Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I note that the bill deletes a provision of current law that permits national party committees to raise soft money to pay for their office buildings. Can the sponsors discuss the intent of the law concerning the raising of non-Federal money by State parties for their office buildings?

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I would like to ask the sponsors to explain section 213 of the bill concerning independent and coordinated expenditures made by party committees. Can the sponsors also discuss how this provision is consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in the Colorado cases?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I thank my friend from Massachusetts. I did not realize we would have this opportunity today to express our feelings and thoughts toward Senator Kennedy until a few minutes ago. When I heard about it, I was compelled to come over and say a few words. I am sure for the time allotted that everyone who spoke has pointed out the brilliance of the Senator's advocacy, the fact that he is a Senator's Senator, and all of the accomplishments he has had since he has been a Member of this body. I simply want to acknowledge the Senator's generous spirit and his kindness. I know that I speak for very many in this body and people in other places when I say that. He has demonstrated this time and time again. His reputation for kindness, his reputation for thoughtfulness--as the Senator from Delaware has just been talking about--is legendary. I imagine part of this has to do with the tragedies and losses in his own life in terms of his own family. I suffered a loss of my own recently, as so many of us in this body have. Senator Kennedy went beyond all expectation in expressing his concern for me and my family and made gestures that I will never forget. I want to express my appreciation for that. Many of my colleagues have been extremely kind and thoughtful, but I have this opportunity because the Senator is having this benchmark in his life recognized--and thank goodness he is--to say that. While the Senator is to be congratulated for his legislative achievements, he is to be congratulated for reaching this benchmark. To me, he is mostly to be congratulated for realizing that human beings and human relations and family are much more important than any of the above.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I am introducing today the Presidential Appointments Improvement Act of 2001 on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman, and Senators Akaka, Durbin, Lugar, and Voinovich. This proposal reflects multiple recommendations made by the many commissions and organizations that have studied the Presidential appointments process. These include a number of national commissions, non-profit organizations like the Presidential Appointee Initiative and the Transition to Governing Project, and a 1993 study and recommendations by the American Bar Association. Clearly, we have a problem. The Presidential appointments process is unnecessarily long, burdensome, and complex. And although President Bush has sent a notable number of nominees to Congress at this point in his first year, major gaps remain in critical positions throughout government. We are faced with responding to the events of September 11 with a 25-percent vacancy rate in positions considered important to Homeland Security. The time it takes for a new President to put his team in place exacerbates the human capital problems that our government faces. There is a growing recognition that we need to manage our people better. But with the downsizing of the past decade and the impending wave of retirements, the time consuming nature of the appointments process will leave many federal departments and agencies hollow and headless. While the appointments process is, collectively, a tangled mess, there is no question that it has parts that are important and should be preserved. Conflict of interest statutes are critical, because a fundamental principle of government is one should not have a direct financial interest in the decisions that one is making. Likewise, background investigations are critical to ensure that the Government's highest officials can be trusted with national security information. And, of course, the Congress has an obligation, enshrined in the Constitution, to provide its advice and consent for the President's nominees. This committee first took action to improve the Presidential appointments process when we passed the Presidential Transition Act of 2000. In that legislation, we included a number of provisions to allow a new President to hit the ground running once he takes office. In addition, that bill asked the Office of Government Ethics to report within six months on its recommendations to streamline the forms we require of Executive Branch nominees. The administration submitted those recommendations and they are included in this legislation. In addition to streamlining the financial disclosure form, our legislation directs the Executive Clerk of the White House to provide a list of appointed positions to each Presidential candidate, Republican and Democrat, after their respective nominating conventions. That way the President, whomever he or she may be, can have an early start at picking his most trusted advisors. We also ask each Executive Department to recommend an elimination of Senate-confirmed positions, which would greatly shorten