Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Our Founding Fathers knew historically governments like to pass laws abridging freedom of speech. They knew historically that governments like to pass laws or carry out activities that constitute illegal searches and seizures, and that is why we came up with the fourth amendment. Governments historically like to do things that we decided a long time ago that we don't want them to do. What has history shown with regard to our ability to pass a balanced budget, or our ability to restrain spending? If we have any track record at all, it is one that is clear as can possibly be and that is we do not have that ability, we do not have that will in order to do that. Interestingly and parenthetically, after it was over with, in Q and A, Senator Packwood was asked, ``Senator Packwood, where do we get that will?" He thought for a minute and said, ``I am reluctantly coming to the conclusion that the only thing that will cause it will be term limits.'' But that is a debate for another day. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional service to 6 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. This proposal is identical to the one introduced in the 104th Congress. On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the term limits that 23 different States had imposed on congressional service. The Court further declared that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to enact term limits by statute. Therefore, enacting this reform, which polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of the American people support, will require passing a constitutional amendment. Although this proposal is not about denigrating the institution of Congress or those who have ably served lengthy tenures, public confidence in elected officials does remain abysmally low. Given the many scandals involving public officials, the myriad of negative campaign commercials, and the inability of Congress to solve major national problems like the budget deficit, I can hardly blame the American people for being cynical. Nothing could be farther from the basic tenets of democracy than a professional ruling class, yet despite the supposedly high turnover in the last three congressional elections, that is essentially what Congress has become. Each of the last three Congresses has had unusually large freshman classes, but the percentage of those returned to Congress still exceeds the typical return rate prior to 1941. I acknowledge that altering the way we elect Members of Congress is a task not to be undertaken lightly, and people are justified in asking, what has changed since the ratification of the Constitution that necessitates this proposal? To them, I answer simply: The trend toward careerism in Congress. Although the system has worked relatively well for 200 years, the Founding Fathers viewed service in Congress not as a permanent career but as an interruption to a career. For the first 150 years of the Republic, in keeping with this notion, those who served in public office typically stepped down after only a few years. While incumbents were still almost always re-elected when they chose to run, a turnover rate of 50 percent every 2 years in the House was common throughout the 19th century. In fact, only 24 percent of the Members of the House in 1841 were sworn in again 2 years later. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms as President because he understood the value of returning to private life and giving someone else the chance to serve. Over the last few decades, however, Members of Congress have become much less likely to step down voluntarily, so the average length of service in Congress has steadily increased. Because of this trend toward careerism, Congress now more closely resembles a professional ruling class than the citizen legislature our Founding Fathers envisioned. This is significant because a Congress full of career legislators behaves differently than a citizen legislature. Over time, after years of inside-the-beltway thinking, elected officials tend to lose touch with the long-term best interests of the Nation. Instead, they become slaves to short-term public opinion in their never-ending quest for re- election. Last year's Medicare debate is a good example of how constant elections, and the lure of short-term political advantage, make it harder to make the tough decisions. The constant flow of pork-barrel projects back home, the practice of effectively buying our constituents' votes with funds from the U.S. Treasury, is another example of how what may be beneficial to politicians at the next election is not necessarily in the best interests of the Nation. When Congress is not a career for its Members, their career will not be on the line every time they cast a vote, so I believe that term limits would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough challenges that lie ahead. To act in the long-term national interest, elected officials also need to live under the laws they pass, which is why we enacted the Congressional Accountability Act in the last Congress. Similarly, it is important that elected officials return home after their term expires and live with the consequences of the decisions they made while in Congress. Just as the Congressional Accountability Act makes elected officials more cognizant of how laws affect average Americans in the long run, term limits, by requiring Members of Congress to return to private life, would encourage Members to consider the long-term effects of their decisions instead of just the short-term political consequences. Moreover, little doubt exists that power exercises a gradual, corruptive influence over those who have it. The Founding Fathers recognized this and used a system of checks and balances to limit the power of any one individual. When elected officials are up here for decades at a time, their accumulating power and growing disregard for the national interest often cause them to become arrogant in office. Term limits, by further dispersing power among more individuals, I believe, would lead to a more honest breed of politicians. Term limits will also make elections more competitive which will, in turn, lead to better representation. One only needs to look at the 1996 elections to see that most competitive elections are for open seats. Twelve-year limits on Senate service would guarantee every State an open-seat election at least once every 12 years unless a challenger dislodges an incumbent. Furthermore, term-limited officeholders will be more likely to seek a higher office. A Member of the House who is term limited will be more likely to run for the Senate than a Congressman who is not term limited and can easily win re-election to the House for many years to come. A term-limited Senator will be more likely to run for Governor or another office instead of seeking easy re-election to the Senate. Opponents of term limits make many arguments against the proposal, confident that they know better than more than 70 percent of the American people. Perhaps the most prevalent argument against term limits is that Congress will lose many good people. While this is true, as I have already pointed out, we will be gaining many good people as well. More to the point though, we should not be so arrogant as to think that we are the only ones who can do this job. I do not believe that the 535 people who currently serve in Congress are the only 535 people out there who can do the job. Two hundred years ago, people wondered how the Nation could ever survive without the leadership of George Washington, but President Washington knew that the system was stronger than any one man, and that many people were fit to be President. Not only do I think that many people besides us can do the job, but the argument that only the 535 currently serving in Congress possess the ability to solve the Nation's problems assumes that we are doing a good job now. A $5 trillion debt, Medicare and Social Security on unsustainable courses, an out-of-control campaign finance system, and unacceptably high levels of crime make this assumption dubious. A corollary of this argument is that term limits will result in Congress having little institutional memory. However, if the legislative process and the bills that come out of this place are so complicated as to require more than 12 years of experience to understand, then Congress is doing too much. The average citizen, with the additional focus of full-time attention to the issues with which Congress concerns itself, should be more than capable of doing the job. The other main argument against term limits is that we already have term limits in the form of elections. However, this reasoning has two problems. First, incumbents enjoy a tremendous advantage in elections. The ability to raise money, greater name recognition, a staff already in place, constituent service, and simple voter inertia help incumbents win their races more than 90 percent of the time. Second, the American people, just as they have a right to elect their representatives in Congress, have every right to place qualifications on whom they may elect. Opponents of term limits say that the voters ought to be able to elect whomever they want, but when the American people ratified the Constitution, they agreed not to elect anyone to the Senate who is younger than 30 years of age or not a resident of the State he or she seeks to represent. If the voters choose, and more than 70 percent of them do, they can also declare that people who have already served 12 years in the Senate may not be elected to the Senate again. It is my hope that we will move quickly to debate this measure. Perhaps no other proposal as popular with the American people has received so little attention from Congress. In fact, Congress has been so reticent with respect to this issue that some term-limits advocates are now asking the States to call a constitutional convention. The debate in the last Congress was the first serious discussion of this issue in Congress in the history of the Nation. Speaker Gingrich has already said that term limits will be the first item of business this year in the other body. Finally, other tough decisions are imminent including balancing the budget, saving Medicare, and putting Social Security on a permanently sustainable course. The single most important thing we can do to cultivate an environment where Congress can effectively address these long-term problems is to enact term limits immediately. Therefore, I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today, I am introducing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional service to 6 years in the House and 12 years in the Senate. This proposal is identical to the one introduced in the 104th Congress. On May 22, 1995, the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the term limits that 23 different States had imposed on congressional service. The Court further declared that Congress lacks the constitutional authority to enact term limits by statute. Therefore, enacting this reform, which polls consistently show that more than 70 percent of the American people support, will require passing a constitutional amendment. Although this proposal is not about denigrating the institution of Congress or those who have ably served lengthy tenures, public confidence in elected officials does remain abysmally low. Given the many scandals involving public officials, the myriad of negative campaign commercials, and the inability of Congress to solve major national problems like the budget deficit, I can hardly blame the American people for being cynical. Nothing could be farther from the basic tenets of democracy than a professional ruling class, yet despite the supposedly high turnover in the last three congressional elections, that is essentially what Congress has become. Each of the last three Congresses has had unusually large freshman classes, but the percentage of those returned to Congress still exceeds the typical return rate prior to 1941. I acknowledge that altering the way we elect Members of Congress is a task not to be undertaken lightly, and people are justified in asking, what has changed since the ratification of the Constitution that necessitates this proposal? To them, I answer simply: The trend toward careerism in Congress. Although the system has worked relatively well for 200 years, the Founding Fathers viewed service in Congress not as a permanent career but as an interruption to a career. For the first 150 years of the Republic, in keeping with this notion, those who served in public office typically