Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator Frist and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President. I appreciate my able colleague's comments. He is eloquent in defense of his position. I respectfully disagree with him with regard to the history of this matter in some respects. It seems often when we agree with a decision, it is based on scientific evidence and when we disagree, it is based on politics. In this particular matter, the decision not to have the Tennessee site designated as a storage facility actually was also addressed by the courts at that time, and they determined that the DOE at that time in making that decision, violated the Nuclear Waste Act in failing to consult with the State before selecting the sites in Tennessee. So before Congress even got involved in the matter, the courts had addressed the matter and enjoined the DOE from putting the facility in Tennessee. In listening to my colleague, I am more and more concerned because he makes a case, for his belief anyway that Tennessee apparently would in fact be the logical place once you eliminate all of the other sites that have already been eliminated. Talking about objective criteria, I think population is one. As I mentioned, the city of Oak Ridge is a city of 28,000 people, in sharp contrast to a place like the Nevada test site, which has a population density of one-half person per square mile. That is subjective criteria. This is not raw politics by any stretch of the imagination. I am not saying that this site-by-site consideration is the best way to proceed. We simply find ourselves in a situation where we do not want the dagger pointed at the heart of the State of Tennessee, when all the dust settles and find, instead of a place where the facility ought to be, which is embodied in the body of this bill, that we find someplace that the Congress has already rejected in times past as not being meritorious.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to offer this amendment today because I am concerned about that section of the bill dealing with what happens if Yucca Mountain is not deemed to be a suitable permanent repository to store spent nuclear fuel. In that event, under this bill, all work on an interim storage site in Nevada would cease and the President would have 18 months to name an alternate site for an interim storage facility. What I am concerned about is that the bill goes on to say: The President shall not designate the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in the State of Washington as a site for the construction of an interim storage facility. So the President will have one less option when he is looking for alternate sites under that scenario. My colleagues from South Carolina have offered an amendment which has subsequently been adopted that would exempt two sites in their State from consideration as well. Our concern is that Tennessee has been selected before as a site for an interim storage facility. However, it was later soundly rejected as a storage site both by the Congress and the courts. We may be facing the possibility that Tennessee again will be selected as an interim storage site under the scenario I just outlined. In 1986, the Department of Energy recommended three sites for the location of interim storage facility for spent fuel. All three of those sites were in Tennessee. Given that history, we may be at the top or near the top of the list again, especially if Hanford and Savannah River are taken off the table. Removing Hanford and Savannah River from consideration makes it more likely that Oak Ridge would be selected as an interim storage site. We should make it clear again today that Tennessee is not an appropriate site to store this waste, just as Congress did in 1987. I assume we will do the same thing today. Oak Ridge itself is a population center. The city of Oak Ridge has 28,000 residents. Oak Ridge sits directly between two major population centers in our State-- Knoxville, with a population of 175,000, and Chattanooga, with a metropolitan area population of approximately 424,000--and it is just 175 miles from the capital of Tennessee, Nashville. Oak Ridge also sits at the center of three major interstate highways--I-40, I-70, and I-81. Thus, it is an extremely heavily trafficked area. In addition, Oak Ridge is just 5 miles from the Melton Hill Dam and just 15 miles from Norris Dam. In other words, it sits in close proximity to major waterways and dam facilities. I would like to think that my concern is not well placed, and it may not be well placed, but as this deliberation has proceeded, it has become more and more a matter of relevant concern. So out of abundance of caution, I think this Congress should make clear what a past Congress made clear--that Oak Ridge is not a suitable place as a storage facility. For this reason, I urge the adoption of the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I want to recognize the achievement and success of the University of Tennessee's Women's Basketball Team in winning the 1997 NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Championship. Under the outstanding leadership of coach Pat Summitt, the Lady Volunteers have taken home the championship trophy 