radio Liberty and in representing these important institutions to the Congress and the American public. . . .'' In 1974, President Gerald Ford also appointed Dr. Abshire to the Congressional Commission on the Organization of the Government for the Conduct of Foreign Policy. In 1980, Dr. Abshire was asked by President-elect Ronald Reagan to chair the transition of administrations in the CIA, State and Defense Departments. Subsequently, he was asked to serve on the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board. In 1983, he was appointed U.S. Ambassador to NATO. As Ambassador, Dr. Abshire was the point man all NATO for building allied support for the deployment of the U.S. Pershing II missiles in Europe to counter the threat of Soviet nuclear blackmail In awarding Ambassador Abshire the Department of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service, Secretary Weinberger said: ``Throughout a period of great flux in inter-allied and East-West relations, he was the source of an astonishing flow of imaginative and resourceful ideas geared to the resolution of difficult alliance issues. ``Ambassador Abshire's cogent and innovative proposals for enhancing NATO arms cooperation have already transformed that crucial area of alliance activities. Ever mindful of the central importance of parliamentary and public opinion, he worked tirelessly to build an effective and lasting partnership with Congress. . . .'' In 1987, Dr. Abshire was personally asked by President Reagan to serve as Special Counselor to the President with Cabinet rank for the purpose of organizing White House and departmental responses to the Iran Contra investigations to insure that there was no cover up. After much previous criticism, the integrity of his effort earned Dr. Abshire bipartisan credit for restoring the credibility in the Administration at a difficult time for the Presidency. As a private citizen, he has served as a member of the Board of Directors of Procter & Gamble and the Ogden Corporation, and on the Advisory Board of BP America. In the realm of scholarship, he has written five books and edited three others on a wide range of domestic and international issues. He has been a strong promoter in his writings and at CSIS of the study of strategy and history. Dr. Abshire is a Trustee of Baylor School (Chattanoga, Tennessee). He is also co-founder of the Trinity National Leadership Roundtable in Washington, a former Vice-Chairman of Youth for Understanding, and a board member of the Army War College Foundation. He has been decorated by the chiefs of state of Belgium, Italy, Finland, Korea, and the United States. Soldier, institution builder, public servant, author, scholar, diplomat and counselor to Presidents, Dr. Abshire was rendered a lifetime of extraordinary service to his country and to the international community of freedom loving nations. Accordingly, the Association of Graduates takes great pride in presenting the 1997 Distinguished Graduate Award to David M. Abshire, Class of 1951.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to lend my voice today to the thousands of women and men who are supporting the search for a cure to breast cancer. Breast cancer is still the leading cause of mortality among American women between the ages of 35 and 54. In fact, odds are that one in every eight women will develop breast cancer in her lifetime. The encouraging news is that early detection is very effective in curbing this disease. At the same time we continue efforts to find a cure, we must be equally diligent in our efforts to educate women about the importance of regular clinical and self examinations for breast cancer. On June 7, Americans all over the country will again have the opportunity to show their concern by participating in the 1997 National Race for the Cure. The race is a series of 5k runs and a 1-mile walk sponsored by the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation in Dallas. I urge all of my colleagues, their spouses and staff to support the Capitol Hill Race for the Cure on June 7, where more than 50,000 are expected to participate. This event will help raise money for breast cancer research and education and bring us all closer to the day when a cure is found.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few words of congratulations and tribute to a great man. When the history of American politics is written, somebody needs to put in a pretty good chapter just about Senator Strom Thurmond. This gentleman has seen and lived history as very few people have. He fought on the beaches of Normandy at the age of 41. His grandfather fought in the Civil War. And his long and dedicated service in the U.S. Senate deserves our honor today. He is both the oldest living and the longest serving Senator in U.S. history. Like many of my colleagues, he has made a run for the Presidency. That is not so uncommon. But Senator Strom Thurmond ran against President Harry S Truman. That is a little bit different. Senator Thurmond's life has been spent in public service. He has known every President since Franklin Roosevelt. He has been a county superintendent of education, State senator, Governor, circuit judge. He has been a schoolteacher, a coach. He has worked on a farm, and has even been a motorcycle rider, like my friend Senator Campbell. Senator Thurmond is one of South Carolina's most successful exports, and clearly their favorite son. I think it is worth noting that as times have changed, so has Senator Thurmond. When you look back on his life, you see a pretty good reflection of the way he lives. The views of many Americans have changed in this century. I think it is a good thing to know Senator Thurmond, because his example shows us how someone who serves the public can adapt to the times while still living by his core principles. Strom is a fair man, a kind man, who steadfastly believes in what he says. He believes in the rights of the people he represents to conduct their lives as they see fit. He has fought for that for years, and I think that is extremely noteworthy. It is among the highest obligations that elected officials can uphold. But aside from all the history, I think what Senator Thurmond most wants to be noted for today is what he sought to do throughout his life; and that is, there is no denying that this man is unendingly thoughtful and is faithful to his friends and family and the people around him. There aren't too many folks in South Carolina who do not have a firsthand story of Senator Thurmond picking up the phone to offer congratulations or to offer condolences, and getting a note in the mail where he expresses his concern or his interest in something that has happened in the life of a family. I think that is the mark of the best kind of public service. You don't forget that at the end of the day what matters is the people you can count as friends. And people remember their friends. They respect a true leader who sticks by his guns. Regardless of your politics, that is the kind of respect any public servant strives for, and it is the mark of a true statesman and a true gentleman, and, in this case, a true Southern gentleman. I have read that my colleague wants to be remembered as a man who is honest, patriotic, and helpful. I am here to tell you that he is all three. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I note the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, May 20, at 4 p.m. for a markup on the following agenda:

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Rules of Procedure for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, as adopted, April 28, 1997, be printed in the Record. The rules of procedure follow: 105th Congress--Rules of Procedure for the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Governmental Affairs As Adopted, April 28, 1997 1. No public hearing connected with an investigation may be held without the approval of either the Chairman and the ranking minority Member or the approval of a majority of the Members of the Subcommittee. In all cases, notification to all Members of the intent to hold hearings must be given at least 7 days in advance to the date of the hearing. The ranking minority Member should be kept fully apprised of preliminary inquiries, investigations, and hearings. Preliminary inquiries may be initiated by the Subcommittee majority staff upon the approval of the Chairman and notice of such approval to the ranking minority Member or the minority counsel. Preliminary inquiries may be undertaken by the minority staff upon the approval of the ranking minority Member and notice of such approval to the Chairman or Chief Counsel. Investigations may be undertaken upon the approval of the Chairman of the Subcommittee and the ranking minority Member with notice of such approval to all members. No public hearing shall be held if the minority Members unanimously object, unless the full Committee on Governmental Affairs by a majority vote approves of such public hearing. Senate Rules will govern all closed sessions convened by the Subcommittee (Rule XXVI, Sec. 5(b), Standing Rules of the Senate). 2. Subpoenas for witnesses, as well as documents and records, may be authorized and issued by the Chairman, or any other Member of the Subcommittee designated by him, with notice to the ranking minority Member. A written notice of intent to issue a subpoena shall be provided to the Chairman and ranking minority Member of the Committee, or staff officers designated by them, by the Subcommittee Chairman or a staff officer designated by him, immediately upon such authorization, and no subpoena shall issue for at least 48 hours, excluding Saturdays and Sundays, from delivery to the appropriate offices, unless the Chairman and ranking minority Member waive the 48 hour waiting period or unless the Subcommittee Chairman certifies in writing to the Chairman and ranking minority Member that, in his opinion, it is necessary to issue a subpoena immediately. 3. The Chairman shall have the authority to call meetings of the Subcommittee. This authority may be delegated by the Chairman to any other Member of the Subcommittee when necessary. 4. If at least three Members of the Subcommittee desire the Chairman to call a special meeting, they may file in the office of the Subcommittee, a written request therefor, addressed to the Chairman. Immediately thereafter, the clerk of the Subcommittee shall notify the Chairman of such request. If, within 3 calendar days after the filing of such request, the Chairman fails to call the requested special meeting, which is to be held within 7 calendar days after the filing of such request, a majority of the Subcommittee Members may file in the office of the Subcommittee their written notice that a special Subcommittee meeting will be held, specifying the date and hour thereof, and the Subcommittee shall meet on that date and hour. Immediately upon the filing of such notice, the Subcommittee clerk shall notify all Subcommittee Members that such special meeting will be held and inform them of its dates and hour. If the Chairman is not present at any regular, additional or special meeting, the ranking majority Member present shall preside. 5. For public or executive sessions, one Member of the Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for the administering of oaths and the taking of testimony in any given case or subject matter. Five (5) Members of the Subcommittee shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of Subcommittee business other than the administering of oaths and the taking of testimony. 6. All witnesses at public or executive hearings who testify to matters of fact shall be sworn. 7. If, during public or executive sessions, a witness, his counsel, or any spectator conducts himself in such a manner as to prevent, impede, disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the orderly administration of such hearing, the Chairman or presiding Member of the Subcommittee present during such hearing may request the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate, his representative or any law enforcement official to eject said person from the hearing room. 8. Counsel retained by any witness and accompanying such witness shall be permitted to be present during the testimony of such witness at any public or executive hearing, and to advise such witness while he is testifying, of his legal rights, Provided, however, that in the case of any witness who is an officer or employee of the government, or of a corporation or association, the Subcommittee Chairman may rule that representation by counsel from the government, corporation, or association, or by counsel representing other witnesses, creates a conflict of interest, and that the witness may only be represented during interrogation by staff or during testimony before the Subcommittee by personal counsel not from the government, corporation, or association, or by personal counsel not representing other witnesses. This rule shall not be construed to excuse a witness from testifying in the event his counsel is ejected for conducting himself in such a manner so as to prevent, impede, disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the orderly administration of the hearings; nor shall this rule be construed as authorizing counsel to coach the witness or answer for the witness. The failure of any witness to secure counsel shall not excuse such witness from complying with a subpoena or deposition notice. 