the entire process. As I've said, this legislation is not the only action we are taking to improve the Presidential appointments process. Senator Lieberman and I earlier asked Senate Committees to work to simplify the forms they require of nominees, we have simplified the Governmental Affairs Committee form, and I have written White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, asking him to examine the need for all Presidential nominees to undergo a full-field FBI background investigation. Clearly, there are some positions in the Federal Government that do not require the same background investigations as, say, the Secretary of Defense. We will continue to look for ways to improve this process. The legislation we are introducing today makes reasonable but overdue changes to the Presidential appointments process. Whether in a time of crisis or not, there is no question that the country benefits when the President's team, from either party, takes office as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I am introducing today the Presidential Appointments Improvement Act of 2001 on behalf of myself and Senator Lieberman, and Senators Akaka, Durbin, Lugar, and Voinovich. This proposal reflects multiple recommendations made by the many commissions and organizations that have studied the Presidential appointments process. These include a number of national commissions, non-profit organizations like the Presidential Appointee Initiative and the Transition to Governing Project, and a 1993 study and recommendations by the American Bar Association. Clearly, we have a problem. The Presidential appointments process is unnecessarily long, burdensome, and complex. And although President Bush has sent a notable number of nominees to Congress at this point in his first year, major gaps remain in critical positions throughout government. We are faced with responding to the events of September 11 with a 25-percent vacancy rate in positions considered important to Homeland Security. The time it takes for a new President to put his team in place exacerbates the human capital problems that our government faces. There is a growing recognition that we need to manage our people better. But with the downsizing of the past decade and the impending wave of retirements, the time consuming nature of the appointments process will leave many federal departments and agencies hollow and headless. While the appointments process is, collectively, a tangled mess, there is no question that it has parts that are important and should be preserved. Conflict of interest statutes are critical, because a fundamental principle of government is one should not have a direct financial interest in the decisions that one is making. Likewise, background investigations are critical to ensure that the Government's highest officials can be trusted with national security information. And, of course, the Congress has an obligation, enshrined in the Constitution, to provide its advice and consent for the President's nominees. This committee first took action to improve the Presidential appointments process when we passed the Presidential Transition Act of 2000. In that legislation, we included a number of provisions to allow a new President to hit the ground running once he takes office. In addition, that bill asked the Office of Government Ethics to report within six months on its recommendations to streamline the forms we require of Executive Branch nominees. The administration submitted those recommendations and they are included in this legislation. In addition to streamlining the financial disclosure form, our legislation directs the Executive Clerk of the White House to provide a list of appointed positions to each Presidential candidate, Republican and Democrat, after their respective nominating conventions. That way the President, whomever he or she may be, can have an early start at picking his most trusted advisors. We also ask each Executive Department to recommend an elimination of Senate-confirmed positions, which would greatly shorten the entire process. As I've said, this legislation is not the only action we are taking to improve the Presidential appointments process. Senator Lieberman and I earlier asked Senate Committees to work to simplify the forms they require of nominees, we have simplified the Governmental Affairs Committee form, and I have written White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, asking him to examine the need for all Presidential nominees to undergo a full-field FBI background investigation. Clearly, there are some positions in the Federal Government that do not require the same background investigations as, say, the Secretary of Defense. We will continue to look for ways to improve this process. The legislation we are introducing today makes reasonable but overdue changes to the Presidential appointments process. Whether in a time of crisis or not, there is no question that the country benefits when the President's team, from either party, takes office as quickly as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a section-by-section analysis of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. On behalf of Senator Fitzgerald, I ask unanimous consent that Jeremy Stump, a fellow from his office, be granted the privilege of the floor during the Senate's consideration of the farm bill.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, will the ranking member yield briefly for the purpose of a colloquy?