2 years in a row. These are the first back-to-back championships in 13 years, and we couldn't be any prouder back home in Tennessee. Throughout the season, the Lady Volunteers had their share both of tough games and exciting wins. But they proved their talent and skill in the end with their victory in the NCAA tournament. Women's basketball has become a tradition in Tennessee, and those of us who are fans have grown accustomed to great performances on the court. Over the years, the University of Tennessee's Women's Basketball program has attracted some of the most outstanding scholar-athletes in the nation, and in doing so it provides one of the most notable examples of sports excellence and academic superiority to be found anywhere. Coach Pat Summitt and her tremendous staff deserve special credit. With this victory, Pat takes the fifth NCAA title of her career, placing her behind only the great coach John Wooden in the championship tally. Pat has achieved a real milestone in winning 5 trophies in just 11 seasons. She's been in charge of the team for 22 years now, starting when she was a graduate student, and only 1 year older than some of her players. Today, the program she worked to build and maintain has helped set the standard for many other successful athletic efforts in other universities, and women's college basketball is a national phenomenon. In a word, Pat is a trailblazer. She has helped raise the profile of the exciting sport of women's college basketball, and she's created a lot of new fans. This championship season at UT will be remembered for a lot of things, but most notably I believe we'll look back at the heart and the determination that led these women through to victory. The people of Tennessee, fans and UT alumni who live across the country and around the world are proud of this exceptional achievement. When the UT Women cut down the nets in Cincinnati, they took home the memory of a hard-fought victory across a dramatic 5-month season. In a team loaded up with talent, the members came together for the effort it took to bring home the trophy. With a record of 29 wins and 10 losses, the Tennessee Lady Vols came through in the clinch. They surprised those who counted them out. In the end, they won the final game 68-59, leading for the entire first half in the game against Old Dominion and keeping up the pressure in the second half. All the loyal fans of the University of Tennessee and all those who enjoy women's basketball have had the privilege of enjoying this fantastic season in a string of fantastic seasons. And with the young team and the new recruits, there's sure to be more excitement on the way in the coming years. What a great achievement this is by an outstanding group of athletes and coaches. Congratulations to the University of Tennessee Lady Vols--the 1997 NCAA champions. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I would be happy to yield that time.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield myself 2 minutes. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his usual eloquent remarks. I think I agree with everything that he said. I am one of those who have thought for a long time that we needed to make some significant changes in our campaign finance reform system. And I still believe that way stronger today than ever before. But I want to leave one thought, not in response to what the Senator said, but from watching the talk shows and some of the comments that some of the people at the White House have made, and so forth, about this. When talking about the issue of the need for campaign finance reform, my remarks on the floor on January 28 were referred to earlier. Something rang home with me, so I got them. And here is one of the things I said then. I said: But those of us with responsibility in this area, whether it be the President or Members of Congress, cannot let the call for campaign finance reform serve to gloss over serious violations of existing law. If we do that, the reform debate will be cast in a totally partisan context and ensure that once again campaign finance reform will be killed. So it occurred to me that once again we must be reminded of the fact that those of us who want campaign finance reform must remember that the best thing we can do for campaign finance reform is to continue to talk about it if we want to, but also make sure we do a good set of tough bipartisan hearings that the American people have some confidence in. For those who want campaign finance reform, let us get about the money laundering, the foreign contributions, the allegations of selling public policy, allegations of violations of the Hatch Act, the Ethics Act, and the serious matters, that will do more for campaign finance reform than anything else. I thank the President and yield back the balance of the 2 minutes I was referring to. How much time is remaining?

Mr. THOMPSON. I will strive toward that end. I think that is what I should have done last time and didn't. Although it is not required, it is something I should have done in retrospect, because I think it sent a signal that I didn't mean to send. There are going to be times when I may not be able to do that, but I will make my best efforts along those lines.