9. Depositions. 9.1 Notice. Notices for the taking of depositions in an investigation authorized by the Subcommittee shall be authorized and issued by the Chairman. The Chairman of the full Committee and the ranking minority Member of the Subcommittee shall be kept fully apprised of the authorization for the taking of depositions. Such notices shall specify a time and place of examination, and the name of the Subcommittee Member or Members or staff officer or officers who will take the deposition. The deposition shall be in private. The Subcommittee shall not initiate procedures leading to criminal or civil enforcement proceedings for a witness' failure to appear unless the deposition notice was accompanied by a Subcommittee subpoena. 9. Counsel. Witnesses may be accompanied at a deposition by counsel to advise them of their legal rights, subject to the provisions of Rule 8. 9.3 Procedure. Witnesses shall be examined upon oath administered by an individual authorized by local law to administer oaths. Questions shall be propounded orally by Subcommittee Members or staff. Objections by the witness as to the form of questions shall be noted for the record. If a witness objects to a question and refuses to testify on the basis of relevance or privilege, the Subcommittee Members or staff may proceed with the deposition, or may, at that time or at a subsequent time, seek a ruling by telephone or otherwise on the objection from the Chairman or such Subcommittee Member as designated by him. If the Chairman or designated Member overrules the objection, he may refer the matter to the Subcommittee or he may order and direct the witness to answer the question, but the Subcommittee shall not initiate procedures leading to civil or criminal enforcement unless the witness refuses to testify after he has been ordered and directed to answer by a Member of the Subcommittee. 9.4 Filing. The Subcommittee staff shall see that the testimony is transcribed or electronically recorded. If it is transcribed, the witness shall be furnished with a copy for review pursuant to the provisions of Rule 12. The individual administering the oath shall certify on the transcript that the witness was duly sworn in his presence, the transcriber shall certify that the transcript is a true record of the testimony, and the transcript shall then be filed with the Subcommittee clerk. Subcommittee staff may stipulate with the witness to changes in this procedure; deviations from this procedure which do not substantially impair the reliability of the record shall not relieve the witness from his obligation to testify truthfully. 10. Any witness desiring to read a prepared or written statement in executive or public hearings shall file a copy of such statement with the Chief Counsel or Chairman of the Subcommittee 48 hours in advance of the hearings at which the statement is to be presented unless the Chairman and the ranking minority Member waive this requirement. The Subcommittee shall determine whether such statement may be read or placed in the record of the hearing. 11. A witness may request, on grounds of distraction, harassment, personal safety, or physical discomfort, that during the testimony, television, motion picture, and other cameras and lights shall not be directed at him. Such requests shall be ruled on by the Subcommittee Members present at the hearing. 12. An accurate stenographic record shall be kept of the testimony of all witnesses in executive and public hearings. The record of his own testimony whether in public or executive session shall be made available for inspection by witness or his counsel under Subcommittee supervision; a copy of any testimony given in public session or that part of the testimony given by the witness in executive session and subsequently quoted or made part of the record in a public session shall be made available to any witness at his expense if he so requests. 13. Interrogation of witnesses at Subcommittee hearings shall be conducted on behalf of the Subcommittee by Members and authorized Subcommittee staff personnel only. 14. Any person who is the subject of an investigation in public hearings may submit to the Chairman of the Subcommittee questions in writing for the cross-examination of other witnesses called by the Subcommittee. With the consent of a majority of the Members of the Subcommittee present and voting, these questions, or paraphrased versions of them, shall be put to the witness by the Chairman, by a Member of the Subcommittee or by counsel of the Subcommittee. 15. Any person whose name is mentioned or who is specifically identified, and who believes that testimony or other evidence presented at a public hearing, or comment made by a Subcommittee Member or counsel, tends to defame him or otherwise adversely affect his reputation, may (a) request to appear personally before the Subcommittee to testify in his own behalf, or, in the alternative, (b) file a sworn statement of facts relevant to the testimony or other evidence or comment complained of. Such request and such statement shall be submitted to the Subcommittee for its consideration and action. If a person requests to appear personally before the Subcommittee pursuant to alternative (a) referred to herein, said request shall be considered untimely if it is not received by the Chairman of the Subcommittee or its counsel in writing on or before thirty (30) days subsequent to the day on which said person's name was mentioned or otherwise specifically identified during a public hearing held before the Subcommittee, unless the Chairman and the ranking minority Member waive this requirement. If a person requests the filing of his sworn statement pursuant to alternative (b) referred to herein, the Subcommittee may condition the filing of said sworn statement upon said person agreeing to appear personally before the Subcommittee and to testify concerning the matters contained in his sworn statement, as well as any other matters related to the subject of the investigation before the Subcommittee. 16. All testimony taken in executive session shall be kept secret and will not be released for public information without the approval of a majority of the Subcommittee. 17. No Subcommittee report shall be released to the public unless approved by a majority of the Subcommittee and after no less than 10 days' notice and opportunity for comment by the Members of the Subcommittee unless the need for such notice and opportunity to comment has been waived in writing by a majority of the minority Members. 