stepped down after only a few years. While incumbents were still almost always re-elected when they chose to run, a turnover rate of 50 percent every 2 years in the House was common throughout the 19th century. In fact, only 24 percent of the Members of the House in 1841 were sworn in again 2 years later. George Washington voluntarily stepped down after two terms as President because he understood the value of returning to private life and giving someone else the chance to serve. Over the last few decades, however, Members of Congress have become much less likely to step down voluntarily, so the average length of service in Congress has steadily increased. Because of this trend toward careerism, Congress now more closely resembles a professional ruling class than the citizen legislature our Founding Fathers envisioned. This is significant because a Congress full of career legislators behaves differently than a citizen legislature. Over time, after years of inside-the-beltway thinking, elected officials tend to lose touch with the long-term best interests of the Nation. Instead, they become slaves to short-term public opinion in their never-ending quest for re- election. Last year's Medicare debate is a good example of how constant elections, and the lure of short-term political advantage, make it harder to make the tough decisions. The constant flow of pork-barrel projects back home, the practice of effectively buying our constituents' votes with funds from the U.S. Treasury, is another example of how what may be beneficial to politicians at the next election is not necessarily in the best interests of the Nation. When Congress is not a career for its Members, their career will not be on the line every time they cast a vote, so I believe that term limits would more likely produce individuals who would take on the tough challenges that lie ahead. To act in the long-term national interest, elected officials also need to live under the laws they pass, which is why we enacted the Congressional Accountability Act in the last Congress. Similarly, it is important that elected officials return home after their term expires and live with the consequences of the decisions they made while in Congress. Just as the Congressional Accountability Act makes elected officials more cognizant of how laws affect average Americans in the long run, term limits, by requiring Members of Congress to return to private life, would encourage Members to consider the long-term effects of their decisions instead of just the short-term political consequences. Moreover, little doubt exists that power exercises a gradual, corruptive influence over those who have it. The Founding Fathers recognized this and used a system of checks and balances to limit the power of any one individual. When elected officials are up here for decades at a time, their accumulating power and growing disregard for the national interest often cause them to become arrogant in office. Term limits, by further dispersing power among more individuals, I believe, would lead to a more honest breed of politicians. Term limits will also make elections more competitive which will, in turn, lead to better representation. One only needs to look at the 1996 elections to see that most competitive elections are for open seats. Twelve-year limits on Senate service would guarantee every State an open-seat election at least once every 12 years unless a challenger dislodges an incumbent. Furthermore, term-limited officeholders will be more likely to seek a higher office. A Member of the House who is term limited will be more likely to run for the Senate than a Congressman who is not term limited and can easily win re-election to the House for many years to come. A term-limited Senator will be more likely to run for Governor or another office instead of seeking easy re-election to the Senate. Opponents of term limits make many arguments against the proposal, confident that they know better than more than 70 percent of the American people. Perhaps the most prevalent argument against term limits is that Congress will lose many good people. While this is true, as I have already pointed out, we will be gaining many good people as well. More to the point though, we should not be so arrogant as to think that we are the only ones who can do this job. I do not believe that the 535 people who currently serve in Congress are the only 535 people out there who can do the job. Two hundred years ago, people wondered how the Nation could ever survive without the leadership of George Washington, but President Washington knew that the system was stronger than any one man, and that many people were fit to be President. Not only do I think that many people besides us can do the job, but the argument that only the 535 currently serving in Congress possess the ability to solve the Nation's problems assumes that we are doing a good job now. A $5 trillion debt, Medicare and Social Security on unsustainable courses, an out-of-control campaign finance system, and unacceptably high levels of crime make this assumption dubious. A corollary of this argument is that term limits will result in Congress having little institutional memory. However, if the legislative process and the bills that come out of this place are so complicated as to require more than 12 years of experience to understand, then Congress is doing too much. The average citizen, with the additional focus of full-time attention to the issues with which Congress concerns itself, should be more than capable of doing the job. The other main argument against term limits is that we already have term limits in the form of elections. However, this reasoning has two problems. First, incumbents enjoy a tremendous advantage in elections. The ability to raise money, greater name recognition, a staff already in place, constituent service, and simple voter inertia help incumbents win their races more than 90 percent of the time. Second, the American people, just as they have a right to elect their representatives in Congress, have every right to place qualifications on whom they may elect. Opponents of term limits say that the voters ought to be able to elect whomever they want, but when the American people ratified the Constitution, they agreed not to elect anyone to the Senate who is younger than 30 years of age or not a resident of the State he or she seeks to represent. If the voters choose, and more than 70 percent of them do, they can also declare that people who have already served 12 years in the Senate may not be elected to the Senate again. It is my hope that we will move quickly to debate this measure. Perhaps no other proposal as popular with the American people has received so little attention from Congress. In fact, Congress has been so reticent with respect to this issue that some term-limits advocates are now asking the States to call a constitutional convention. The debate in the last Congress was the first serious discussion of this issue in Congress in the history of the Nation. Speaker Gingrich has already said that term limits will be the first item of business this year in the other body. Finally, other tough decisions are imminent including balancing the budget, saving Medicare, and putting Social Security on a permanently sustainable course. The single most important thing we can do to cultivate an environment where Congress can effectively address these long-term problems is to enact term limits immediately. Therefore, I urge my colleagues' support.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today the U.S. General Accounting Office [GAO] issues its high risk series which identifies those federal programs that are especially vulnerable to waste and mismanagement. The programs identified in these reports have cost taxpayers billions of dollars in unnecessary expenditures. Without adequate oversight from the Congress many more billions will be wasted before we are through. While the magnitude of the problems GAO has identified is shocking, I am optimistic that we have in place the tools to change Government for the better--but we must be willing to use them. There is a tendency when we are debating how to balance the budget or when the crisis de jour erupts, for Government to ignore management issues--those which to some are tedious, time-consuming and best left to the bean-counters. While management issues sometimes tend to get swept under the carpet during high-minded policy debates, we ignore them at our peril. We cannot implement any of our policy solutions without effective public administration. In an era of static resources, if we are to balance the budget, replace aging weapon systems at the Department of Defense [DOD], or attack drug abuse, we must achieve significant savings. To find the money, we have to make Government better while cheaper and, to do that, we have to do things smarter. GAO identifies 25 areas that we must focus on to avoid squandering billions of taxpayer dollars. For example, GAO reports that DOD wastes billions of dollars each year on unneeded and inefficient activities, is vulnerable to additional billions of dollars in waste by buying unnecessary supplies and risks overpaying contractors millions of dollars for services not rendered. It reports that the Internal Revenue Service's accounting is so poor that it cannot effectively manage the collection of the over $113 billion owed the U.S. Government in delinquent taxes. In addition, GAO again criticizes the management of the IRS' computer modernization effort. Just last week, certain IRS officials conceded that this ``modernization'' has already cost the taxpayers $4 billion and ``does not work in the real world''. IRS is not the only Federal agency having a problem coming to grips with the electronic age. Over the last 6 years, the Federal Government has spent $145 billion on computers but continues to have, according to GAO, ``chronic problems harnessing the full potential of information technology to improve performance, cut costs, and/or enhance responsiveness to the public.'' The security of sensitive data on Government computers and how well the Government converts its old computers to run in the 2000 were also identified by GAO as areas that posed a risk to the Treasury. Billions of dollars in waste, fraud, and abuse occur in Federal benefit programs. GAO reports, in the supplemental security income program alone, taxpayers are losing over $1 billion a year in overpayments. The $197 billion Medicare Program, according to GAO ``loses significant amounts due to persistent fraudulent and wasteful claims and abusive billings.'' The risk of losses from the $941 billion Federal loan portfolio is another source of taxpayer vulnerability. Currently, the Government has $44 billion of defaulted guaranteed loans on its books and has written off many billions more over the last few years. According to GAO, three loan programs (student, farm, and housing) are especially vulnerable due to poor agency management. GAO also calls for improving Federal contract management at several agencies that spend tens of billions of dollars each year on contractor support. Finally, the 2000 census was placed on the high risk list. The census has tremendous implications in the allocation of billions of dollars in Federal funding and for the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives. However, GAO was not all doom and gloom acknowledging that, ``after decades of seeing high risk problems and management weaknesses recur in agency after agency,'' Congress has moved to enact several Government- wide reforms to address the situation. GAO mentions five such laws as key to improving operations in the Federal Government: The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act information management and procurement reforms of 1996. These laws are designed to get the Federal Government to operate in a sound, businesslike manner. It is up to Congress and the administration to ensure that these management reforms are implemented to improve Government performance and results. I want to work with the administration and my colleagues in Congress to improve the Government's operations. As part of this process, I plan to invite before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee the Director of OMB to address the problems identified by GAO. We have the legislative framework in place to eradicate these programs from GAO's high risk list. What we need is the vision and fortitude to implement these bipartisan management reforms and achieve a lasting solution to the management problems that torment the pocketbook of our citizens.