Mr. THOMPSON. I think the Senator is probably right. But let's talk about what we are really concerned about here. I think the Senator is wanting to be included in the front end of the consideration, basically. I think that is reasonable. It is not required by the rules. None of this is required by the rules of the Governmental Affairs Committee. This is my attempt to go beyond the rules in order to do something that I think is right and the fair thing to do. Let me not mislead you here. I think these are things that I always felt were best worked out at the staff level, but I think we are going to have to address them now. I do not think it is ever practical to have Senators sit down around the table for the very first conversation about who we are going to subpoena. I think we have to let the staff do their work. They have to come to us individually and as a group. They have to come to me as chairman and Senator Glenn with their ideas. There has to be opportunity to have free discussion back and forth, and if somebody writes a list of names or companies down that they feel should have top priority, they should not have to be apologetic about that. It has to start somewhere. So we need to let the staff do their work, then we need to have the staff submit that to the members, and then the members need to talk to each other. That is my idea of proceeding. Now, if you want to do it otherwise, if you really think that it is good for us to involve ourselves that much on the front end, I will consider something else. But I think you want to consider that very, very carefully, because I don't think that is the highest and best use of our time. Prior to now, in the 54 subpoenas that were issued, I believe, if Senators will check, they will find that the staff did work together. There was considerable time; there was a requirement to give 72-hour notice. We gave more than that, all on the staff level. But there was lots of discussion. Whether or not somebody came up with a list before they started talking or they made the list in the presence of each other, I don't really care, and I don't think we should care. But what happened was, I think where we broke down was, I didn't call Senator Glenn and tell him, basically, what was going on at the staff level, and I think that was a mistake on my part. So I hear what you are saying. You want to be included on the front end of the discussion. But we are going to get into some busy activity around here. We all are going to be challenged tremendously, not only with regard to this investigation, but with regard to our regular business. It is going to be fast and furious for a long time, and I don't want to be accused anymore of being unfair to anybody. So I want to lay it on the table on the front end. If you want more than I think right now is reasonable, I will be willing to discuss that. What I think is reasonable is to let the staff do their job, then report to the members, then the members sit down. The crucial part is not what is written down on a piece of paper; the crucial part is what comes out the other end. The rules require 72-hour notice. We will try our best to have consultation over and above what the rules require. I don't see any reason why we can't learn from past experience and be able to have a procedure where both sides are satisfied on the subpoena issue.

Mr. THOMPSON. That is correct.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I think we need to use our best efforts to ensure that by providing reasonable notice under those circumstances, at least of all significant interviews. As you say, as these things go, there are going to be people scattered out in various places, and I think on many occasions they can go in teams. I think that will be good. But many times they are not going to be able to do that. As the Senator knows, we have been talking about procedures a lot here for the last couple of months. Now we have to get down to the heavy lifting. We have people to interview all across this country and people in other parts of the world. We are not going to always be able to do it side by side. But best efforts should be made to provide reasonable notice for all significant interviews, whether taken by the majority or the minority, so that the other side will have the opportunity to be there. I think the other important part of that is that regardless of whether or not there is participation or presence, that there is access to the information that comes from that interview. Although the opportunity to question might be lost if the person is not present, they still should have access to that information. That should be a part of the agreement also.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. I think that without any question it is important that we attempt to have joint participation in the depositions. I think that whichever side notices the deposition, there should be a certain period of time when the other side is notified and given the opportunity to attend the deposition. There might be instances where that's impossible, in terms of someone participating, but the notice should always go. The notice should always be there. And we need to have a firm procedure as to who has notices given, so there is no question about the fact that notice has been given. And we need to exercise a little good faith and leeway. If the time that is agreed upon is not fully needed, for example, the side not taking the deposition should not insist on it. If a little more time is needed for scheduling purposes, the side scheduling the deposition should be reasonable there. But I think it is very important, to maintain the credibility of what we are doing, that if at all possible we have both sides at the depositions unless there is an agreement that it is not significant enough a deposition for both sides to be there. So, those are the goals that I would work toward.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I would agree with that.

