A FRED THOMPSON PRESIDENCY

Fred Thompson AP Interview 6/02/07

2007-06-03T11:01:00.000-07:00

Fred's Q&A From the 2004 Panetta Conference (revised)

2007-05-12T09:38:00.000-07:00

Leon Panetta: welcome, both of you, to the Monterey Peninsula. Let's begin by talking a little bit about the broad subject of leadership in the 21st century.
Last century we defeated fascism and communism. In order to do that, we had to build a strong defense. We had to build strong alliances. We built NATO, helped create the U.N.. This century, the threat is obviously terrorism.
We have a strong defense, but can we win without building strong alliances? Has Iraq hurt our credibility, or our ability to develop those kinds of alliances?

Fred Thompson: Leon, we shouldn't have to worry about whether or not we could go it alone if we had to. Hopefully it doesn't come to that. We should strive to avoid that, if for no other reason because in any democracy, I think the people's willingness to sustain protracted hostile and unpleasant activity is limited, and I think that when there is a lack of national support, it's more difficult to maintain the support inside your own country, when people see that. However, it's not exactly like we're in the habit of doing that. I think we've gotten a bit of a bum rap because of that.
We certainly had a coalition in 1991. We went to Iraq. We were part of a group with regard to Kosovo. There are over 30 countries involved in Iraq today, so it's not like we're going out and looking for ways to become unilateral. The real issue is, we're the world's leading power and the world's leading target. What about those instances when try as we must -- and admittedly we could have done better in our diplomacy this time around, but let's say, try as we must, we see a situation that we think is of vital importance to us, and we cannot get the French and Germans, for example, to go along, or the united nations, who is usually, you know, relying upon the United States to be the end of the spear when we agree on activities to do together.
What about it then?
Obviously none of us will want to give anyone else a veto over United States actions, that it feels like it needs to take in its own self-interest, so the question becomes instance by instance, what is really in our self-interest and what is worth going it alone for. We've been given a lot of blame recently. I think some of it justified, a good deal of it is not, but you have to look at the other side of that equation.
Why is it that some of the European countries try every way they can to not cooperate with us?
Why were the French and Germans and Russians trying to get economic sanctions lifted from Saddam?
Why were so many leaders around the world apparently in on the food for peace scandal that we're seeing now?
So there's some blame on the other side. Why were so many countries doing deals with Saddam for oil before all this broke?
So there are two sides to it, and it all comes back to situation by situation, and our need to properly evaluate each situation as to what's in our legitimate self-interest and how far we're willing to go in protecting it.

Leon Panetta: Let me ask you about -- the President has said, the Solicitor General said in arguing before the Supreme Court, that we are a nation that is at war and admittedly we are losing men and will on the battlefield, but we are also a nation that when we are at war has demanded shared sacrifice by the American people. But we have not been asked to pay for this war and we're looking at a price tag that could run anywhere from $150 to $200 billion. Most of that's borrowed money. We have not been asked -- we have a military force that's deployed almost everywhere in the world. You're talking about a deployment of 130 to 150,000 troops in Iraq for an indefinite period of time, but we've not been asked to institute a military draft.
And we are asked not to pay attention to the pictures of caskets that return from Iraq. Can we be a nation at war and somehow pretend that that war is not real, and demand sacrifice?

Fred Thompson: well, I don't think anyone is trying to avoid recognition of the caskets that are coming home. But I agree that we have not been treating this as it is, a war. I don't think the average person feels that way. I think we could have done more to spread the burden. I think, for example, this would have been a great opportunity early on to say ok, we don't want to do it, but now we're going to have to have a tough energy policy.
The source of a lot of this is our dependency on oil from that part of the world, so we're going to have to give something, business is going to have to give something, and we're going to need a better energy policy.
So yeah, I think we could have done a lot better in terms of sharing the sacrifice. So it makes it very important that we have some fiscal policies, in order to carry on those things.
Let's take, for example, that this was a just endeavor in Iraq, which I happen to agree with. But it's going to be extremely expensive. Homeland security, we just merged 22 departments of homeland security. It's going to be extremely expensive.
We don't realize how much we're going to have to do in terms of protecting our infrastructure. Most of it's in private hands in this country, all the railroads and rail lines and highways and bridges and things of that nature, nuclear plants and things of that nature.
The cost is going to be tremendous. When a long drawn-out protracted war that our leadership has not properly explained to us yet, we've had war declared Against us back, the first time was 1996 and then 1998 again by Osama Bin Laden. Nobody paid much attention to it.
We're going to have to pay for it.
That means we're going to have to have very sound fiscal policies to keep our economy churning, and that's why George and I will launch into another debate as to what sound fiscal policy is, and the right mixture of taxes and spending. Our non-defense discretionary spending from 2001-2003 went up, what, 15%. We cannot sustain the spending side. Others say we can't sustain the tax cuts.
Whatever, we've got a big deficit, and it's going to get bigger when the retirees retire, so it all mixes together.
We've got to pay for it, it's going to be extremely expensive, but we're not doing the things on the fiscal side that are necessary to put us in the economic position, strength wise, in order to get the job done.