18. The ranking minority Member may select for appointment to the Subcommittee staff a Chief Counsel for the minority and such other professional staff members and clerical assistants as he deems advisable. The total compensation allocated to such minority staff members shall be not less than one-third the total amount allocated for all Subcommittee staff salaries during any given year. The minority staff members shall work under the direction and supervision of the ranking minority Member. The Chief Counsel for the minority shall be kept fully informed as to preliminary inquiries, investigations, and hearings, and shall have access to all material in the files of the Subcommittee. 19. When it is determined by the Chairman and ranking minority Member, or by a majority of the Subcommittee, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a violation of law may have occurred, the Chairman and ranking minority Member by letter, or the Subcommittee by resolution, are authorized to report such violation to the proper State, local and/or Federal authorities. Such letter or report may recite the basis for the determination of reasonable cause. This rule is not authority for release of documents or testimony.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I commend and agree with my colleague on the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Glenn, with regard to the purpose of the census and how important it is. I commend Senator Hollings and Senator Stevens for working out some language that will get us over this temporary hurdle and will not cause us to have to stop in midstream and make a decision today as to exactly what we ought to do, because I do not think anybody knows exactly what we ought to do right now. I do not think attention has been focused on this issue. We in the Governmental Affairs Committee, however, have been focused on it for a while. When I became chairman, we had a meeting on the staff level and started to engage the people at the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce and explained to them what our intentions were in terms of having hearings and gathering information as to the right way to proceed. We have had two hearings, as Senator Hollings has pointed out, considering specifically these sampling issues that we are talking about, keeping in mind how important it is. It is important that people have confidence in this census. Clearly, we base a lot of things on it in terms of distribution of Federal moneys, academic research, and things of that nature that are dependent on it, and last, but not least, the apportionment for the House of Representatives. So we need to do it cautiously and carefully and not based on who is going to benefit politically in the outcome, not based on some supposition of what the outcome is going to be. I made a commitment early on that we would hear this fairly, we would bring in the experts and proceed carefully, but that the administration was going to have to convince us and the American people that the way they were going to proceed would be a fair, objective way. Of course, that brings us to the heart of the sampling issue, and it is not an easy issue to resolve. In fact, I think we are right in the middle of resolving it. We have asked for a lot of additional information in order that the Census Bureau can convince us that this will be done in the right way. Everybody is for doing something about the undercount, which I think most people agree that we have. We need to do something about this. We need to proceed in the fairest, most objective way in order to address that particular problem. But the question still is out there whether or not sampling is the right way to proceed. In the first place, I think we need to realize that the proposal that is on the table now really involves two levels of sampling: 90 percent is contact directly, 10 percent is sampling, and then there is another level of sampling which is supposed to take care of the undercount. So we have a couple of different levels of sampling. It has not been perfected yet. Back in 1990 when they did the census, they considered adjusting the census numbers based on sampling. Based upon the information that they initially had there, they made an error of one seat. One State would have improperly gotten a seat and another State would have improperly lost a seat. They caught it in time and decided not to use sampling back then. There are constitutional issues; there are legislative issues. It is not just a constitutional question. We are familiar with the fact that the Constitution requires, in some people's minds, an actual head count. It is somewhat debatable, but to some legal experts, it is even a greater question as to whether or not Congress has constructed a legislative pattern that would forbid sampling. There has been a lot of sampling legislation passed and some of it is inconsistent. It would be a tragedy, indeed, if we went through all this process and we used sampling and spent $4 billion in order to carry this out and then find out we did not have the constitutional authority or that we have the constitutional authority but did not have the legislative authority. So if we go through with sampling, I think we are going to need additional legislation to clear that up. There is another question involved as far as the expense. Some of the witnesses originally told us that if we did not sample, it would cost us an extra billion dollars. We are getting information now which says the cost would be much less than that. We need to clear that up. I think this is an appropriate way to proceed, but I want to emphasize to the administration, and I want to emphasize to the Census Bureau, that those of us who will be dealing with this thing directly are going to be looking to them to convince us and convince the Senate and convince the American people that they will conduct this thing in a fair and objective way. A lot of people are concerned that this administration, which has shown in times past the willingness and the ability to use the authority of the administration for political purposes--witness the Immigration and Naturalization Service before the election last time--that an administration that is willing to do that would be willing to tamper with this process. It is a matter that is somewhat new to us in this body for this particular purpose--that is, one of apportionment--and it is not going to be something we will readily latch on to. I am not saying it is the wrong thing to do, but I am saying the burden is on the administration, the burden is on the Census Bureau, not only that this is scientifically acceptable, which I think a lot of people think it is, but, second, that we are not going to have to be worrying about some people in a bureaucracy somewhere who are going to be having their fingers on the scales of justice, as has happened in other instances. So, with that, I leave it for another day. I look forward to working with the members on the committee and others on the Appropriations Committee in trying to come up with the best system that is fair to everybody, not based on who benefits or who suffers from a political standpoint, but based on what is fair and accurate, not only in terms of the result, but in terms of the process in getting to that result. With that, I thank the Chair. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide much-needed tax relief to the residents of my State who are employed as civilians on Fort Campbell, KY. These Clarksville area Tennesseans are hard working citizens who, I believe, are being taxed unfairly by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Fort Campbell is the home of the Army's famous 101st Airborne Division. This installation straddles the border between Tennessee and Kentucky. In fact, 80 percent of it lies within the State of Tennessee. But because the post office is located on the Kentucky side of the base, it is best known to most people as Fort Campbell, KY. Civilian residents of both Tennessee and Kentucky are employed by the Federal Government to perform important nonmilitary functions at Fort Campbell. Approximately 2,000 of the Tennesseans who work on post are employed on the Kentucky side in the schools, at the post office, at the post exchange, and on the primary airfield. Unfortunately, these Tennesseans are forced to pay income tax to the Commonwealth of Kentucky of up to 6 percent of their wages, in addition to the sales and excise taxes they pay to their home State of Tennessee. Because the State of Tennessee does not have an income tax, Kentuckians employed on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell do not pay income tax to the State of Tennessee. Nor are Kentuckians required to pay Tennessee sales tax on Fort Campbell. All of the facilities on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell to which Kentuckians have access, the KFC and the Taco Bell, for example, are exempt from State sales tax. It is only when a Kentucky resident leaves post that he or she becomes subject to Tennessee sales tax on purchases made in the State. Mr. President, I believe it is unfair of Kentucky to impose income tax on Tennesseans, because Tennesseans who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell do not consume any services provided by the Commonwealth. Fort Campbell is a Federal installation. All emergency fire, police, and medical services on post are provided by the Federal Government, not the Commonwealth of Kentucky. All roads on Fort Campbell, both on the Kentucky and the Tennessee side, are maintained by the Federal Government. Water and sewer services are paid for by the Federal Government. If a Tennessean who worked on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell were laid off, he or she would not be eligible to obtain unemployment benefits from Kentucky, despite the fact that he or she had been paying income tax to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Finally, Tennesseans have no voice in the Kentucky legislature to affect change to this law. Tennesseans are being unfairly taxed without the benefit of representation--a principle anathema to this country. As I see it, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is receiving free money from residents of Tennessee who work on a Federal installation that happens to border their State. And although Kentucky likes to argue that the residents of Clarksville are not forced to work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell, employees are often moved on the base where a change of buildings means a change of State. A Tennessean forced to move into a Fort Campbell job across the border takes an automatic pay cut of up to 6 percent--just for moving across the street. This situation has been the cause of significant morale problems at Fort Campbell. According to Kentucky, however, those employees can escape paying the income tax by quitting their jobs. I find this alternative an unacceptable one. It is for this reason that I am introducing legislation to prohibit Kentucky from imposing its income tax on these Tennesseans employed either by the Federal Government or by a contractor with the Federal Government at Fort Campbell. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Frist. Congressman Ed Bryant has introduced the similar legislation in the other body. Let me provide some history on this issue. According to legislation enacted by Congress in 1940, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is permitted to impose its income tax on Federal employees working in the State. This legislation, the Buck Act, repealed a prior law prohibiting States from imposing income tax on individuals who live or work on Federal property. However, Congress has also granted exemptions from State income tax to classes of Federal employees based on their obvious special circumstances: military personnel and Members of Congress and their employees. In addition, Congress enacted legislation in 1990 to exempt Amtrak employees from State taxation in the States in which they do not reside but through which they travel while working. Congress intended these exemptions to provide relief from inequitable situations. The Tennesseans employed at Fort Campbell also merit an exemption. Mr. President, I firmly believe that a State has the right to raise revenue in whatever manner its residents believe is most appropriate. In the case of Tennessee, residents have chosen sales and excise taxes to fund their cost of government--only one of six States in the United States without an income tax. But it should be noted that Kentucky has entered into reciprocal tax agreements with surrounding income tax States to ensure that Kentuckians are treated fairly. Unfortunately, Kentucky has refused to negotiate any type of reciprocal tax agreement with Tennessee, because it knows it has Tennesseans over a barrel. Prohibiting the Commonwealth of Kentucky from taxing Tennesseans working on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell is the best way to resolve this inequitable situation. During this week in April Americans are reminded of their obligations to government. I believe that Americans are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, but citizens should not be expected to pay tax to a government from which they receive nothing and in which they have no voice.