Mr. THOMPSON. You are asking me to be pretty specific. Again, we are talking about categories of activities and situations that depend on the facts. I will say that the prelude to the specific areas that we are talking about now, foreign contributions, misuse of Government offices, et cetera, says that we should look into illegal or improper activities or practices in the 1996 campaigns, ``including but not limited to * * * .'' So I think the original scope kind of speaks for itself there. There is a further delineation, but it still has to be improper or illegal. You have to understand, now, I am just one member talking, as far as my own views are concerned on this. But I would assume that there would still be, for example, some soft money activity that would not either be illegal or improper. If the rules and regulations permit it, it was done in a correct way, there was no collusion involved, it was not done from a Federal building--which of course in and of itself is problematic, depending upon your legal interpretation. If someone gave a $20,000 soft money contribution, I am not prepared, today, to say that that is improper. These are the kinds of things that the committee will have to decide. I can assure you that we will have an opportunity for full discussion on any area the Senator brings up.

Mr. THOMPSON. As I look over the original scope that the Senator referred to that came out of the Governmental Affairs Committee, a few things jump out at me that I think clearly come within our jurisdiction, or in the scope as we now have it. Foreign contributions are clearly illegal, not only improper; conflicts of interest resulting in misuse of Government offices, failure by Federal Government employees to maintain or observe legal barriers between fundraising and official business, certainly are within the scope of illegal or improper. I think there are others here that fit that category. Frankly, I think there are some other categories where it is not so clear. We are dealing with categories of activities here. It is very difficult for me to, with great precision, say what category in any given set of circumstances might or might not fall within our scope. Many times the answer depends upon the facts of the case. You might have a certain activity that may or may not be improper, depending on facts that we do not know yet. So, while, in summary, and in answer to the Senator's question, I think that certainly there is a good deal here of the delineation of the scope that came out of Governmental Affairs that certainly is picked up by this expanded scope that we have here today, but I would not want to pass judgment on, as one individual member of the committee when the committee itself will have to make the determinations on individual situations--I would not, as one member, want to pass judgment on any particular activity or group of people or anything like that, without knowing more about the facts.

Mr. THOMPSON. It does. It has already proven to be a delicate situation. We got off on a bit of a wrong foot with regard to subpoenas. I take my share of blame for that. I do not think Senator Glenn was fully aware of all of the work that went into preparing our first subpoena list. But on the other hand, I did nothing personally to make him aware of that. I was depending on a lot of staff work. But what happened was that we came forth with several subpoenas that some people categorized as Republican subpoenas on Democrats and only a couple of Democrat subpoenas on Republicans. I did not look at it that way. They were subpoenas which basically ultimately Senator Glenn, I do not think, really had any problem with. I thought they were more or less basic documents that we could get into business with. But it is a delicate matter. It is a very powerful tool and can be a powerful weapon in the wrong hands. I appreciate that. We need to make sure that we work a little closer together as we prepare these subpoena lists because there is nothing--if you want to divide up into sides-- there is nothing that one side cannot do to the other side. You might not have the ultimate authority to get the subpoenas out, but you can obstruct and do other things that Senator Glenn knows better than anybody, the tools that a minority has to protect them. I know them, too. But we do not want to get bogged down into that. We want to try to get on past that, and I think we can. I think the Senator's suggestion has a lot of merit to it.

Mr. THOMPSON. There has been no agreement with regard to that, but I think that is a sound procedure. I have not revisited that in several years, as you might imagine. I do recall now that the Senator mentions it that that was the procedure during the Watergate committee hearings, and that gives the minority an opportunity to make their views known to the majority that they might not otherwise have. I tend to view that favorably. I would bring that to the attention of the committee, I say to the Senator. For myself, I would tend to view that favorably.