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I'd like to bring to the attention of the Senate an important information technology program. The Defense Personnel Records Imaging System (DPRIS) is the follow-on records management system needed to process, store, and distribute military personnel information. Currently, DPRIS is not ready to move from the Concept Advanced Demonstration phase to the System Integration phase. In order for the program to complete developmental activities to mature the system to the point that it is ready for Low-Rate Initial Production, $2 million is required for further demonstration/validation work. Mr. President, the recent call up of thousands of National Guardsmen and Reservists to respond to the war on terrorism has further taxed an already overburdened personnel records management system. We need to get DPRIS completely through R&D, so we can make a smooth transition from the old system to the new. I know the chairman and ranking member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee understand the importance of this program, and would hope that they would give this DPRIS funding every consideration during conference with the House. At a minimum, I hope the chairman and ranking member will encourage the Department of Defense to either reprogram funds for this purpose, or to request these funds in a supplemental appropriations request that is likely to come early next year.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member for their attention to this matter, and appreciate the challenges they face in crafting the Department of Defense spending bill.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help Federal agencies fight our Nation's war against terrorism. I am introducing this bill at the request of the President and on behalf of myself as ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator Warner, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. For many years, we have accepted that the Federal Government pays a premium, both in dollars and time spent, for the goods and services it buys solely because of unique requirements it imposes on its contractors. While the Federal procurement system has been streamlined and simplified over the last several years, much red tape and barriers to ``commercial-style'' contracting still exist. This is due in part to trying to maintain the proper balance between an efficient procurement system and accountability when spending taxpayer dollars. In ordinary times and because of recent procurement policy reforms, we believe that a Federal agency can buy most anything it needs quickly and efficiently under current law if it has good management practices in place and smart, well-trained contracting officers. However, these are not ordinary times. Further, we know that the Federal Government is not well-managed and our acquisition workforce is rapidly dwindling. With that said, it is our responsibility to ensure that Federal agencies with a role in homeland security can purchase, quickly and efficiently, the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks. The bill which we are introducing builds on emergency contracting authority already in place for the Department of Defense and other agencies and goes further by providing additional contracting flexibilities. Today, national security and homeland security have the same kinds of requirements, detection, tracking, preparedness, prevention, response and recovery. By providing additional procurement flexibilities, the agencies involved in homeland security will be able to apply more easily many new and proven defense-related technologies. For example, current law gives agencies the ability to use streamlined, simplified contracting procedures for contracts under $200,000 which are made and performed outside the United States in support of a contingency operation or a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation. This bill would raise that threshold to $500,000 for any, outside or within the United States, contract awarded for products or services in support of a contingency operation or a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation. Current law also provides simplified contracting procedures for the purchase of commercial items, goods and services produced for the commercial marketplace and not encumbered by government specifications or requirements. The bill would allow goods and services purchased to help agencies fight against terrorism or biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks to be treated as if they were purchases for commercial items, in other words, agencies needing these goods and services could use the simpler, expedited procedures. This would allow agencies to quickly buy technologies or products which are cutting-edge, but which may not have made it to the commercial marketplace yet. This legislation also encourages the use of current procurement flexibilities which are authorized in existing statutes. An agency can use these existing provisions where it is appropriate to provide quick and responsive solutions to its emergency contracting requirements. Further, the bill includes language which will allow agencies to use approaches other than contracts to buy research and development for new technologies to fight against terrorism. The Department of Defense currently has this authority and the bill would extend that authority to the rest of the Federal agencies. And finally, this bill would encourage more competition in the Federal marketplace by requiring agencies to do ongoing market research to identify new companies with new capabilities to help agencies in the fight against terrorism. We must ensure that Federal agencies which are preparing to fight terrorism have access to a wide variety of traditional and innovative solutions in a timely fashion. The bill we are introducing today will go a long way toward that goal.