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Domenici as a cosponsor of this important legislation. I supported a similar measure in the 104th Congress and held a hearing last year in the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The issue has been debated over a number of years without success. However, the 105th Congress presents a new opportunity. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I pledge my support in moving this measure to the full Senate. The bill being introduced today has the fundamental goal of moving both the budget and appropriations process to a 2-year cycle--just once at the beginning of each Congress. In addition, it will link program results obtained under the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] to the budget process. Congressional committees will be required to review the GPRA reports and provide views and comments in conjunction with their comments on the budget. Biennial budgeting would provide more time for Congress to conduct greater oversight and indepth evaluations of existing programs. We need to take more time to find out what is working and what is not. Congress should not just rely on good intentions when it passes new measures. We must ensure that the laws we write do provide the benefits and services as envisioned. The current budget process leaves us with far too little time to devote to thoughtful and systematic oversight of Federal programs, and far too little time to develop and consider long-term policy initiatives. Another important reason I support 2-year budgeting, in addition to enhanced oversight, I believe the bill would provide Members of Congress with more time to spend with the people they represent, receiving their views and insights on Government programs, services, and pending legislation. Freedom from dealing with the budget on an annual basis has the ability to move us closer to a citizen legislature as envisioned by the Founding Fathers. We have no greater responsibility than representing the people of our State. To do so, we need to spend time at home. On the issue biennial budgeting, once again the States are leading the way, with more than 20 States currently using some form of it. I firmly believe it is time for Washington to recognize the value in this and enact this bill promptly. I support the Biennial Appropriations and Budget Act of 1997, and encourage all my colleagues to do the same. It is an idea whose time has come.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to address some vital management issues at the Department of Commerce and urge Secretary-designate Daley to make use of the management tools Congress has provided to obtain better results for the taxpayers' investment. The Department of Commerce must tackle some endemic management problems before it can successfully carry out its mission of promoting the Nation's international trade, economic growth, and technological advancement. The main problem with the Department of Commerce may be in the breadth of its mission. Commerce's writ runs from promoting American competitiveness in the global marketplace to providing the weather data we see on the news each night. The Department, which employs 35,000 people and spends $3.5 billion of taxpayer dollars is, in reality, a loose collection of more than 100 programs. In the last Congress, many questioned the value added of this departmental bureaucracy. This culminated in action by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee to report out a bill that would have abolished the Department, as such, and reassigned many of its functions. Clearly, the Department's new leadership will have a task ahead of it to ensure that its many bureaus and offices are efficiently run and are effectively serving the taxpayers' interest. For example, the General Accounting Office [GAO] has identified the National Weather Service's modernization efforts as being a high risk area which is especially vulnerable to the problems of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. This year, planning for the decennial census is expected to be added to that list. In addition, auditors have found significant accounting problems at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I hope that the Department of Commerce will be able to improve its operations through effective implementation of recently enacted legislation. Congress has given the agencies like the Department of Commerce the tools to improve their management operations, most notably by passing the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] of 1993, and the information management and procurement reforms of the 104th Congress. These laws are designed to get the Federal Government to operate in a sound, businesslike manner and implementing these management reforms is a major responsibility for each department head. The Government Performance and Results Act, for example, can be an effective tool to make Government work better by measuring the success or failure of Government programs and using this information to support budget decisions. For example, GAO found that the Commerce Department shares its mission with at least 71 Federal departments, agencies, and offices. With this type of overlap and duplication, the Department needs to have a clear idea of its primary missions, otherwise it risks doing a lot of things poorly and nothing well at all. GPRA, by focusing on agency missions and results, will give Commerce, the Office of Management and Budget, and Congress the information necessary to consolidate and eliminate wasteful and redundant programs at the Department. I submitted to Secretary-designate Daley several questions regarding his views on implementing GPRA and improving Commerce's financial accountability and information resources management as part of his confirmation process. I look forward to receiving from him a firm commitment to use GPRA's strategic planning process, performance goals, and performance measures to radically transform his agency to better serve the taxpayers. There are many challenges ahead for Congress and Secretary-designate Daley as we address the problems at the Department of Commerce identified by GAO, the Department's inspector general and others. Certainly, the bipartisan management reforms we have enacted should be implemented to assist in that process. I am sure that together we can work to effectively implement sound management policies and practices and I look forward to achieving those objectives in the coming Congress.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I would like to use the opportunity, following Senate confirmation of Andrew Cuomo as the next Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, to address some vital management issues at the Department. The Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD], like many other federal agencies, is confronted by serious management problems that impede its ability to carry out its mission. HUD, which Secretary-designate Cuomo will head, has a diverse group of activities under its purview. HUD manages an $885 billion loan portfolio and provides $25 billion in rental subsidies and over $5 billion annually in community development grants. As the principal agency concerned with the Nation's housing needs and redeveloping our decaying cities, HUD has a monumental task on its hands and should be run as efficiently and effectively as a Fortune 500 company. Unfortunately, this has not been the case in the past. Historically, HUD has had a rocky track record. Departmentwide management deficiencies were a major factor leading to the 1989 HUD scandals. In 1994, the General Accounting Office placed the entire department on its high risk list, designating HUD as ``especially vulnerable to waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.'' I understand that this year GAO will continue to keep HUD on its high risk list, believing that the deficiencies hampering HUD's leadership in effectively managing the agency have yet to be resolved. Congress has given agencies like HUD the tools to improve their management operations, most notably by passing legislation developed by the Governmental Affairs Committee such as the Chief Financial Officers [CFO] Act of 1990, the Government Performance and Results Act [GPRA] of 1993, and the procurement and information technology reforms of last Congress. These laws are designed to get the Federal Government to operate in a sound, businesslike manner and implementing these management reforms is a major responsibility for each department head. I urge Mr. Cuomo to devote as much of his time as necessary to use these laws to focus on getting results for the taxpayers who fund HUD and the many who depend on its programs. The Government Performance and Results Act, for example, can be an effective tool to make government work better by measuring the success or failure of government programs and using this information to support budget decisions. I am encouraged by Secretary-designate Cuomo's enthusiastic support of GPRA in his responses to my questions submitted during his confirmation process. This is because effective GPRA implementation is especially needed at HUD. HUD's programs and missions often overlap or are linked only tangentially to HUD's primary missions. The National Academy of Public Administration and HUD's inspector general [IG] have recommended eliminating, consolidating, or restructuring many of HUD's 240 programs and activities, 91 of which, the IG said, were questionably related to the department's primary mission. GPRA, by focusing on agency missions and results, will give HUD, the Office of Management and Budget and the Congress the information necessary to consolidate and eliminate these wasteful and redundant programs. Unfortunately, HUD has a long way to go toward effectively implementing GPRA. The HUD IG recently found that the department is just beginning to develop an agencywide strategic plan, the key underpinning and starting point for the process of goal-setting and performance measurements under GPRA. The IG report also indicated that HUD staff felt that the initial plans were developed only by a few of the Department's staff and did not involve input from a broad range of HUD offices. Given the need for broad acceptance of performance measures and established deadlines for implementing GPRA, I hope the new Secretary will take steps to ensure the integrity and successful implementation of GPRA at HUD. GPRA is dependent on sound financial management--something that HUD is lacking. One of the reasons for GAO's designation of HUD as a high- risk area is its poorly integrated, ineffective, and generally unreliable information and financial management systems. These systems do not meet program managers' needs and provide inadequate control over HUD's housing and community development programs. HUD must get better control over its finances and prepare timely financial statements as required by the CFO Act. Good financial data relies upon the development of effective computer systems and these systems are crucial to HUD's ability to meet its housing mission and business needs. In recent years, the Department has obligated over $170 million annually to activities related to information management. Yet HUD has had a poor history of managing its information resources, and as a result, is struggling with aging systems that do not adequately meet the agency's needs and are contributing causes of managerial inadequacies. In response to its problems, HUD has undergone dramatic structural changes. In September 1995, HUD completed a major field reorganization which was intended to eliminate previously confused lines of authority, enhance communications, reduce levels of review and approval, and improve customer service. In January 1996, HUD announced additional plans to reduce headquarters staff and further streamline its field organization by, among other things, closing up to 10 of HUD's 81 field offices by the end of fiscal year 1997. However, it is questionable whether these changes have turned the tide as GAO has found that the Department still has an ineffective organizational structure. The situation is not hopeless. HUD has made some progress in recent years addressing these Departmentwide management deficiencies, but success will require top-down management support. I hope Secretary- designate Cuomo will articulate a management vision that can improve operations at HUD and take measures required to take the agency off GAO's and Congress' high-risk list. I look forward to working with him to achieve those objectives in this Congress and to effectively implement the bipartisan management reforms passed by Congress in recent years.