Leon Panetta: I'm well aware of the Ted Koppel controversy. But, don't you think we are entitled to share in the pain of those losses?

Fred Thompson: yes. But I think it's a waste of time and energy to have a big controversy over that, but the question gets into motivation and I don't know what's in Ted Koppel's mind.
I tend to be a little bit skeptical myself, but it's not enough to, you know, tear the sheets up over, in my opinion. I think we need to all recognize that what's happening there, and the full picture of what's happened, and the reason we're there, as well as the difficulties we're having while we are there.
Leon Panetta: let me ask you about Iraq. We've had a rough few weeks in Iraq.
We've had the bloodiest month that we've ever had, in April. We obviously have now these pictures of abused prisoners. That isn't going to help our situation with regards to the Arab world. In Fallujah, we are now beginning the process of turning power over to former members of Saddam's army, some of whom have been members of the Republican Guard.
We fought this war to get rid of Saddam Hussein and those who supported him and now we're returning power to his generals. What's wrong with this picture? Where did we go wrong, and what do we need to do to fix the situation?

Fred Thompson: I'm very concerned about this. There's a lot wrong with this picture. Was it napoleon who said if you say you're going to take Vienna, you'd better go ahead and do it, and we are looking weak right now.
I don't know what's going on there, what the strategy is, why they're doing what they're doing, bringing in a former Saddam general, television cameras, people applauding and so forth, and the next day I hear, well, this guy is probably not going to be the guy anyway.
The whole situation is a great challenge. You've got to make a decision between two very bad choices. It looks to me like if they take Fallujah, that it's going to play Al-Jazeera, you know, forever. And it's going to be rough and it might cause uprisings in other parts, and it might prove to be disastrous.
On the other hand, in my opinion, if they do not take Fallujah, that is guaranteed -- and bring in Saddam's old generals, that is guaranteed to prove disastrous.
A fellow who spent time down there and whose opinion I judge, I value highly, has said that the one thing we need to remember is that we must keep the Shi'ites on our side, and I just don't see how that does that. They are talking tactics as well as strategy, I guess, in terms of battle situations down there, but mistakes have been made. Sound like Nixon, don't I? I think -- it seems to me war is a succession of mistakes. Mistakes were made in the Korean war, mistakes and setbacks came about in world war ii. Certainly here, we probably went in without enough troops in retrospect, certainly now it seems like a no-brainer, although that's still debated. Some people think that running off the old Saddam military was a bad idea. As conventional wisdom, maybe that's true.
I don't know.
Underestimating the difficulty of pacifying the place clearly was a mistake, although I don't remember that many commentators and experts before the fact predicting that this was what's going to happen.
A lot of people thought we shouldn't go. A lot of people thought we were going to meet more resistance than we in fact did. We made a mistake as to the strength of the resistance to start with. It was easier than what we thought, turned out to be. But regardless, if you're carrying out this operation, it's your responsibility not to make mistakes, if they can be avoided, and that was a mistake. So we can spend a lot of time looking backward, but looking forward, I believe that over a period of several years now, we have slowly but surely developed a reputation, not as a country that's looking for a fight or looking to unilaterally invade folks for the fun of it, but if we pull out when things get tough, as we did in Somalia, as we turned around in Haiti, the port there, as we did in Lebanon, a lot of people interpret our leaving when we did in Iraq in 1991 in retrospect, as weakness. The many times we've been attacked from African embassies to the attempt in the airport in Los Angeles, the following year, to the following year of the world trade center before, and our tepid responses to all that. All of that has led us to a situation where people are expecting us to do that again and if we do that again, it's going to make for a much more dangerous situation.
That's a fear for us.
That's a theater of war there. If we got out of war tomorrow and had no involvement forever, it would be a terrible blow to us, but it would just simply change the theater to another one.
Or several more, including the possibility of a very real possibility -- and I think probability, of a theater of war in this country, many cells are here already.
Some think, you know, waiting to be activated. I do not know. So it is a problem. It is a mess.
But it is not one that I think we asked for. It is one that we're struggling to come to the right answer to, and I think pulling out of there and running and not doing what's necessary to be successful there -- and at least give those people an opportunity, ultimately they've got to be the ones to decide what kind of country they're going to have, but giving them an opportunity to live in a different kind of society now that Saddam and Uday and Husay, how soon we forget, now that they're not running things anymore.