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to provide much-needed tax relief to the residents of my State who are employed as civilians on Fort Campbell, KY. These Clarksville area Tennesseans are hard working citizens who, I believe, are being taxed unfairly by the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Fort Campbell is the home of the Army's famous 101st Airborne Division. This installation straddles the border between Tennessee and Kentucky. In fact, 80 percent of it lies within the State of Tennessee. But because the post office is located on the Kentucky side of the base, it is best known to most people as Fort Campbell, KY. Civilian residents of both Tennessee and Kentucky are employed by the Federal Government to perform important nonmilitary functions at Fort Campbell. Approximately 2,000 of the Tennesseans who work on post are employed on the Kentucky side in the schools, at the post office, at the post exchange, and on the primary airfield. Unfortunately, these Tennesseans are forced to pay income tax to the Commonwealth of Kentucky of up to 6 percent of their wages, in addition to the sales and excise taxes they pay to their home State of Tennessee. Because the State of Tennessee does not have an income tax, Kentuckians employed on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell do not pay income tax to the State of Tennessee. Nor are Kentuckians required to pay Tennessee sales tax on Fort Campbell. All of the facilities on the Tennessee side of Fort Campbell to which Kentuckians have access, the KFC and the Taco Bell, for example, are exempt from State sales tax. It is only when a Kentucky resident leaves post that he or she becomes subject to Tennessee sales tax on purchases made in the State. Mr. President, I believe it is unfair of Kentucky to impose income tax on Tennesseans, because Tennesseans who work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell do not consume any services provided by the Commonwealth. Fort Campbell is a Federal installation. All emergency fire, police, and medical services on post are provided by the Federal Government, not the Commonwealth of Kentucky. All roads on Fort Campbell, both on the Kentucky and the Tennessee side, are maintained by the Federal Government. Water and sewer services are paid for by the Federal Government. If a Tennessean who worked on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell were laid off, he or she would not be eligible to obtain unemployment benefits from Kentucky, despite the fact that he or she had been paying income tax to the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Finally, Tennesseans have no voice in the Kentucky legislature to affect change to this law. Tennesseans are being unfairly taxed without the benefit of representation--a principle anathema to this country. As I see it, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is receiving free money from residents of Tennessee who work on a Federal installation that happens to border their State. And although Kentucky likes to argue that the residents of Clarksville are not forced to work on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell, employees are often moved on the base where a change of buildings means a change of State. A Tennessean forced to move into a Fort Campbell job across the border takes an automatic pay cut of up to 6 percent--just for moving across the street. This situation has been the cause of significant morale problems at Fort Campbell. According to Kentucky, however, those employees can escape paying the income tax by quitting their jobs. I find this alternative an unacceptable one. It is for this reason that I am introducing legislation to prohibit Kentucky from imposing its income tax on these Tennesseans employed either by the Federal Government or by a contractor with the Federal Government at Fort Campbell. I am pleased to be joined by my colleague, Senator Frist. Congressman Ed Bryant has introduced the similar legislation in the other body. Let me provide some history on this issue. According to legislation enacted by Congress in 1940, the Commonwealth of Kentucky is permitted to impose its income tax on Federal employees working in the State. This legislation, the Buck Act, repealed a prior law prohibiting States from imposing income tax on individuals who live or work on Federal property. However, Congress has also granted exemptions from State income tax to classes of Federal employees based on their obvious special circumstances: military personnel and Members of Congress and their employees. In addition, Congress enacted legislation in 1990 to exempt Amtrak employees from State taxation in the States in which they do not reside but through which they travel while working. Congress intended these exemptions to provide relief from inequitable situations. The Tennesseans employed at Fort Campbell also merit an exemption. Mr. President, I firmly believe that a State has the right to raise revenue in whatever manner its residents believe is most appropriate. In the case of Tennessee, residents have chosen sales and excise taxes to fund their cost of government--only one of six States in the United States without an income tax. But it should be noted that Kentucky has entered into reciprocal tax agreements with surrounding income tax States to ensure that Kentuckians are treated fairly. Unfortunately, Kentucky has refused to negotiate any type of reciprocal tax agreement with Tennessee, because it knows it has Tennesseans over a barrel. Prohibiting the Commonwealth of Kentucky from taxing Tennesseans working on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell is the best way to resolve this inequitable situation. During this week in April Americans are reminded of their obligations to government. I believe that Americans are willing to pay their fair share of taxes, but citizens should not be expected to pay tax to a government from which they receive nothing and in which they have no voice.