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, we introduced legislation earlier this week to establish a Corporate Subsidy Review, Reform, and Termination Commission. We know that many Americans believe that Government operates for the benefit of the few and the privileged. They believe the system does not operate fairly, and their lack of confidence in us affects our ability to enact the reforms and make the hard decisions which must be made if we are to get our country back on the right track again. Last Congress, we actively sought to reform many areas of Government spending--we reduced Government spending by $53 billion, reformed the welfare system, restructured farm supports, rewrote telecommunications law, reformed the Federal procurement system, and adopted major immigration reforms. We identified and reformed areas of Government spending which needed fundamental reform because they did not work as well as they should. As part of this process, a bipartisan group of Senators examined some programs whose primary beneficiaries are profit-making enterprises and proposed reforming 12 specific programs which are characterized by some element of corporate subsidization. We chose these examples to demonstrate that such programs exist in virtually every industry, from military construction, to energy production, to consumer product advertising. While all the sponsors were not uniformly enthusiastic about each of the 12 examples, we believed the package as a whole underscored an important point and demonstrated our willingness to examine Government spending in every area. This proposal was offered as an amendment to the reconciliation bill, and received the support of only one-fourth of the Senate. Clearly, this problem needed to be attacked in a different way. As a result, we introduced another bill last Congress which was reported favorably by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. It is that bill we introduced this week to create a Commission to fairly and independently review corporate subsidies and make recommendations to the President and the Congress for the retention, reform, or termination of such subsidies. Why establish a Commission and a new process to do what we could and should do directly? First, this Commission will do what we cannot do well: Make an overall informed assessment of all programs, on both the spending and revenue sides, at one time. Over the years, we have created an intricate, interwoven system of subsidies, taxes, and exemptions. For example, a Tennessee utility which would have been affected by the spending cuts we proposed last Congress pointed out to me that they in turn are competing against other energy providers who receive subsidies in the form of Federal tax exemptions. Second, our experience last Congress demonstrated that voting hit or miss on individual items is not going to be successful. One person's pork is another's prize. And no one wants to give up their prize program if there isn't shared sacrifice. With the commission approach, we will know that all programs have been examined and those which provide unjustified subsidies have been exposed. Third, the members of the Commission will be appointed specifically for this purpose by the President and the Congress. They will possess the expertise, authority and stature necessary to do the job. Fourth, the Commission's recommendations will not be buried in the corner of a Federal agency or a congressional committee. While the President and Congress will be able to propose amendments to or outright reject the Commission's recommendations, they must address them. S. 207 incorporates provisions to accommodate many of the concerns raised last Congress. This bill takes special note of the Federal Government's role in the area of international trade. In establishing the Commission's review of Federal subsidies, it is not our intent to unduly disadvantage U.S. business interests as they compete in the international marketplace. We recognize that foreign governments frequently subsidize business interests in their own countries. Eliminating a particular program or subsidy might make sense in a purely domestic context, but such action could place a U.S. company at a severe disadvantage when competing with a foreign company which has the benefit of a subsidy from its government. A U.S. Government subsidy may have been instituted in order to offset a similar subsidy to foreign competitors by foreign governments, with the intent of leveling the playing field for U.S. industry. To eliminate such a subsidy not only affects the direct U.S. business interests in global competition, but also reduces the leverage of the U.S. Government in trade negotiations. Having matched a foreign government subsidy, the U.S. Government may call for negotiations to end mutually the practice. We recognize the importance of those issues and have included provisions to address carefully the Federal Government's role in international trade. Mr. President, we must require no less of profit-making enterprises than we ask of all Americans. It is a matter of fairness and shared sacrifice. At a time when the national debate is focused on getting control of the budget, now and in the future, we cannot afford to provide inappropriate corporate subsidies which undermine our efforts and which distort the free market. Perhaps most importantly, enactment of this legislation will demonstrate that Congress and the executive branch are serious about addressing and correcting a system which the American public as a whole sees as benefiting the few with access and influence, rather than serving the general public good.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as everyone knows, the Governmental Affairs Committee has begun an investigation into foreign campaign contributions and fundraising activities of the 1996 Presidential campaign. I believe that it is appropriate at the outset to set forth exactly what we were about, to discuss the committee's jurisdiction, the scope of its investigation, its purpose, and what principles we will apply in resolving the issues that will face us. The reasons to discuss this now at this time are several. First, we who are on the committee and in the Congress need to remind ourselves of these basics so we may keep our focus in the days ahead. Second, the American people need to understand the nature and purpose of our work in order that they will respect the process and the results of our efforts. Third, it is necessary to respond to some of the questions in the media and elsewhere as to the committee's role and purpose. Mr. President, my own analysis of these issues is just that; it's my own analysis. It is certainly subject to other views by other people. However, I do believe that there are certain principles that apply to our endeavor that can be gleaned from the Constitution, from the rules of the U.S. Senate, from court interpretations and, hopefully, from common sense in applying the lessons learned from the successes and failures of other committee investigations. Mr. President, the granting of the legislative power to Congress in article I of the Constitution includes the power to investigate. As the Supreme Court held 70 years ago, ``A legislative body cannot legislate wisely or effectively in the absence of information respecting the conditions which the legislation is intended to affect or change; and where the legislative body does not possess the requisite information-- which not infrequently is true--recourse must be had to others who do possess it.'' So long as an investigation addresses issues that can be the subject of legislation, the investigation is constitutionally permissible. Some of the most important inquiries the Congress has conducted in the past two centuries have involved the role of money in politics and its effect on policy: the Credit Mobilier scandal of the 1870's; an investigation of corporate campaign contributions in the 1912 campaign, at which Theodore Roosevelt testified concerning his own campaign; and, of course, the investigation of the 1972 Presidential campaign. Congress' powers to investigate broadly encompasses all areas of the operation of the Federal Government, as well as flaws in the electoral system that makes the Government accountable to the American people. As Chief Justice Warren stated, the investigatory power ``encompasses inquiries concerning the administration of existing laws as well as proposed or possibly needed statutes. It includes surveys of defects in our social, economic, or political system for the purpose of enabling the Congress to remedy them. It comprehends probes into departments of the Federal Government to expose corruption, inefficiency, or waste.'' Indeed, President Woodrow Wilson wrote that, ``Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the facts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served. * * *'' Then he went on to say, ``The informing function of Congress should be preferred even to its legislative function. * * * The only really self-governing people is that people which discusses and interrogates its administration.'' Although every committee in this body exercises oversight jurisdiction, the full range of the Senate's informing functions is granted to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. Its jurisdiction includes the effectiveness of the operations of all branches of Government, including misfeasance, corruption, and conflicts of interest. It is broad enough to include Presidential campaigns and even congressional campaigns if they are relevant to and reflect upon the way our Government currently operates. No other committee has within its investigatory authority the entire range of the Governmental Affairs Committee's jurisdiction, which is as broad as the Constitution permits. The investigation we are now undertaking is neither a criminal investigation nor a seminar on campaign finance reform, although, it involves elements of both. Based on the information before us at this time, it is an inquiry into illegal or improper campaign finance activities in the 1996 Presidential campaign and related activities. This means, however, that any facts that may have occurred before the 1996 campaign that are relevant to or shed light upon that campaign or the operation of our Government may also be subject to our inquiry. Such a scope will necessarily involve examining our current campaign spending laws and how they operate. Now, certainly, our work will include any improper activities by Republicans, Democrats, or other political partisans. It is of extreme importance that our investigation and our hearings be perceived by the American people as being fair and evenhanded. This does not mean that we must strain to create some false balance or that we have some sort of party quota system. It simply means letting the chips fall where they may. We are investigating activities here, not political parties. While no one should be shut off for partisan advantage, we must have a sense of priorities based upon the seriousness of the activities or allegations that come to our attention. Otherwise, we will be at this much longer than anyone will want us to be. Neither I nor anyone else can determine at the outset all of the activities or areas that we will investigate. As matters arise, the committee will simply have to make those determinations. It should be pointed out that these questions are not under the exclusive province of the majority. I have the greatest respect for Senator John Glenn, the ranking Democrat on the Governmental Affairs Committee. His many years of service in this body have demonstrated beyond question his integrity and his love of his country. We are working together with our staffs to ensure that all information is equally available to appropriate staff members and committee members. We hope that in all cases the work of the committee can be done by the staff in a cooperative fashion. Consensus should emerge on which issues are the most serious and those matters which will receive the greatest consideration. But if legitimate disagreement arises as to priorities, the majority will in no way limit the minority's rights to investigate any and all parties within the jurisdiction of the committee. Moreover, the minority will be given the opportunity to call witnesses in for public hearings if we cannot agree upon a joint witness list. Although I believe these comments are sufficient to describe what the committee plans to examine, I expect to receive further inquiries. So I will outline the following as some