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I rise today to introduce a bill to help Federal agencies fight our Nation's war against terrorism. I am introducing this bill at the request of the President and on behalf of myself as ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee and Senator Warner, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. For many years, we have accepted that the Federal Government pays a premium, both in dollars and time spent, for the goods and services it buys solely because of unique requirements it imposes on its contractors. While the Federal procurement system has been streamlined and simplified over the last several years, much red tape and barriers to ``commercial-style'' contracting still exist. This is due in part to trying to maintain the proper balance between an efficient procurement system and accountability when spending taxpayer dollars. In ordinary times and because of recent procurement policy reforms, we believe that a Federal agency can buy most anything it needs quickly and efficiently under current law if it has good management practices in place and smart, well-trained contracting officers. However, these are not ordinary times. Further, we know that the Federal Government is not well-managed and our acquisition workforce is rapidly dwindling. With that said, it is our responsibility to ensure that Federal agencies with a role in homeland security can purchase, quickly and efficiently, the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks. The bill which we are introducing builds on emergency contracting authority already in place for the Department of Defense and other agencies and goes further by providing additional contracting flexibilities. Today, national security and homeland security have the same kinds of requirements, detection, tracking, preparedness, prevention, response and recovery. By providing additional procurement flexibilities, the agencies involved in homeland security will be able to apply more easily many new and proven defense-related technologies. For example, current law gives agencies the ability to use streamlined, simplified contracting procedures for contracts under $200,000 which are made and performed outside the United States in support of a contingency operation or a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation. This bill would raise that threshold to $500,000 for any, outside or within the United States, contract awarded for products or services in support of a contingency operation or a humanitarian or peacekeeping operation. Current law also provides simplified contracting procedures for the purchase of commercial items, goods and services produced for the commercial marketplace and not encumbered by government specifications or requirements. The bill would allow goods and services purchased to help agencies fight against terrorism or biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks to be treated as if they were purchases for commercial items, in other words, agencies needing these goods and services could use the simpler, expedited procedures. This would allow agencies to quickly buy technologies or products which are cutting-edge, but which may not have made it to the commercial marketplace yet. This legislation also encourages the use of current procurement flexibilities which are authorized in existing statutes. An agency can use these existing provisions where it is appropriate to provide quick and responsive solutions to its emergency contracting requirements. Further, the bill includes language which will allow agencies to use approaches other than contracts to buy research and development for new technologies to fight against terrorism. The Department of Defense currently has this authority and the bill would extend that authority to the rest of the Federal agencies. And finally, this bill would encourage more competition in the Federal marketplace by requiring agencies to do ongoing market research to identify new companies with new capabilities to help agencies in the fight against terrorism. We must ensure that Federal agencies which are preparing to fight terrorism have access to a wide variety of traditional and innovative solutions in a timely fashion. The bill we are introducing today will go a long way toward that goal.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Very well. I am not going to take up the 1 hour. I yield to my friend from Indiana.

Mr. THOMPSON. No, I am not going to utilize the full hour.

Mr. THOMPSON. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Indiana.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to address some of the issues my distinguished friend from Michigan has been discussing. First of all, not only can we not agree as to what belongs in the stimulus package, we cannot seem to agree in the Senate, unfortunately, as to what our priorities ought to be. We are a nation at war and in recession. Those ought to be our priorities. Yet we are talking about railroad retirement, we are talking about farm bills, everything but what we ought to be discussing. We ought to be talking about the issues my friend from Michigan has raised concerning the stimulus package. I will address that for a few moments myself. There is no doubt for some time now there has been pretty much a consensus on the idea we need a stimulus package. Later on in my remarks I will discuss further whether or not that is really necessarily true. I think there has been a consensus, but there certainly has been no consensus as to what we ought to do about it and what belongs in it. In fact, there is no consensus as to what in fact stimulates the economy. Everybody has their own ideas. We have our own ideas in this Chamber, and we state them authoritatively. But it is not only us, it is the economists. We cannot really say the economists think this or say that. They think everything and they say everything. They are on all sides of all of these issues. So are businesspeople, labor people. Remarkably, their economic philosophy seems to somewhat coincide with their vested interest, which is not really different from the rest of us, I suppose. That is the situation we are confronting. I want to discuss for a moment where we are, examine the validity of the ideas we are using in support of our positions in general terms, and then discuss what we should do about it. Assume for a moment