Mr. THOMPSON. In response, I think that would be one of the circumstances that might lead us to ask for an extension of time. It would depend, I think, on the totality of the circumstances. We would need to feel that we really needed the additional information that was important to our investigation. With that being the case, that would be one of those circumstances. I might add, the Senator makes a very good and valid point, and one that I raised in January on this floor. It is one that I raised in the Governmental Affairs Committee when we were discussing scope and duration. I also raised it in the Rules Committee the other day. The Senator points out the fact that a good defense can sometimes take you past any cutoff date that you might establish out there as a target. I do not know if the Senator will ask about other circumstances, but I can certainly think of a couple of other circumstances that would cause the same problem. The White House, for example, in times past, has taken positions with regard to questions of executive privilege that were not valid. If you want the documents or the testimony, usually documents, then you have to go through a process, and you have to wind up in court, if you think the documents are important. So that is another situation where it would certainly be appropriate, if you needed that information, to come back before the Senate and ask for an extension of time. Third, and most obvious circumstance, would be simply where you run into additional leads that are material and substantial and that you need to follow up on to make a credible and complete report back to the U.S. Senate. All along the way, I have pointed out this problem, as has the Senator from Pennsylvania. What we have reached here today on that issue is a bit troubling to me, quite frankly. I have tried to point out that, although we have a so-called cutoff date of December 31, we have said that when those circumstances arise--the three we have discussed here--or any other circumstances arise where we have just cause to come back, that we will be back. I have been assured by Members of both parties, and the Governmental Affairs Committee and the Rules Committee, that they would be right there with us in attempting to get an extension under those circumstances.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will yield back the balance of my time, also.

Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from Ohio need additional time?

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes, I also agree with this interpretation by the ranking member of the Government Affairs Committee.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I think that we have made substantial progress. In fact, I think remarkable progress. I cannot express the extent of my delight in the cooperation we have seen here in the last few hours in the U.S. Senate. The minority leader is absolutely correct in that we have tended to get off track and we have done a little too much disagreeing and not enough coming together. What we have done now is, really, I think for the first time, focused on some of these issues. I think that many of our Members have not had the opportunity to really focus on the legal and procedural issues and what some of these things will mean to us as we go down the road in trying to conduct an investigation. I think Members on both sides, when you come right down to it, and they stop and think about it and focus on these issues, really have a whole lot more in agreement than in disagreement. I think we all want to see this investigation done in a fair manner, in a thorough manner, and as expeditiously as possible. That is what we tried to set out in January when I took the floor and tried to set out what I thought should be the scope of the investigation and where I thought we were going and how we were going to do it. We have not always, every day, been able to adhere to that. Today, I think that we really are back on track again. I want to compliment the majority leader. There have been strong feelings on all sides of these issues, a lot of misunderstandings, and a lack of focus in terms of really what was involved and at stake here. He has brought us all together, I think, and required us to do that, along with the minority leader. The two of them working together, with Senator Glenn and others, has resulted in something that I think is very, very good today. The Governmental Affairs Committee, on the scope issue, came with what we felt was a good, broad scope of things we should look at. The Rules Committee came back with what many felt was too narrow a scope. And now we are somewhere in the middle of that, with the ability to look at not only illegal activities, but improper activities. That is where we ought to be, there is no question about that. It's not that we gain so much by having it in our mandate, it is what we lose if we don't have it in our mandate. We could not be in a position of not looking at improper activities, and Members on both sides came to that conclusion once they focused in on it. We have had a good debate. I watched most of the debate yesterday that we had. Members were heard on both sides. Many of the Republican Members pointed out the serious accusations and reports that are out there--some of the most grievous things that this country has seen, if they prove to be true, having to do with foreign influence in our country and what they were trying to obtain with regard to foreign contributions and things of that nature. Of course, they were right in that. Other Members, from the Democratic side, pointed out the fact that we needed to make sure that our scope was not so