specific areas we will consider, although this is obviously not an exclusive list: A. Whether the Presidential campaigns, national political parties, or others engaged in any illegal or improper campaign activities, or whether illegal campaign contributions were made to such entities, in connection with or relevant to the 1996 Presidential campaign. B. Whether, during the course of the 1996 Presidential campaign, executive branch employees maintained and observed legal barriers between fundraising and the official business of governing. C. Whether Presidential campaigns remained appropriately independent from the political activities pursued for their benefit by outside individuals or groups. D. Whether any U.S. policies or national security decisions were affected by, No. 1, contributions made to or for the benefit of the President or, No. 2, improper actions of any executive branch employee or former employee. E. Whether our existing campaign finance laws, including laws governing the disclosure of contributions to entities established for the benefit of public officials, should be substantially revised and, if so, in what manner. F. Whether, based on the results of this investigation, laws other than campaign finance laws, such as the laws regulating the conduct of Federal officials and employees, should be revised, and, if so, in what manner. The committee does not intend to examine specific allegations of wrongdoing that Congress has already previously considered. Now, a significant portion of our inquiry will necessarily focus on the executive branch. This is consistent with Congress' historical function and obligation to conduct oversight of the executive branch. It is a part of our system of checks and balances. It is, by its very nature, somewhat of an adversarial process. As Justice Jackson wrote, the Constitution ``enjoins upon its branches separateness but interdependence; autonomy but reciprocity. Presidential powers are not fixed but fluctuate, depending upon their disjunction or conjunction with those of Congress.'' Each branch of government has its rightful prerogatives, Mr. President. And just as Congress must understand its prerogatives and responsibilities in this process, so must the executive branch. And clearly, part of the executive branch's proper role is to protect the rightful prerogatives of the President and the Presidency, but also to provide prompt, truthful information when Congress requires it when it is needed to fulfill Congress' responsibilities. It is important that the executive branch refrain from claiming privileges that are inappropriate or simply do not exist. For example, executive privilege, though not specifically granted to the President in the Constitution, is an implied power that has been recognized by the courts over the years. Presidents are entitled to candid advice from their aides concerning important policy matters that would not be forthcoming if it were subject to exposure by Congress or anyone else. One the other hand, the privilege does not extend to wrongdoing and it does not extend to any and all information that may prove embarrassing to the President or others. Although it has not been court tested, Senator Sam Ervin, chairman of the Watergate Committee, always took the position that matters that were purely political were not covered by executive privilege when confronted with a legitimate congressional need. What the courts have held is that when it is based only on the broad claim of the public interest in confidentiality, executive privilege may be outweighed by other considerations. In other instances, claims of executive privilege are strongest when invoked in the areas of military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets. Presidents have handled the executive privilege issue with regard to congressional investigations in different ways. President Nixon fought his executive privilege claim all the way to the Supreme Court and lost. President Reagan during the Iran contra investigation waived all executive privilege and attorney client privilege claims that he may have had. Also, President Carter waived all privileges when the activities of his brother were investigated. As instructive examples of the cooperation of these two Presidents, they both allowed congressional examination of all documents, and President Reagan even provided his personal notes and diary entries. The President and others have correctly pointed out that the American people are tired of petty partisan bickering and the meanness that sometimes seem to pollute the atmosphere in Washington, DC. While this is undoubtedly accurate, I believe the American people also want us to stand for something, including the truth. That makes it our obligation to find it and lay it out. So the question becomes: Can we carry out our responsibilities and assist the American people in learning the truth about the strengths and weaknesses of the operation of their Government without engaging in mean spiritedness or partisan warfare? From time to time in our history, when the occasion required it, Members of this body have put partisanship aside, vocally criticized and even filed suit against an administration of their own party. Former Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee and former Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire come to mind. I have no doubt that my Democratic colleagues on the committee and in this body will do the same if the evidence calls for it. And I pledge my every effort to insure that their actions are not met with attempts to obtain partisan advantage. But let us be frank at the outset. The extent to which we can have a thorough, bipartisan investigation without many of the recriminations we have seen in the past is going to depend in large part upon the attitude of those in the White House and the executive branch. The same can be said of the length of our inquiry. If one looks solely to the past, there is little reason to be optimistic. We have seen what appears to be a grudging release of information in drips and drabs and, seemingly, only when forced to. We have seen the broadest claims of executive and attorney client privilege in our history. We have seen all manner of delaying tactics which congressional oversight committees claimed were intended to avoid scrutiny by Congress, where noncooperation has been stretched past the cutoff dates of committee investigations or even sessions of Congress. Accusations have abounded that disclosure has been withheld until after the Presidential election to avoid scrutiny by the people. We understand the nature of that game and we will not play it. We will do whatever is necessary and proper to make sure that such actions are not rewarded, including the continuation of investigations and the institution of court proceedings when appropriate. It doesn't have to be that way. I am still optimistic that it won't be that way. I think it possible that the President may have been overlawyered in the past; that while strategies may have been employed that were clever legal defense strategies, they were perhaps detrimental to the good of the country and even to the President himself. I am hoping for a new day. I am hoping the committee can establish its willingness to proceed in good faith. There is a new team in the White House, individuals with excellent reputations who commend respect. I am hoping that the new White House counsel will understand that his position is one of counsel to the office of the President. He is not the President's personal attorney. And I cannot believe that the President does not want to get to the bottom of the serious allegations that have been made. In the first place, he took an oath of office to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution, including his article II responsibility to take care that the laws are faithfully executed. The President has publicly acknowledged that some of the DNC's contributions were illegal. Since under the best of interpretations, these are matters that reflect upon him and his Presidency, he above all should want to seen them cleared up, and I believe that he does. I would like to think that the President would be outraged at this turn of events and feel an obligation and responsibility to get to the bottom of the matter, including clearing the names of anyone who may have been unjustly accused. Nor is it enough to simply call for campaign finance reform. I trust that my position on this issue is well known. I cosponsored along with Senator McCain and Feingold, campaign finance reform legislation in 1995, my first year in the Senate. I was for campaign finance reform when campaign finance reform wasn't cool. I have long thought we simply spend too much time soliciting too much money from too many people who are interested in legislation that we consider. I'm not sure that the solution is and I am hopeful that part of what this investigation will do is examine our campaign finance system and seek out ways in which we can improve it. But those of us with responsibilities in this area, whether it be the President or Members of Congress, cannot let the call for reform serve to gloss over serious violations of existing laws. If we do that the reform debate will be cast in a totally partisan context and insure that, once again, campaign finance reform will be killed. The question constantly arises as to when public hearings will begin. Interestingly, Democrats, Republicans, the White House, and the news media all are seemingly interested in having hearings as soon as possible--I would guess all for different reasons. I share that desire. However, the committee's obligation is not to do it early but to do it right. Certain things should be kept in mind by those who, on a daily basis, ask when hearings will begin. In the first place, establishing a hearing date, or even a target date when dealing with such a broad array of matters as listed above, would be nothing more than guesswork. The hearings should begin as soon as the matters have been properly investigated and not before. Time spent in proper investigation and preparation prevents disjointed hearings and saves time in the long run. This is not a matter of hauling a bunch of people whose names have been in the paper before the camera and hurling charge at them. This committee as presently constituted and my chairmanship came about less than 3 weeks ago. We must rely extensively upon new staff that is just being hired and we do not have a full complement yet. Clearances must be obtained. Facilities must be set up. Documents must be gathered and carefully reviewed. A check of the history of other major committee investigations reveals that 3 or 4 months of investigation and preparation before the beginning of the hearing phase is the norm. That is not to say that it will take our committee that long. I am hopeful that it will not. But it will take whatever it takes. And as I have stated, the level of cooperation we receive from the White House and the rest of the executive branch is directly relevant. Most importantly, of course, one cannot tell in the beginning of an investigation what leads may be developed. One final thought: Most of us did not come to Washington to tear down, but to build up. But, the Founding Fathers did not believe that the errors of government were self-correcting. They knew that only constant examination of our shortcomings, and learning from them, would enable representative government to survive for hundreds of years past their own time. They believed correctly that this process makes America stronger, not weaker. We are heirs to that legacy, and we will strive to be deserving of it, by taking this step toward restoring the public's confidence in the Government for which our forebears were willing to sacrifice everything. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, while many of my colleagues have already addressed vital foreign policy issues during the consideration of Madeleine Albright to be the next Secretary of State, I would like to use this opportunity to address some equally vital management issues. I hope to use the confirmation process to elevate management issues that tend to get swept under the carpet during high-minded policy debates. When discussing policy goals, we must be careful to determine whether these goals are affordable and that the resources spent provide the best value for the taxpayers' investment. Congress has laid the groundwork for significant Government management reforms with the passage of laws such as the Government Performance and Results Act, which requires agencies to measure the results of their efforts, the Chief Financial Officers Act, which requires agencies to shore up their financial recordkeeping, and recently enacted information management and procurement reforms. These laws apply commonsense approaches to the business of government to reduce inefficiencies and get real cost savings for taxpayers. It is questionable whether these new laws will be taken seriously and fully implemented without extensive congressional oversight--there are reports that agencies do not believe Congress is serious about the effective implementation of these laws. I am hereby serving notice that they would be seriously mistaken in that belief. The State Department, which Ambassador Albright will head, has served this country admirably since its founding in 1789. But I wonder if Thomas Jefferson, the first Secretary of State, could have imagined that the Department would grow to a staff of approximately 24,500 with a departmental budget of about $3.9 billion, part of an even larger $19.2 billion international affairs budget. Maintaining the infrastructure necessary to support 160 embassies and 100 consulates worldwide, costs this nation over $2 billion a year. The Department buys over $500 million in goods and services each year and is responsible for $12 billion in property. Effectively managing these resources would be a daunting challenge for any Fortune 500 company, but the State Department must do it at the same time that it is carrying out its primary functions--performing its diplomatic and foreign policy missions, protecting and assisting American citizens traveling abroad, and providing the interagency coordination necessary for conducting foreign policy in an increasingly complex and dangerous world. With a multitude of difficult missions to perform, management problems risk being ignored due to the exigencies of the day. The new Secretary will no doubt be consumed by critical foreign policy issues and crises from Bosnia to Korea that will demand a great deal of her personal attention. However, determining whether taxpayers are getting the best value for their multibillion dollar international affairs investment also must be one of the Secretary's highest priorities. In times of fiscal austerity, we all have to do more with less. I do not advocate performing critical missions ``on the cheap,'' but we must strive for the most efficient and effective use of our limited resources. The Government Performance and Results Act, for example, can be an effective tool to make Government work better by measuring the success or failure of Government programs and using this information to support budget decisions. The effects of belt tightening are painful as is illustrated by the $300 million backlog in deferred maintenance, obsolete technology and shrinking base of skilled personnel at the Department of State. The Congress will no doubt be asked to provide more resources to State and in the international affairs budget to counteract some of these negative effects. On first glance, this seemingly makes sense. However, the spending for State Department operating expenses has increased in both actual and constant dollars since 1985. Therefore, I question whether the Department has done all it can. Has it cut to the bone and ignored the fat in order to generate a compelling case before Congress for more money? I have to say that I don't know, and we will not know the true story from the Department anytime soon because the detailed supporting financial information does not exist. This is because the State Department does not have adequate financial and information systems to effectively manage and prioritize its programs. In the information age, the Government is increasingly dependent on good information--and yet this is what we are lacking. We need adequate information upon which to base sound decisions, otherwise we are making decisions in a vacuum. A good first step in developing this information would be for the Department to meet its responsibilities under the Chief Financial Officers Act and prepare an audited financial statement. Good financial data relies upon the development of effective computer systems. Government computers are crucial to the State Department's ability to meets its foreign policy missions and business needs. In recent years, the Department has obligated over $300 million annually on computer systems. Yet, the State Department has had a poor history of managing these systems and, as a result, is struggling with aging computers that do not adequately meet the Department's needs. This has resulted in critical information shortfalls, as well as interruption of operations. Obviously, the Department needs to do a better job. Legislation Congress passed last year to establish a Chief Information Officer at the Department of State should help in focusing attention on this longstanding problem. The Department has yet to change its business practices to reflect the new information age. In September 1994, the State Department launched a Strategic Management Initiative to identify its highest priority functions and products, as well as activities which were no longer necessary. However, GAO states that the State Department ``has been reluctant or unable to significantly reduce its overseas presence and the scope of its activities or to substantially change its business practices.'' I would hope in the future that the Department will not continue to conduct business as usual and then complain it does not have the resources to fulfill its mission. The State Department, like many other Federal agencies, is confronted by serious management problems that impede its ability to carry out its mission efficiently and effectively. GAO and inspector general reports have shown that in the past, top level attention has not been given to the stewardship of taxpayer resources. I am encouraged by Ambassador Albright's answers to my questions during her confirmation process. She assured us that she will be very much a hands-on manager and recognizes that the ability to conduct quality foreign policy depends upon attacking directly these management issues. Ambassador Albright stated at her confirmation hearing that she would work with Congress ``to ensure that the American public gets full value for each tax dollar spent'' and that she ``is committed to making improvements in the Department's structure and operations that will produce a more efficient and effective use of our resources.'' I am hopeful that Ambassador Albright will provide the leadership necessary for the State Department to meet its management challenges of the next century. I look forward to working with her to achieve those objectives in the coming Congress and to effectively implement the bipartisan management reforms passed by Congress.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President I join my colleagues in reintroducing our campaign finance reform legislation with mixed emotions. On the one hand, I am more optimistic about the chances of our being able to enact reforms than I was when we introduced our bill over a year ago. On the other hand, I regret that it has taken another round of public disappointment and anger over the role of money in federal elections to bring us to this point. The factors which led us to introduce this legislation in the last Congress have become even more prominent. Too much money is needed, too much time must be spent raising it, too much is asked of a limited number of special interests, and too much is going on outside of the regulatory system we established--some within the bounds of the law, some allegedly not. Most importantly, in my view, the public is increasingly concerned by what they see happening here. If they have no faith in the system which put us here, if they are turned off by what we do to get elected, how are they going to trust us to carry out our work in their best interests? Next, money raising consumes an inordinate amount of office-holders' and candidates' time and effort. Candidates should be reaching out to as broad a spectrum of people and interests as possible, and not feel they must concentrate on those who can afford to make a donation. Last, it is difficult for a challenger to raise sufficient funds to get his or her message out. Congress needs to move away from professionalism and more toward a citizen legislature. The process should be more open, instead of more closed. Because of the role money plays, unless a candidate has access to large sums of money, he or she is pretty much cut out of the process. I believe the revised legislation I am joining my colleagues Senators McCain and Feingold in introducing provides some solutions to these problems. It doesn't provide all the solutions, or perfect solutions, but it is a good faith effort and, in my view, a good place to start. This legislation reduces the appearance and reality of special interests buying and selling political favors by prohibiting federal PACs, restricting contribution ``bundling'', prohibiting so-called ``soft money'', and putting a cap on out-of-state fundraising. I do not believe PACs are inherently evil. There are other ways special interests can enhance their financial influence in a campaign. Contributions are bundled, or the word just goes out that a particular interest--be it business, or social, or labor--is concentrating donations on a particular race. PACs are a more formal association of people with common interests. Our test in legislating reforms should be whether the public feels they continue to serve an acceptable purpose. Furthermore, in this revised bill we have tightened up on the definitions of independent and coordinated expenditures, as well as those for express advocacy. Today we have a system under which, in many cases, the majority of the expenditures in an election are outside the system and the candidate's control. In 1992, ``soft money'' expenditures by the Republican and Democratic parties totaled $86 million. In 1996, they totaled $263 million. It is little wonder that we are looking at where some of it came from. I look forward to working with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, in the House of Representatives, and with the President to fashion and pass meaningful reform. I believe a successful effort will renew the public's faith in our system and in us, and thus in our ability to do what they sent us here to do.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Senator Biden and I introduced S. 1952 in this Congress, a bipartisan bill to reauthorize JJDPA. This bill would make the most sweeping changes in the JJDPA since its original enactment in 1974. The Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably to the full Senate in August, but the full Senate was not able to take up the bill before adjournment. What is the chairman's view of this legislation?

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the chairman. secton 115 of the interior appropriaitons