this is not a political issue. One could make that case. There have been a lot of disparaging remarks about certain provisions in the House bill. There certainly have been a lot of disparaging remarks about what came out of the Senate Finance Committee, all the pork and unrelated items, but we can put that aside for a moment. We can put aside the remarks of the former adviser to President Clinton, who in a local publication said it is in the Democrats' self-interest to defeat a stimulus package or not have one because it might affect the economy negatively and President Bush would get blamed for a negative economy. I do not think that is the way most of my colleagues believe, but those thoughts exist. Unfortunately, we do spend a little bit too much time in this body talking about how to divide the pie instead of trying to figure out how to make the pie bigger, who is going to get what. There is the tax- cuts-for-the-rich rhetoric, of course, we all have heard, ignoring the fact that 80 percent of the individual tax cuts would go to small businesspeople who provided 80 percent of the new jobs over the last decade. I must say I find it somewhat ironic that every time we get into the stimulus discussion, we talk about tax breaks for the rich, when the same folks who make those arguments are also promoting a farm bill where 10 percent of the richest people in farming get 61 percent of the benefits. So tax cuts for the rich are bad, but pork for the rich is good. Let us set all that aside for a moment, take the political aspects out of it, and talk about the economics of it. Basically, we have two different economic views in this body--at least two main ones--as to what in fact does stimulate the economy. We each make statements as to what will stimulate it and what will not, but we never provide any authority or any evidence or any historical precedence for what we are saying. There are four or more proposals now before us: The House bill, the Senate Finance bill, the President's bill, a compromise that is being worked on; a lot of things in common among all of those bills: Rebates for low-income folks, additional unemployment benefits, health care provisions. We disagree on the amounts of those, but those are pretty much common to all of these proposals, and if a stimulus package passes, that is going to be in there. That is where the similarity breaks down and the division begins. There is nothing wrong with philosophical divisions. That is why we have elections, and that is why we have parties. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but they are not entitled to their facts or their history. Let us examine which side is supported by history or precedent or facts and which is not. On our side of the aisle, we basically think the majority of the package ought to be tax cuts for the private sector, working men and women who are carrying the load and paying the taxes, and that includes a speed-up of the reduction of the individual tax rates. That way, people can get not just an extra check in their pocket one time, but they can rely on a tax system that is going to be lower, and they can look at it in the future and base their conduct, whether it is additional work or additional investment, on a tax code that has been changed to their benefit on out into the future, not just a check but a change of policy. That is what we believe. Our friends on the other side of the aisle basically seem to think the way to stimulate the economy is spending by the Federal Government, and therein lie the differences and the debate. Our friends on the other side of the aisle and some on our side, and many in the media and some economists, point out we need to get money into the hands of the consumer by means of the Federal Government, which incidentally is money that either has to be borrowed or on which people have to be taxed. That is where the Federal Government gets its money and redistributes it to others in the form of checks which they will immediately spend. The argument goes, the lower the income level, the more likely they are to spend it. So getting checks into the hands of consumers will stimulate the economy. The problem is there is not any evidence to support that proposition. I know it is often said. It might even be considered to be common wisdom at this stage of the game. But I submit all of the evidence and historical precedent indicate Federal spending programs designed to grow the economy have not proven to be successful. What are my citations for that? I am accusing other folks of not giving their reasons, historical precedent or evidence. ``Thompson, what are your citations?'' one might say. I cite studies prepared by the Joint Economic Committee back in 1988. I cite the 1930s, when in an attempt to ameliorate the effects of the Great Depression, we saw a percentage of the gross domestic product in this country almost triple while unemployment doubled. I cite the case of Japan. They have been trying to do this fordecades--spend themselves into prosperity. They have had 10 separate spending stimulus packages in the 1990s, to no effect. France and Sweden have had similar problems. I ask, if in fact we really run our economy based on an ATM principle, where we have it figured out, that we have to put in our card, our solution, our congressional solution, and out comes the result we want, why do we ever tolerate recession anyway? Why do we not print some more money? Why do we not send out some more checks? Why do we ever sustain the average recession of 11 months? Why do we go that long if that is the solution? It is an easy solution and an easy one to understand. I submit it is because it has not proven to work. On the idea the poor will spend more, there is no historical evidence for that either. It might seem logical, but a lot of things that seem logical are not borne out in real practice. The last time we sent checks out, 18 percent of people spent them. According to the Presidential adviser, Mr. Hubbard, I was reading the other day he says all the economic evidence is that people spend at various income levels. People basically spend the same percentage. We already have the