Leon Panetta: let me ask you on the weapons of mass destruction, because we all -- when I was in the white house, we were briefed on the existence of weapons of mass destruction. I'm sure you had briefings that were very similar to that, and Bob Woodward's book, George Tenet says when the President even raises a question about it, that it's a slam dunk, that weapons of mass destruction are there. And that obviously we found out that they were all wrong. How could our intelligence, how could our intelligence be so wrong about something so important?

Fred Thompson: I agree with George. I think it's a matter of lack of adequate human intelligence and lack of adequate analysis. We let down our guard after the Cold War in many respects.
Intelligence was one of them, especially human intelligence. Our military budget, our military personnel cut back and so forth, all for some years, led up to September 11. It takes a lot sometimes to get our attention. Osama had declared war on us. We'd been attacked several times, abroad usually, weren't paying that much attention. That's the intelligence background in a nutshell.
On the weapons of mass destruction, the people who thought there were weapons of mass destruction include, besides President Clinton, our C.I.A. The business about Saddam being capable of reconstituting his nuclear program came from a national intelligence estimate. That was not made up by Dick Cheney.
All the foreign intelligence allies that we have came to the same conclusion. All of the members of the Senate select Committee on intelligence that I served on, that I know of, came to the same conclusion. Some of the President's most vigorous critics now said at that time that Saddam posed an imminent threat at that time, including myself.
We were apparently all wrong about that. The jury is still out and maybe he hasn't had them for a while, maybe they're in Syria, who knows. But the significant thing is, I believe, is that if we had left Saddam alone, he still had his infrastructure.
He still had his scientists. He still had his capability. He still had his desire.
I can't prove this, but in my opinion if we had not gone in there, there's no question, in my opinion, in a few years, Saddam would have had nuclear capability to go along with what he admitted in terms of having chemical and biological.

Leon Panetta: Senator Thompson, the U.S. did a pre-emptive strike in Iraq because of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. How difficult will it be for the U.S. to ever get support again for a pre-emptive strike against another country?

Fred Thompson: Well, I still think it depends on the circumstances that the United States is faced with and how effective we make our case about those circumstances.
I think part of our problem in this case was that so many of our European friends as well as other people around the world did not be appreciate or believe the nature of the threat, that terrorism essentially was our problem, we were the number one target, and we didn't make an effective enough case as to the nature of the situation.
I think unfortunately, the war will be seeing that play out, in other ways, as the Spanish have. I think that had more to do with their support than just their support of us in Iraq.
And Bali -- other places, of course, we've already seen. But I think there are two parts to it.
First, our allies, as I was alluding to earlier, I think we've got to make the case, we've got to have much better intelligence, and as you pointed out earlier, intelligence is never perfect. It's an imperfect science, and ours is certainly not where it should be.
There are all kinds of scenarios in the future that would present terrible quandaries for all of us. We're all focused now on this one place.
It will be resolved one way or another before long. What kind of world are we going to live in afterwards?
Are we going to have a situation where we cannot act unless we have 100% intelligence that is unassailable, which I think probably virtually never happens.
Suppose someone comes in and tells the President that they have information of something that's about to happen and particular place and location of the most severe consequences.
But the source, there's only one source, and the source of that has a spotty record, sometimes he's been wrong and sometimes he's been right.
What do you do in a situation like that?
Those are the tough decisions we're going to be required to make more than anybody because we're the number one target and we're the leading nation.
So we're going to have to work effectively and try to make our case as best we can to our allies.
On the other hand, I think that some of our allies have to have a different attitude themselves about things. I think there was certainly mixed motives and most of them not very laudable in terms of some of our European friends with regard to Iraq. I think they had self-interest, self-dealing. I think that they were more than happy to kind of stick it to the United States.
They had been chafing for a long time because of -- chafing for a long time because of everything from our turning down the Kyoto Treaty to back even before the Bush Administration. There's been talk of American arrogance and that sort of thing. So hopefully, they will see what Thomas Friedman wrote about in the "New York Times" a while back.
He said, this is a war between the forces of order and the forces of disorder, and if the forces of order do not understand this and pull together and come together and get over their petty differences, we're going to be in deep, deep trouble, because the forces of disorder are everywhere. They're organizing, and they can be tremendously destructive and a handful of people can get their hands now on the technological resources to kill thousands and thousands of people. We don't even talk about weapons of mass destruction anymore, out of the context of Saddam Hussein.
But they're still out there, they're proliferating, we're always finding new countries and rogue nations that have stuff that we didn't know that they had, so that's the kind of world that we live in, and the United States and our allies, better learn how to work together and confront this problem jointly, because as I say, it is everybody in the free world's problem.

Leon Panetta: You're both lawyers, and you're a former Judge. What are your feelings about holding American citizens and denying them basic rights in the name of fighting terrorism? I think there was a case that was argued within the last few weeks that involved holding a U.S. citizen and declaring him an enemy combatant and therefore depriving him of right to counsel, right to a hearing, et cetera. Is the executive branch justified in doing that in the name of war?