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, on the final day for taxpayers to file their tax returns, I think it is appropriate for Congress and the American people to assess how well the Internal Revenue Service [IRS] is doing managing the collection of 1.4 trillion taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the answer is not very well. The Committee on Governmental Affairs held a hearing last week on the IRS programs on the General Accounting Office's [GAO] high risk list which identifies those Federal programs most vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. To the taxpayer's dismay, the IRS made the list six times. IRS programs have been consistently on GAO's high risk list since its inception in 1990 and GAO has issued over 200 reports in the past 5 years critical of the problems at IRS. The problems at IRS are considerable. For example: IRS still can't pass an audit--something that the private sector has been doing since the 1930's and State governments since the 1980's. Because IRS' financial statements are so poor, it is likely the entire Government will not be able to pass its first congressionally required audit of its financial statements this fall. Shouldn't IRS live up to the same accounting standards it imposes on the taxpayer? For three decades IRS has been attempting to overhaul its outdated 1960's era computer systems. In its third unsuccessful attempt at modernization, IRS has spent over $3 billion, with very little to show for it. This has become a case study in how not to buy computers. In the area of tax collections, GAO finds that IRS has no real basis for determining how much it is owed or, in any comprehensive sense, by whom. This is important because every dollar owed which is not collected due to inaccurate filing or ineffective collection comes out of the pocket of every honest taxpayer. Despite an IRS pledge to have zero-tolerance for snooping by IRS personnel through taxpayer's files, GAO finds that the practice continues. Only one IRS computer system has a very limited ability to detect snooping. As for the rest of IRS systems and paper files there are few controls to protect sensitive taxpayer records from this invasion of privacy. All of IRS' computers are at risk of not operating properly on January 1, 2000, because of the antiquated computers' inability to deal with the year 2000 date change. In less than 1,000 days, the collection of revenue and the entire tax processing system will be in jeopardy. It is estimated that $200 billion is lost each year to fraud and nonpayment of taxes. While IRS caught $131 million in fraudulent returns in 1995, GAO lists filing fraud as a high risk area and it is uncertain how many fraudulent returns slip through the system. But these concerns are even surpassed by new ones raised by GAO in January in a confidential report on IRS security weaknesses which is now being released in very restricted form. IRS has very serious physical and information security problems which jeopardize its ability to function and puts taxpayer data at risk of being improperly used, changed, or destroyed. It should concern us all that GAO's findings of IRS' vulnerability to security threats are of such great concern that most of the original report can not be made public. What is at stake here? The confidence of the taxpayer is at stake. Tax laws must be fairly enforced at the least possible cost and personal intrusion and IRS must meet the standards it expects the taxpayer to meet. Our credibility as the steward of the money we ask the taxpayer to contribute is at stake. Each dollar the Government collects is a dollar someone else has earned. It is our obligation to make the best use of that dollar, and not waste a cent of it. Finally, at stake is the very ability of government to perform its necessary responsibilities and functions. Without taxpayer confidence that we are collecting money fairly and wisely, our system of government is crippled. Taxation in this country has a long and tumultuous history. We are a nation founded on a tax revolt and are continuously renewed by a healthy skepticism toward all forms of taxation. It is important to remember that it is only with the American people's consent that the IRS exists in the first place. As a nation we collect taxes to pay for the responsibilities we have assigned to our Government. Right over the entrance to the IRS are the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes: ``Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.'' But, recognizing the need to fund government responsibilities does not imply that we should continue with business as usual at the IRS. If an agency fails in its fundamental mission, or fails to keep its promises to Congress and the American people, we need to be prepared to make fundamental changes. I, for one, favor greatly simplifying the Tax Code. A simpler code, fairly administered, will help to restore the taxpayers' faith in the system. It will also make the system more manageable. In the meantime, it is imperative for IRS to improve its operations. It is outrageous that IRS programs put on GAO's high-risk list remain there year-after-year. GAO testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee in June of 1991 and described key areas in which IRS needed to improve its operations. Six years later, we heard virtually the same message in the same areas from GAO. What has IRS been doing in the last 6 years? What has been done to correct systemic management problems at IRS? Fortunately, the forces for change may now be coming into place. Congress has used its power of the purse to express its dissatisfaction with IRS' computer modernization. A new Commission to Restructure the IRS has been formed to address how the Nation collects taxes and the administration has announced a new plan for reform at IRS. The Deputy Secretary of Treasury Lawrence Summers, testified before the Governmental Affairs Committee last Thursday on this plan. The administration's recognition of many of the problems it faces is a good first step. However, it is unclear how establishing new layers of bureaucracy will improve the situation at IRS. We also need to understand how giving IRS greater personnel and budgetary flexibilities would enable it to better manage its programs and finances. It is necessary for Congress and the administration to work together to reform the IRS. As for the next step, the Congress needs more details on the administration's IRS reform proposals. I plan to work with my colleagues to ensure that a detailed plan is sent to Congress as soon as possible to address the IRS' high risk problems. This reform plan should be linked to IRS' GPRA strategic plan and should include specific performance measures that will successfully address IRS' high- risk areas. Congress is also taking up today legislation on criminalizing the snooping by IRS employees of confidential taxpayer data. This is an issue with a longstanding history at the Governmental Affairs Committee. The issue was first brought to light during financial audits under the Chief Financial Officers Act. In 1994, it was thought that IRS would address this issue in a comprehensive manner. At last week's hearing, GAO found that snooping was still a significant problem. All of us are greatly disturbed about reports of lax security and the unauthorized browsing by IRS employees of taxpayer information. This invasion of privacy is a breech of public trust and only further lowers the faith of the taxpayer in the fairness of the system. I want to work with the administration and other congressional committees to implement lasting solutions to identified management problems at IRS and reduce the risks to the taxpayers. Most of these problems have existed for years. I recognize that this administration, and previous ones, have tried to solve them. But, time is growing short. The confidence of our citizens is low and the risks are high.