narrow as to look like we were either trying to protect ourselves or trying to keep from looking at things that might prove embarrassing to one side or another. They were correct, also. What today represents is a coming together of both of those approaches that we saw in the debate yesterday. The scope we have now of looking at illegal and improper activities is in the tradition of the Governmental Affairs Committee. As Senator Glenn pointed out yesterday, this is the McClellan committee, the Kefauver committee, the Truman committee; this is the primary investigative committee of this body. So, therefore, it's certainly now more in the traditional range of what the jurisdiction and scope of Governmental Affairs' activity has been in times past. Does it mean that we have solved all of our problems? Certainly not. We are going to have to be judges. The committee is going to have to make determinations right along as to what is illegal or improper allegations that might lead to illegalities, or might lead to evidence of improprieties, or what is the threshold. Is there a credible report, or is there credible evidence that there might be illegalities? Or are they illegalities or improprieties? Those are things that people, in good faith, can have different views of. I am convinced that we, as a committee, as we consider these matters, will come to the right conclusion. Whether it is merely illegalities, as the jurisdiction was before this compromise, or whether its illegalities and improprieties, as it is now, we are in the same position that we were in and Senator Inouye was in during the Watergate investigation. Determinations had to be made at that time as to what was allegedly illegal or improper. So we are really in no different position, in terms of that, than we have been in in times past. It will not always be pleasant for the members of the committee to have to make these determinations. But that is a part of our job, and we can do that job. I think now, with this broader scope, it makes it more clear in some areas that things can be appropriately looked at and looked into, which perhaps were murky before we reached this agreement. I do not think that it is wise for me or anyone else to prejudge an individual, or an activity, or anything of that nature before you know what the facts are. But I think it's fair to say that some of these activities that we have heard about are more clear now in terms of whether or not we have the jurisdiction to look at them. Some of them are still not clear. We will just have to sit down again, in good faith, and work out with each other what activities merit our attention, what activities merit our investigation. I should say that not everyone who receives a subpoena, for example, or not everyone who is asked to appear as a witness is being accused of an illegality or an impropriety. Sometimes people have evidence of illegalities or improprieties, or information that could be helpful, and they themselves have no problems at all. So that issue has been raised in some form, and I think we need to put people's minds at ease about that. I think it is also clear that--as I have said many times before--we will have to set priorities. I do not think we ought to say that anything in terms of illegal or improper is off the table. It is all there for us to look at. You can have what some people might refer to as a minor illegality or technicality on a very serious impropriety, and you would have to take that into consideration. But I think it is fair to say that we should look at the more serious matters first. What are the more serious matters? We will have to make those determinations. In my own estimation, certainly matters that have to do with national security, matters that have to do with the security of this country, clearly illegal matters that we would not have any good- faith disagreement on, matters that are clearly illegal, matters of that category would certainly have to be at the top of the list, not only because of obvious reasons, but because of very practical reasons, and that is that people in a clearly criminal category tend to be the ones who leave the country, the ones who make determinations to take the fifth amendment, the ones to get together with other people in that category and reach agreements of silence, and things of that nature. They tend to be the ones to destroy documents that might incriminate them. We have had some evidence of that. It has been in the public domain. So by their very nature they have to be ranked pretty high. So we will have to constantly prioritize. That does not mean we have to wait months and months to get into some matters that do not fit into that category I have just mentioned. It just means we operate in good faith, with common sense, prioritize, keep our eyes on the ball, make sure that we as Republicans are mindful that procedural safeguards have to be instituted. It is important not only that we be fair, but that we perceive to be fair, as we proceed. It's important that the Democrats understand that we in the majority always have the responsibility of carrying the ball forward and pushing it forward and getting into these serious matters that affect all of us as citizens, whether we are Democrats or Republicans. There is no reason we can't do that, Mr. President. I think this is an opportunity here to start a new day. I know that in the little battles we have had back and forth here on these issues, some procedural issues and subpoenas, and so forth, that if I had decisions to make over again, I would make them in a different way than I have in times past. I have tried to adhere to what I said from the first day, and