budget with $686 billion in spending, an additional $40 billion that has been allocated, and an additional $15 billion in airline support. Certainly, when we hear of economists saying this is a solution, you would not want to include Mr. Greenspan in that category. He doesn't say that spending is the way to do this. He says if we do it, we cannot do it fast enough to have any effect anyway. In fact, by the time it kicks in, by the time our governmental spending kicks in and the checks get in the mail, are received and spent, even if it works the way we want it to, it will be too late. If the average recession lasts 11 months--and ours started last March--we are going to have to hurry up or the doggone recession will be over before we act and we will not get credit for anything. There is no way we can possibly have anything that affects the economy by next February or spring. We could assist it if we did exactly the right thing. Is it worth $100 billion under those circumstances, when we cannot agree on the components? I question that. What about the other side? I have been talking about the philosophy of Federal spending being the answer to stimulating the economy. What about this side of the aisle? As to the idea that the private sector is the source of the solution for recession and that tax cuts, and especially marginal rate cuts, is an integral part of that, what about the evidence for that? I submit the historical evidence to support that proposition is just as clear as the historical evidence that fails to support the Federal Government spending proposition. The evidence is, those kinds of tax cuts not only grow the economy but they produce more revenue to the Federal Government. President Kennedy pointed that out. He said: It is not a matter of either tax cuts or higher deficits; the more you cut taxes, the more revenue you will generate. Of course, he was right. Incidentally, the rich pay more as a percentage of the taxes paid when you have the marginal rate tax cuts than beforehand. At every level it is borne out, and especially marginal rate reductions, which encourage work, encourage investment, are the kinds of action that get the economy going. Sending someone a check to buy a pair of gym shoes will be momentarily beneficial to somebody, I suppose, but that is not the kind of policy that strengthens our economy or causes that money to recirculate or to be there for a longer period of time. What is my historical evidence? I refer to the 1920s, the 1960s and the 1980s. During those periods, the country went with that approach. In every instance, we had more economic growth, more revenue to the Federal Government, and the richer paid a higher percentage of the taxes that were paid in terms of dollars. From 1961 to 1968, the economy expanded 42 percent because of President Kennedy's tax cuts, over 5 percent a year. I would settle for that. We could use a little of that right now. When you look at the package from the Finance Committee or what is being talked about in the Chamber by my friends on the other side of the aisle, the best I can figure is, only 20 to 25 percent of the possibly $100 billion package would in any way justify being called stimulative, if you look at the evidence and do not just pick this economist's statement who is aligned philosophically with one group or another economist aligned with another group or someone who comports with our own philosophy. My concern is that in all this compromise language talk, we will say, OK, let's do what we often do around here and take both of them: Have the tax cuts and additional spending. That is what got us in trouble before. We do not need to go that way. Not only would it not be good, it would be harmful. We will need that revenue. If we had good reason to believe such an approach that just gave pennies on the dollar to stuff that would be stimulative, and the rest would make us feel good and help us with certain voters in certain segments of the economy--we are all concerned about the unemployed. I am as concerned about unemployed in Tennessee as unemployed in New York. They are all unemployed and all deserve our consideration, and they will under these bills, but they will not stimulate the economy. We have only begun to assess the costs of what happened in September. We know now almost overnight not only will we have to spend a whole lot more in our defense budget, but we have law enforcement, public health facilities, nuclear facilities, government buildings, Border Patrol, post offices, airports, mass transit. Those are all directly at the feet of the Government and the private sector. We have handling of the mail, insurance costs, transportation costs. Somebody said it is not that ``just in time'' philosophy with the average business, it is ``just in case'' philosophy. That will cost money. Slowing globalization has hit a lot of company pockets; computer security--all these things cost a lot of money in the public and private sectors. Unless we are very sure what we are doing with $100 billion or $85 billion, we should not do it. Now the OMB Director says we will be in deficit at least until 2005. If we cannot at least get half of a stimulus package that stimulates the economy, we should not do it. We do not know how long the recession will be. If it is average, we have already bottomed out and are working our way back. Nobody knows for sure. But we do know retail sales are up, unemployment stabilized, low oil prices, and interest rate reductions have put more money into the consumer's hands faster than the Federal Government could. The stock market is not doing too badly. We should give ourselves a chance. There is a good argument to be made that we can do the right thing, have policy that stimulates the economy, which is the private sector, and a large portion has to be tax cuts and rate reductions which are tried and true. We can also make some compromises and do some things in terms of spending that many think are not stimulative but within the bounds of political reality, realizing that has to be part of the package, and have a decent mix and maybe do some good. Anything less than that, I fear, would do