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it seems at this time of year every year we tend to go out of our way to criticize the Internal Revenue Service, but I think part of the reason for that is that sometimes it seems to take so much to get their attention. As the Presiding Officer knows, the General Accounting Office has a list of high-risk agencies which they set forth as agencies that are more prone to fraud, waste and abuse, and mismanagement. The IRS has been on that list now for 6 years in a row, and we had hearings last week in order to find out what they intended to do about it because not only do they have the normal problems that we all hear about and complain about every year, it seems now that in their attempt to modernize their computer system, which is totally outdated; they are working on 1960's technology, but in an attempt to do something about that they have spent billions of dollars and canceled one program after another and are not making substantial progress into getting into the 20th century much less the 21st century. We also found out that the Internal Revenue Service cannot stand an audit. They do not really know how much they have spent on this computer modernization system and they really do not know how much money they collect in terms of various categories of collection. In addition to that, we have learned more about the security problems. We know that we are all concerned about the browsing problem we have had some discussions about recently, but now we learn of the tremendous physical security problems, so much so that they had to classify the report when they sent it over here to us because they did not want to provide a blueprint, understandably, for people who might wish them ill. It is that bad. Congress has responded with the power of the purse. And last year we cut them back some, but that is not the total answer because they are going to need revenues in order to take care of some of these problems. So we had the hearings. We brought the IRS in. We brought the Treasury in, which the IRS, of course, is a part of. Perhaps if there is any good news in this it looks as if for the first time we do have a blueprint to work our way out of this. Congress in the past few years has passed some legislation which requires these agencies to come in and report on what kind of progress they are making in solving some of these problems. We have not always had this, but now we have some accountability--what are they trying to achieve, and every year come back and tell us and show us in some detail what they are doing to work out of these things. Treasury now says they are going to take a greater oversight responsibility, which they clearly should have done long before. There are timetables which they are going to be held accountable to. We are going to make sure they report back in solving these problems when they are supposed to be reporting back. So perhaps we are going to be making some progress for the first time. But this is the reason why we talk about the IRS. It is not just the fact that people do not like to pay taxes. It is just they have the right to have the IRS and all these other agencies at least reach the minimal compliance levels they expect out of the American taxpayer because, ultimately, our national security and our prosperity depend upon our faith in these institutions and certainly the IRS. So with that, I thank the Chair and will relinquish the remainder of any time I might have.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I wish to recognize a man of character, his tradition of accomplishment, his outstanding record of public service, and his contribution to his community and the State of Tennessee. Today, April 14, Gene Roberts steps down as the mayor of Chattanooga. He will be missed, but I know that wherever he chooses to put his skills to use in the future, he will be a great asset. Gene Roberts is a low-key kind of man, the kind who leads with confidence. When Gene gets behind some cause or effort, people just fundamentally know that he's in it for the right reasons and that they ought to seriously consider following his lead. The people of Chattanooga have had the benefit of Gene's talents in his capacity as mayor since 1983. They know firsthand what I'm talking about. Gene's history of public service goes back over 25 years, back to 1971, when he was the commissioner of fire and police for Chattanooga. For a brief time, he served in the cabinet of my friend, Gov. Lamar Alexander. And his long tenure as mayor has been marked by unprecedented growth, progress, and a rise in the fortunes and profile of the city of Chattanooga. He has presided over real progress. During his years in office, Chattanooga has seen a revival of its downtown, revitalized neighborhoods, a cleanup of pollution to preserve the beautiful land in the area, and a marked increase in the quality of life for the folks who call Chattanooga home. Thanks to Gene's efforts, and his coordination of efforts with other civic-minded groups and individuals, Chattanooga has become a model for other cities striving to improve. Today, leaders from around the world and across the country visit Chattanooga to see what's been done, and to find out how they can duplicate the success of this model city. It's this kind of effort that creates a vigorous economy for the area, and that's good for everyone. In no small measure, we have Gene Roberts to thank for that. These kinds of positive changes only happen when an individual steps forward to take the initiative. You've got to care enough to invest time and skill and experience to make a good city into a great city. Things like this don't just happen by themselves. Congratulations and all the best to Gene Roberts as he retires from the office of mayor of Chattanooga, TN.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, my colleague from Tennessee, Senator Frist, wanted to make a statement on this matter, but he is chairing the Subcommittee on Science and Technology, a subcommittee of the Commerce Committee, so if it is in order, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMPSON. No. I am finished at this time. If the Senator has comments to make, please do so.