that is to walk that tightrope between toughness and thoroughness on the one hand, and fairness and bipartisanship on the other. That is not always an easy tightrope to walk. I haven't always walked it as well as I would liked to have walked it, but I am committed to starting forward from today and making sure that we get back on track. The Watergate committee was mentioned several times in the last couple days, and I was just thinking about the fact that the Watergate committee, I believe, was created by a vote of this body 99 to nothing, the creation of the committee. I do not believe, in its entire existence, and it was about a year and a half--I am not sure what the official time was, but it took about a year and a half for the report to be filed--that there was ever any battle over jurisdiction; there was never any partisan fight over money; there was never any fight over scope; and there was never any fight over duration because they worked together through those tough problems. There is no reason why we cannot do that either. There is no reason why we cannot do the same thing either, because at the end of the day, if we have conducted ourselves well, gone through these tough times, had our disagreements--and we will have our disagreements, but if we have done it in a fair way and everybody has tried to do their best and is willing to go forward with an investigation that a lot of people are not going to like, at the end of the day these procedural matters and these fights that we have, skirmishes that we have had are not going to mean very much. Where we come out on these things that we are resolving today is not going to mean very much if we do the right thing and have a good investigation, a good set of hearings promptly and make a report back to the American people as to what we found. So, again, I want to commend the majority leader especially and also the minority leader, Senator Glenn, and others who have worked this scope problem out. I think we can go forward now. That has been my primary concern here for the last several days. There were some times there when I wondered if it was going to go forward. But I believe that our better selves were shown today, and we refocused on this matter. And hopefully now we are back on the right road. I understand that my colleagues will have some questions concerning my own views on some of what we have done, and I stand ready to respond to any questions my colleagues might have. I yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. GLENN addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I yield myself 15 minutes.

Mr. THOMPSON. The Senator is welcome to use either 10.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, our generation inherited the freest, strongest, most prosperous country in the history of civilization. Within one generation, we are changing that. When historians look back and ask the question, ``When did the decline of the United States begin,'' they will point to our generation, because we are the first generation to spend the fortune of our grandchildren and great- grandchildren. But we are told that we don't need to worry about it because we are in the process of balancing the budget, as evidenced by the President's latest so-called ``balanced budget.'' But when the analysis comes out, we see that we are looking at another $69 billion in deficit, and this so-called ``balanced budget'' is supposed to make all the cuts. But 98 percent of the cuts are in the last 2 years--after the President leaves office. We know that this is a sham. We know that even if, for a nanosecond, we did balance the budget in the year 2002, it would not account for the baby boomers who are going to be retiring in 2010. Can't we look forward for our Nation's future? I support the balanced budget amendment and urge immediate passage.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Utah for his strong leadership on this issue. It is not easy carrying the ball for so long and so well. He has done such an admirable job of that. I am sure our colleagues on both sides of the aisle admire him for what he has done. I want to talk for a few minutes on the broader question of the need for the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. It seems to me that among all of the things we address in this body, there are some basic considerations that should underlie it all, and we should focus from time to time on what we really should be about, what we should do as those who govern. I think it comes down to two basic categories, that is, trying to institute policies that make for the long-term strength of this country, and to try to do things that will encourage people to have more confidence and faith in their system of government. I believe those are the two basic things we ought always keep in mind as we go about our structured existence around here, the hurly-burly that we all have to contend with in passing thousands of pieces of legislation. Does it contribute to the long-term strength and viability of this country and does it contribute to people's confidence in their form of Government. I feel that is what we are dealing with here. I feel that every once in a while something comes up that really is important with regard to one or the other of those considerations, and I think the constitutional amendment to balance the budget has to do with both of those considerations, because I fear for the economic future of this country if we do not pass such an amendment. I feel that when the results of our economic policies today are felt a little bit further down the road and we see that once again the so- called balanced budget agreements that we may