Mr. THOMPSON. May I engage the chairman in a colloquy regarding the committee's funding of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act? As the chairman knows, the authorization for that status expires September 30, 1996. And the current statutory language has been the subject of considerable criticism.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the chairman. I would also point out that the nature of juvenile crime has changed so much since the original enactment of JJDPA in 1974.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Are there other consumer protection provisions included in the bill.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. THOMPSON. Does this bill allow funds to be used for any marketing and promotional activities.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my colleague from Colorado. The Senate will surely miss his wise counsel. I rise to express similar concerns. Mr. President, recent, tragic events have raised the fight against terrorism higher in the public consciousness. In response, President Clinton has submitted a request for $1.1 billion in emergency antiterrorism funding for fiscal year 1996 and fiscal year 1997. While it is imperative that we act in a timely way to fight terrorism and to preserve the safety of our citizens, it is also important that we not simply throw money at a problem for efforts that do little more than make us feel a little better for a little while. Indeed, it's important that we not let our actions be reduced to reactions. Unless these programs make a difference, we will be wasting the taxpayer's money. And when terrorists strike again, we'll be standing here once more, asking ourselves what went wrong with the programs whose appropriations we are debating today. I fear that the President's emergency request represents greatly increased spending without greatly increased thought. Do we know that this $1.1 billion will go toward effective measures? The President's proposal represents an increase in spending on antiterrorism measures of about 4,000 percent, from his earlier proposal of something under $50 million. I am not yet convinced that this spending is anything more than an expensive way to make the public believe that the Government is doing something constructive. I happen to think we have long since passed the day in this body when we can equate the expenditure of large amounts of public funds with results. It simply does not happen in too many respects. There is a significant difference between doing things that look effective and doing things that are effective. For example, it may look good to expand wiretapping authority, but is it necessarily a positive way to deal with the problem? What kinds of terrorists are we fighting? Will wiretapping even be effective to combat what we are going to be facing in the future? Would wiretapping have helped stop the Atlanta bombing? Would it have mattered in Oklahoma City? And just as important as that question is considering the price we may pay in the infringement on our personal freedoms. It is no small question to define what is a reasonable and acceptable infringement on our rights and privileges. Before we plunge into any cut back on our personal freedoms, we need to carefully consider what we are getting when we trade them away. Obviously, the President's request has arrived so late that we can't give it the scrutiny and possible revision it seems to need. So we are moving ahead and appropriating the funds he has asked for, hoping that they will do some real good. Mr. President, I submit that what we truly need is a thoughtful, coordinated, long-range plan about how to address the threat of terrorism. I fear that the administration's emergency request comes more out of reaction than it does from a careful examination of the problem. Cobbling together afterthought reactions is not sufficient to address this matter. And $1.1 billion is a great deal of money to spend with such little consideration. I don't take the matter of terrorism lightly. Indeed, none of us can. Everyone observing the proceedings from inside this Chamber has already gone through a metal detector to get in the Capitol, and then through another, stronger detector just be inside this room. House and Senate staff members wear ID badges, and they pass by guards every day as they come in to work. We are all aware of the threat--it is a part of daily life. Even so, extraordinary tragedy is always possible. I was in Atlanta this summer when the pipe bomb exploded at the Olympic games. It is profoundly disturbing to know that a determined individual can still penetrate even the most stringent security measures. So I appreciate the threat of terrorism and the need for swift action. At the same time, I submit that unless we carefully plan our tactics and strategy to counter this threat, we will have squandered our resources that could have made a real difference. Without planning, we will have nothing to show for our efforts. The President's request comes in response to the Atlanta bombing and the downing of TWA Flight 800 off of Long Island. Has President Clinton merely scraped together whatever ideas were at hand in order to appear tough on terrorism? We need to move forward to combat terrorism from a position of leadership and not simply reaction. We should not simply expand the power of the Federal Government after every act of terrorism. The proposal from 6 months ago for fiscal year 1997 was much different than the one we see now. It included a 40 percent cut in the Attorney General's counterterrorism fund. The new proposal calls for millions in security upgrades for Federal buildings. What are these upgrades? And, most important, will they make the people in those buildings any safer? And why were they not suggested in the original fiscal year 1997 proposal if they were needed? It is difficult to turn down the President's request at this late date. I remind my colleagues that if in a year or two this $1.1 billion appropriation turns out to be no more than a quick gesture to allay public fears, if these proposals are ultimately ineffective and hollow to the core, then we will be faced with the unpleasant fact that we spent $1.1 billion for simply being safe, or feeling safe for a few days or a few weeks in order to be able to say that we just did something. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank my good friend from Georgia, who expresses some very valid concerns, and I share those concerns. Mr. President, as we approach the end of this session of Congress, I think it is imperative that we get our priorities in order. The elections are only 6 weeks away. As we all know, this is a highly charged time. There is much at stake. And right now, there are some vague rumblings out there that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may wish to use this tension to partisan advantage. Mr. President, I submit that the leadership has gone the extra mile toward accommodating the concerns of the party in the minority. This consideration of interests is as it should be. But I also want to make it clear that if this session stretches out, it will largely be for political reasons--and caused by the minority in the Senate. It appears entirely possible that some of my colleagues are prepared to stall the final legislation we are now considering in order to play raw politics. First off, I believe that the Members of this body should be above that sort of thing. The American people are cynical enough about the character of the Congress without its Members handing them more ammunition. We need to raise the level of discourse here. Second, we should keep in mind that we are not talking about trivial matters. We are here to conduct the people's business. To hold up the work of the Senate for partisan advantage is outrageous. And I will tell you something else, the folks back home will see through it. The people who elected us know pious posturing when they see it. If there is a stall to keep us in session, the people are going to figure out who's doing it, and pretty fast. It is one thing to work through honest differences of opinion. It is quite another to offer trifling, divisive amendments and stalling tactics at the end of an election-year session to wring out every last political advantage. I call on my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to put this sort of maneuvering aside, so that we can finish the business that the people elected us to conduct. To prevent playing politics with the lives of Americans, and to prevent even the charge that anyone might be playing politics, we must make certain that the President has legislation on his desk that finishes out the business we need to close in this term. There are several basic issues we must address before we adjourn. I am certain that when we keep in mind how important it is to conduct the people's business with the dignity it commands, that we will find it in ourselves to work our way through these pending matters to a swift and proper outcome. Right now, we have troops in Bosnia and the Middle East. These men and women are out there on our behalf, and they deserve our unyielding support. Let us make sure they have whatever they need, and let's do that immediately. At home, even as we vigorously debate the Federal role in domestic affairs, we need to uphold the commitment we now have to maintain those services we have promised--and to do so at the levels to which we are committed. This is of vital importance, most especially to our veterans, students, senior citizens, and their families. As Senators, we are obliged to set the highest moral example, and in that, we must keep our word to the people who elected us. While we may disagree on the very best way to implement solutions to the problems we face, I trust that we do not disagree that some action is vital to keeping our country strong, and to enabling the Nation to conduct business. We have a basic obligation to the people who elected us, to maintain the services of the Federal Government at a high level of efficiency and responsiveness. We can do this if we put our minds to it. All that is required is that we decide to finish the people's business, and work toward agreement on the outstanding issues we face. This Congress has achieved a great deal. We should be proud. We've passed many reforms which will not only save money for the taxpayers, but that also will make Government more efficient and more positive in the lives of Americans. We have passed the line-item veto. We have passed the Congressional Accountability Act. We have ended unfunded mandates. And these are just a few of the achievements we have to show for our efforts when we agree to get the job done. Let us end this session of Congress on a high note by doing what we were elected to do. Let us work out our differences and pass legislation along to the President that will keep this country open for business. I hope that as we move through these legislative decisions, that we keep in mind that we cannot jeopardize the important elements of our Government that enable this Nation to be strong, safe, and free. We want to preserve the safety of our troops. We want to preserve the ability of the Nation to conduct its business, and to maintain the services that our children, our families, and our seniors have come to depend on. Let us not play politics with these matters. Traditionally, the Members of this body have come together for the best interests of the Nation. This Congress has been up to that task, and I am certain that it still is. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle are strong enough in their resolve, and they care enough about the way we conduct our lives in America, that we can all come together to find agreement on the Nation's business. Let us concentrate on where we agree, not where we differ. Let us focus on the issues that bring us together, not those that take us apart. Let us find a way to work together, and get this job done. I trust that we can find a common path as we have in the past, and in cooperation with the White House, to reach a consensus without delay. But make no mistake, the majority has done its part. If we are detained in Washington to keep Congress in session, it will not be over differences in ideas or for honest disagreements. We have met our colleagues more than halfway. It's time to wrap things up, and we ought to be doing that right now. The people's business should be above partisan posturing, and I sincerely hope that we can maintain a level of effort and dignity-- commensurate with the history of the Senate--so that we can complete our work on a high note as we finish out the 104th Congress. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise to oppose this amendment. This amendment basically makes the possession of a firearm in a school a Federal offense. I share the concern of my colleague from Wisconsin about the growing problem we have about guns in schools, but I simply believe we cannot afford to start federalizing every offense that States have traditionally been called upon to handle. This is not only traditionally a State matter with regard to the law enforcement matter, it is also involving another traditional State matter in terms of education. So you have law enforcement with regard to an educational institution, two matters traditionally handled by the State which we are now seeking to federalize. One of the findings in the amendment is that States and localities in school systems find it almost impossible to handle gun-related crimes by themselves. Even States, localities, and school systems that have made strong efforts to prevent and punish gun-related crimes find their efforts unavailing, due in part to the failure or inability of other States or localities to take strong measures. Mr. President, I do not believe that is a valid finding that this Congress ought to make. My understanding is that 48 States, I believe, have passed legislation dealing in this very area. States should be left to address this particular problem in ways that they see fit. They may be more effective on a State and local level in determining how to address this problem than we in Washington, DC, for example. There might be some States that have had inducements to inform on violators. Some States have gone in the direction of voluntary surrender of guns, with amnesty provided. Some States penalize parents for failure to supervise children, as my State in Tennessee has done. I do not believe that we should be taking an area which has traditionally been under the auspice of State and local government, and tax people at that level, and then bring the money to Washington to put in the hands of Federal officials to enforce these laws. Schools do have problems with guns. Part of it has to do with the breakdown in discipline. Part of it has to do with regulations that have been placed on schools and lawsuits that schools have been subjected to, making it more difficult for schools to effectively handle all kinds of disciplinary problems, including guns in schools. They have not been suffering from a lack of FBI agents going around schools investigating these matters. They are serious enough offenses of a traditional Federal nature for FBI agents to be investigating. We do not need this. This bill is very similar to a bill that Congress passed by voice vote in 1990, the gun-free school zone law, which made it a Federal offense for any person to possess a gun in a school. The Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional and said it was beyond the power of Congress to regulate in regulating interstate commerce and held that gun possession is not an economic activity that substantially affected interstate commerce. At a time when the Supreme Court is telling us that you cannot just have some theoretical basis, some very attenuated basis for interstate commerce, we once again are making an attempt at the Federal level. Of course, it is a very popular issue, but is an attempt at the Federal level to federalize another State and local matter. I think Justice Kennedy's concurring opinion in that case is just as instructive today as it was back then. He said were the Federal Government to take over the regulation of entire areas of traditional State concern, areas having nothing to do with the regulation of commercial activities, the boundaries between the spheres of Federal and State authority would blur and political responsibility would become illusionary. I think he is absolutely right. I think that States and local governments need to know it is their responsibility. People in these communities need to know it is their responsibility and they cannot pass off any problem that comes down the pike to the Federal Government. This amendment would do nothing in terms of additional funding to rectify the problem. It would do nothing in terms of metal detectors or any other supervisory personnel or anything to assist any teachers, or anything of that nature. It would simply allow Federal agents to come into these schools and make a Federal crime out of this traditional State area and further load up our Federal dockets, which are now trying to stay afloat as it is. Mr. President, as I say, I am very sympathetic with the problem. It is something that we are all dealing with in one way or another. As chairman of the Youth Violence Subcommittee, we certainly spent a lot of time in dealing with the problem that we have among our young people today. Part of that has to do with schools. Part of that has to do with guns. But keep the responsibility where it is. Do not get so caught up in trying to make a point, as popular as it might be, temporarily, that we one by one by one federalize shoplifting or federalize illegal parking or whatever happens to be the rage at the moment, and we wind up with one system at the Federal level, Federal agents handling everything, and as soon as we perceive a new problem, everybody in the State and local level thinks of the Federal Government first. That is not the way we have traditionally handled these matters in this country. That is not the way we need to proceed in order to make sure we keep that separation between State and local and Federal Government. So at a time when so many of us are trying to move more and more responsibility back to the States and closer to the people who know how to handle it more effectively, I think it would be indeed ironic for us to be taking this matter, which for 200 years has been the responsibility of State and local government, and federalize it. I move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I now ask that the Senate return to the Kohl amendment No. 5244.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, this amendment would deny the automatic cost-of-living adjustment [COLA] to Members of Congress. Last year, I sponsored this very same amendment with the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. I believe now, as I did then, that this amendment is an important part of the efforts we have made in this Congress to balance the budget by the year 2002. Mr. President, some might ask how passing an amendment requiring Members of Congress to forego a cost-of-living adjustment will achieve savings that will move us towards a balanced budget. The simple answer is that a pay freeze for Members of Congress will not produce significant budget savings. But, Mr. President, the savings that this amendment achieves is not the point. This amendment is important because of what it communicates to the American people. Let me take a minute to explain what I mean. During this 104th Congress, we have debated many fundamental issues facing this country. While Republicans and Democrats still disagree on many of these issues, there are certain principles around which a consensus is developing. Probably the most important of these principles is that we need to get our fiscal house in order to avoid national bankruptcy and to preserve the country that we have known for our children and grandchildren. It is true that our national debt and interest on that debt are strangling us. We cannot sustain deficits endlessly in the future at the rate we have. It will cause interest rates to soar and national savings, investment and growth to plummet. If we continue on the path we have followed in the past, we will be leaving a legacy of significantly lower living standards to future generations. Mr. President, I think we are in the beginning stages, finally, of facing up to these problems. Last year, this Congress sent the President the Balanced Budget Act, which will lead us to a balanced budget in the year 2002--for the first time in decades in this country. I regret that the President chose to veto this legislation. However, I do think that the Republicans in Congress have succeeded in convincing the President--however belatedly--that a balanced budget is both necessary and important. As a consequence, I believe that we have a great opportunity to work together to solve this problem. Although we may differ on the means by which we solve it, I think we can certainly agree on the end that we must all work toward. During this debate, I think that we in Congress have done a better job of communicating to the American people the level of sacrifice that is necessary to reach a balanced budget. People are beginning to realize that, if we are to solve this problem, we cannot have everything exactly as we have had it in years past. Sooner or later we are going to all have to make some sacrifices for the sake of our country. We will have to look at things like the rate of growth in non- discretionary spending, the cost of some of the major military engagements abroad, and the whole issue of cost-of-living increases, among other things. Mr. President, the point of all of this is that everybody is going to have to pitch in, and the American people now know it. Nobody is going to get all of what they want. I feel there are very few Americans who are not willing to help, as long as they believe that they are being treated fairly, and that everyone is being asked to sacrifice. The amendment we offer today is based upon the simple proposition that while we are asking the American people to make these adjustments, we must ask the same of ourselves. We certainly should not be having automatic cost-of-living increases for this body during this particular period of time. Automatic pay increases, where we do not even have to vote on them, stick in the craw of the American people, and further diminish the already low regard they have for Members of Congress. Some people will say that freezing the pay of Members of Congress is a largely symbolic act. I agree. I have already stated that the turning back a COLA does not achieve much in budget savings. But, Mr. President, I believe that symbolism is important. We need to lead by example by showing the American people that we in Congress are willing to make a personal contribution to the effort of balancing the budget. Mr. President, I think we have already begun to demonstrate to the American people that this body is willing to do its part. We have addressed the problems of gifts and free trips for Members of Congress. We have applied the laws to ourselves that have, for so many years, been applied to the American people. We have tried to face up to the pension issues which will bring us more into line with other employees and other people in the private sector. So, turning down an automatic cost-of-living increase this year--as we did last year--is a part of that overall picture. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to note that I did not decide to offer this amendment without giving thought to the impact that it would have on my colleagues in the Congress who have families with children and are faced with expenses for education and maintaining two separate residences. These individuals cannot continue to withstand indefinitely the erosion of purchasing power that this pay freeze represents. However, at this crucial time in our history, I believe that a pay increase is not appropriate. Since we have made significant progress on budget issues in these past 2 years, it is my hope that we can make even more progress and avoid the need for pay freezes in the future. I urge my colleagues to support the Thompson-Helms amendment to continue the work we have started in this historic Congress.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, with Monday's passing of bluegrass legend Bill Monroe at the age of 84, Tennessee and the world mourn the loss of an American musical original. In a career spanning more than 60 years, Bill Monroe was the undisputed king and keeper of the music that he pioneered. In his trademark dress suit, and white, ten-gallon hat, Bill Monroe held the stage before admiring audiences around the world who watched him create and then popularize bluegrass music. Bill Monroe's music is truly American and completely original. He created bluegrass from his imagination and named it for the rolling hills where he was born. With his band, the ``Blue Grass Boys,'' Monroe mixed the music he heard as a child with the blues, Irish fiddle tunes and his own energy to create the sound we know today. Bill Monroe's bluegrass is high-powered folk music, known for the instrumental mastery it demands, the high-velocity picking, tight harmonies, and the high, lonesome sound of the tenor lead. Bill Monroe created a wonderful mix of crackling, bright sound with a lightning pace that instantly challenged musicians and listeners alike. Bluegrass sounds like no other music before or since, and we have Bill Monroe to thank for it. This musical frontiersman will be sorely missed He was a musical museum of American folk life who regularly entertained in bluegrass clubs and at outdoor festivals until the end of his years. Though he was born in Kentucky, those of us from Tennessee proudly claim Bill Monroe as one of our own. He was a fixture on the Grand Ole Opry, and he spent much of his time in and around Nashville when he wasn't out on the road, playing for the massive crowds that always came out to hear him. Bill Monroe didn't talk much, but his feelings came out eloquently when he was behind his mandolin and in front of an audience. Songs like ``Blue Moon of Kentucky,'' ``Uncle Pen,'' and ``Rawhide'' have already stood the test of time to become classics, and Bill Monroe's original gift comes through in each note. He was born September 13, 1911 in rural western Kentucky into a family where nearly everyone played a musical instrument. The youngest of eight children, he went on to win numerous awards, including a Grammy and the National Medal of Arts for his life's achievement. Almost no kind of music can be traced to the work of a single person, but bluegrass is different. It will always belong to Bill Monroe. His contribution to music is unequaled, and he will be greatly missed by all of us.