harm. I hope the President draws the line and says something to the effect, if part of this package cannot be stimulative, I will veto it. I think that is a position we ought to take. I don't think we have been talking about this for so long and the markets are so convinced and have been convinced that this is what we are going to do and it is such a great idea. I don't think they are paying that much attention to us in that regard. I don't think that train is down the track that far that we have to pass something, regardless. I will not vote for something ``regardless'' that is, in the long term interests, detrimental to the economy of this Nation. But it will be unfortunate if we do not have the opportunity to do something that would be beneficial and come together on something that would be beneficial. I still hope we will be able to do that because I think that would be the best solution for the economy and for the Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will respond to my friend that I do not doubt that. I do not know the details of how they do that. I am aware that they do it. I do not doubt, as I have indicated, someone, going down at the micro level, going down and getting a check and buying some goods has some effect; that a lot of people doing that might not have some effect. I think the difference has to do with short term versus long term. The history I have read on the subject concerning a concerted effort by the Government, with Federal spending programs over a period of time-- whether it be the United States in the 1930s, or Japan for the last decade--has not proved beneficial, has not brought about growth. So we might be talking about the difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics. I am not sure. I do not dispute the statistic that the Senator gave, but I think the studies that were done from the Joint Economic Committee back in 1998 is the other side of that coin.

Mr. THOMPSON. No, I think you can assume in most cases, if you are talking about that very small part of the economy that has to do with unemployment benefits, that those checks probably are spent. My concern, I suppose, is that if you expand that concept, then why not send everybody a check. A lot of people laughed at Senator McGovern several years ago--what was the size of the check he wanted to send everybody, $1000? Why not extrapolate that concept, if the concept is the solution? I think there is some factual validity to what you are saying. But I am saying if you expand that concept in terms of the overall economy, the evidence is not there to support it. If it is that simple, if that is the solution, why do we ever put up with a recession? When we first see one, why don't we decide to whom we want to send the checks and get it over with and the economy will bounce back?

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, the Daschle amendment is simply another amendment in the long tradition of amendment after amendment basically federalizing things that have been under the purview of State and local government for many years. Usually, we choose a politically opportune moment to do this; we give lipservice all the time to the concept of federalism. We have tort reform debates, where it comes up many times in many different ways, and many proponents of the Daschle amendment and I have joined together in pointing out that we should be slow to federalize things that have been under the purview of State law for 200 years. We give lipservice to the fact that State and local governments are closer to the people and the Federal Government doesn't have the solution to all problems. All the time, while we are giving lipservice, we are slowly, bit by bit, amendment by amendment, passing things that go against the entire concept of federalism. Those who are promoting this amendment a short time ago, during the Patients' Bill of Rights debate, were taking the position that State liability law should apply; that State courts should be the ones to determine State liability. Federalism was a good thing back then. Federalism was a good thing when we considered issues on tort reform. But now we have an amendment that basically federalizes and preempts State and local laws regarding the unionization of public safety officers. It seems that some of us want to be Jeffersonians on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays and Hamiltonians on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays. So we have this amendment before us, and it is an amendment that is a significant intrusion on the rights of States to set their own rules. As we know, the National Labor Relations Act applies to unionism in the private sector employment. No Federal statute regarding unionism applies to State and local Government employees. It has always been within the purview of States and local communities to create laws governing the employment of police officers and firefighters. The Daschle amendment would be an unprecedented expansion of Federal authority at the expense of State and local communities. It basically gives Federal labor relations the authority and the power to determine whether or not a State's laws are up to par. If they determine that the State's laws are not up to par or in compliance with Federal standards, the Federal Labor Relations Authority will establish collective bargaining standards that will apply to the States. Madam President, this amendment would require changes to the laws of over half the States in the Nation--the laws that they have been administering all this time. Two States have passed laws that explicitly prohibit public safety unions. We are all familiar with the debates we have concerning whether or not it is a good idea for people in certain public professions to unionize, whether or not we are more likely to be faced with strikes and things of that nature which go against the public welfare. Different States have reached different conclusions as to whether or not this is a good idea, whether or not it is a good idea to allow them to unionize. Of course, that is what States do. They do different things, depending on what the people in the States want. Many