reach around here do not, in fact, balance the budget, we are going to increase the cynicism that the American people already have toward this Government. That is why I think a constitutional amendment to balance the budget is so important. There has been a lot of discussion as to whether or not there really is a need. I think most all of us take seriously the proposition of amending the Constitution, even though our forefathers certainly contemplated it. Thomas Jefferson is often quoted. Certainly they felt that from time to time we need to reexamine our basic institutions and not be afraid after due deliberation to make changes that in the course of history are proven necessary to improve our system of government. But it is not something to be taken lightly, and I do not think any of us do take it lightly. It is clear that from time to time we must sit down and see whether or not we are functioning as we should, whether we are getting the job done for this country and, if not, what should we do about it. We can go down the same old road or we can try to do something about it. This constitutional amendment constitutes doing something about it because it is clear that we will go down in history under present circumstances as the first generation to leave their children in worse shape than they found their country when they took positions of leadership. It is true, without question, that we are leaving the next generation with astronomical tax rates to face, astronomical interest rates to face, a slower economy. We certainly are on the road, the path that most and great civilizations have followed through history. Some historians say you can calculate it almost to the year. Some say they survive for 250 years. A case can be made that we are on the downside of that mountain, that we are certainly going in the same direction of other great powers--the Turks or Ottoman Empire or Spanish Empire, ones that ruled the world once upon a time but proved they could slide off into second-rate powers and nations that were much less than what they aspired to be or were in prior times. A good case can be made that we are on track for that. We know, our own entitlement commission tells us that by the year 2012 we will be paying out all of the tax collections we receive in entitlement and interest rates and have nothing for national defense, have nothing for infrastructure, have nothing for education. That is the road we are going down. Some say, no, we are making progress; all we need to do is get about the business of balancing the budget, that we are really making progress. If history is to be any indication of that, though, I hope that plea falls on deaf ears, as it should. The President's budget is used as an example of the fact that we are making progress, we might even have a so-called balanced budget amendment agreement. However, upon examination, we see readily that the President's budget or anything that might come from the President's budget that we might agree to is not going to solve the problem. It will not balance the budget. It adds over $1 trillion to the debt. It is based on assumptions that in all likelihood will not play out. It is based on assumptions having to do with current economic expansion which is now in the sixth year, making it the third longest on record. The likelihood is that will not continue indefinitely. It is based upon high projections of corporate profits that the CBO says are unrealistic. It is based upon the proposition that we will continue to have medical savings, and many, many experts, including the Budget Committee, think we have got most of those savings on the front end, that they will not be occurring year after year after year, and that will impact our tax revenues. The President's budget is based upon extremely optimistic projections for long-term interest rates. And last but not least, of course, three- quarters of the cuts in the President's budget come after the President is no longer in office, the last 2 years. In other words, it is based on the proposition that a future Congress will have more courage than this one does and we will be making cuts in discretionary programs, things that most all of us agree we need to be more attentive to, things like infrastructure and research and development and things of that nature that provide for the long-term viability of this Nation. But the proposition is that we will continue to squeeze that 17 percent of nonentitlement, nondefense, noninterest portion of the budget, that narrow 17 percent, for those infrastructure items and parks and that sort of thing, and get astronomical savings from cutting those areas in the last 2 years. We know that will not happen. We know that will never take place. So that is why David Broder referred to the budget as one of ``no hard choices.'' But, as we know, the time is past for no hard choices. We cannot get by with that any longer. We cannot get by with that indefinitely. Last Saturday I was watching on television, on C-SPAN, a former colleague of ours, Senator Packwood. He was speaking to a group out in Oregon about things that he knows a lot about, about our tax structure, about budgetary matters. As chairman of the Finance Committee, of course, he was deeply involved in those matters. He had some charts. I called and asked for those tables with regard to percentages of taxing and spending as a percentage of gross domestic product with regard to this country and other countries. There are some very interesting things in there in terms of where we are today and where we are likely to be tomorrow. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that those tables be printed in the Record.