other States, including my home State, are silent on the issue of union rights of public officials, which allows counties, cities, and other local communities to determine whether or not they will allow unions to collectively bargain with them or not. In my view, this is exactly where these decisions should be made. Surely, questions about hiring decisions and the qualifications of the people who provide services that safeguard the community should be made by the people who live in those communities. I have received letters from a dozen communities in Tennessee from Fayetteville to Johnson City, Smyrna, Germantown, and many others. Many of those letters were sent by police departments expressing their concern over the adverse impact of this legislation on their communities. No one can doubt the tremendous service that is provided by our firefighters and police officers. They put their lives on the line every day to ensure our safety. But this amendment is not a fitting response to that service. It is not a fitting response to subvert the basic relationship between the States and the Federal Government or the local communities and the Federal Government. It is not a fitting response to fundamentally alter a system that has been established and has served us well for 200 years. This amendment essentially writes State laws for States and requires the States to pass them or have the Federal Government apply their own standard. It is not the place of the Federal Government to make decisions that are closely tied to the needs of traditional responsibilities of States and local communities. This amendment is an unwarranted intrusion on self-government. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that was referred to Congress by President Bush. The legislation seeks to extensively reform management of the Federal Government. I applaud the Administration's attention to the issue of government reform, and I will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and in Congress to enact this important package, because it includes comprehensive reforms that will make government work better. The Governmental Affairs Committee has documented the problems affecting Executive Branch operations for some time, and I am impressed with the President's attention to these issues at this critical time in our Nation's history. The President's package of management reform proposals will allow government managers to carry out their critical responsibilities for the American public more effectively. It's obvious the Administration understands how very important government reform is to ensuring that the government can accomplish its varied missions. The legislation, which includes the Freedom to Manage Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act, makes it easier for Executive Branch management to increase accountability, reduce unnecessary costs, and manage for results. The Managerial Flexibility Act will help the government recruit and retain people with needed skills, increase the flexibility of federal property management, and allow agencies to budget for results. The Freedom to Manage Act would allow other reform proposals, submitted to the Congress by the Administration, to be considered expeditiously by the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this important legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today that was referred to Congress by President Bush. The legislation seeks to extensively reform management of the Federal Government. I applaud the Administration's attention to the issue of government reform, and I will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and in Congress to enact this important package, because it includes comprehensive reforms that will make government work better. The Governmental Affairs Committee has documented the problems affecting Executive Branch operations for some time, and I am impressed with the President's attention to these issues at this critical time in our Nation's history. The President's package of management reform proposals will allow government managers to carry out their critical responsibilities for the American public more effectively. It's obvious the Administration understands how very important government reform is to ensuring that the government can accomplish its varied missions. The legislation, which includes the Freedom to Manage Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act, makes it easier for Executive Branch management to increase accountability, reduce unnecessary costs, and manage for results. The Managerial Flexibility Act will help the government recruit and retain people with needed skills, increase the flexibility of federal property management, and allow agencies to budget for results. The Freedom to Manage Act would allow other reform proposals, submitted to the Congress by the Administration, to be considered expeditiously by the Congress. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of this important legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator for his comments.

Mr. THOMPSON. Madam President, I have a question for Senator McConnell, distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, regarding an important rule of law project currently underway in the Andean region. The project is the Hacia la Seguridad project located in Quito, Ecuador.

Mr. THOMPSON. The mission of the Hacia la Seguridad project is to increase transparency throughout Ecuador's legal system as a means of promoting bureaucratic and judicial accountability, effective governance and law enforcement, and improved access to justice. The project specifically focuses on the identification and elimination of invalid regulations and statutes, the design of modern legal codes, judicial monitoring, and public education and support for rule of law reform. It is my understanding that the Senator supports this project and that it is the intention of the committee that it receive support from USAID.

Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator for his clarifying statement and ask that the committee seek Statement of Manager's language directing USAID to fund the project.