Fred Thompson: That of course begs the question, what is his constitutional rights? I think the history of warfare and our judicial system, from what I recall, weighs in on the side of the President in this case. I think that President Roosevelt, for example, exercised these prerogatives under the war making powers and the constitution given to the President.
The real question is whether or not this is a typical kind of situation. Obviously the President can't violate any citizen's rights as such, or whether or not this is a wartime situation, where the rules of the game are totally different, and if someone can be detained just like a prisoner of war, until the hostilities are over.
Incidentally, if they were tried here and sentenced, they would probably wind up serving a lot more time in confinement than under their present circumstances even though hostilities are probably going to go on a long time, they'll probably get out sooner. The situation involving the Chicago case is Mr. Padilla. His parents were, I believe, citizens of Saudi Arabia.
They were in the United States briefly and this is not relevant legally, but he was born in the United States. He'd just come back from Pakistan. The allegation is that he was planning to -- he and others, to set off a dirty bomb here in the United States.
I think the resolution to this -- the problem that I have with it is that there needs to be a procedure to cover situations where someone is captured and held in error.
Everyone ought to have the right, like I think article 5 under the Geneva Convention, ought to have the right to come before a judge and say you've got the wrong guy and I can prove it.
And I think that's where the Administration made a mistake and I think hopefully that's what they're gravitating toward. But simply showing some threshold, not as in a regular criminal case where you have to prove a criminal case beyond a reasonable doubt, but at least some kind of prima facie showing that ok, we got him, here is where we got him, here were the circumstances and we got a right to keep him, and at least press that threshold.
I'm uncomfortable with anybody, even under wartime circumstances, if they're not in an active combat situation abroad, being held indefinitely without some kind of judicial review, but I don't think it's required to have the same kind of judicial review that you have in a typical criminal proceeding.

Leon Panetta: Let me ask you, there is a lot of money obviously involved not only in the Bush campaign, but Kerry is out raising the same kind of money. We've got television ads appearing. They're beating the hell out of each other.
They're accusing each other of virtually being unpatriotic, that both have not served this country well, and I think it was John McCain who finally said, you now, the Vietnam War is over, for goodness sakes, let's move on.
If they're beating each other up this badly now, I mean, in six months, what is the impact of that in terms of the American people's attitudes towards the Presidential race?

Fred Thompson: The American people have shown boundless capability to absorb unprecedented onslaughts to their sensibilities in politics. And I guess this will be no exception.
I don't know what -- obviously, what they're doing is -- you know, the thing that bothers me most about presidential politics and the mud slinging, I'm sure before it's over with, they'll have enough -- each side will have enough money to sling about all the mud they want to, so that doesn't -- but it's that we have to wait until the presidential campaign is over before we can have some serious discussions about serious problems.
A presidential campaign is the last place in the world you're going to have a serious discussion about a serious problem. We're sitting here watching ourselves walk off a cliff, you know, in the out years, past the projections that we're all talking about now in terms of entitlements and what's going to happen when the boomers start to retire, and just as one example, there are others, but everybody is afraid to talk about it, and the common statement each year is that well, we can deal with that as soon as the election is over.
That's what elections are supposed to about. And that has to do with leadership, and it has to do with not just being a sponge and receiving what you're getting out there and your poll numbers tell you, but actually leading and I think that politicians underestimate the ability of the American people to appreciate something like that, and I think the precise answer to your question, I think most people will turn it off, will turn most all of it off, and probably until sometime after the world series and the important things are over with. And then they'll see who's standing and the election will actually depend upon things that haven't happened yet.

Leon Panetta: Let me ask you both, if there were another -- god willing it won't happen, but if there's another terrorist attack, what will be the impact between now and the election?
We saw what happened in Spain. What is the likely impact of another September 11 on the race between President Bush and john Kerry?

Fred Thompson: That's a very good question. I think there will be two competing factors if that happens, and one is the feeling that oh, my god, all this wouldn't Have happened if we'd not been so energetic abroad, obviously working to bush's detriment. The other one would be we're not going to show the people of The world that we're like the Spanish.
They're not going to decide who's going to be our President, these terrorists are not. I think you'll have those two competing things. I also think, it depends on when it happens. I think if it happened real close to the election, people would rally around the flag and that would benefit Bush. I think if it happened somewhat out from it, that that would probably work to his detriment.

Leon Panetta: what is the appropriate role of the federal government when it comes to outsourcing of jobs overseas?

Fred Thompson: I think that the recent rise of protectionist sentiments are very detrimental potentially to our economy. I agree with Senator Mitchell 100% on what he said about free trade and the benefits, and it helps our people buy cheaper products. It helps other people in other nations who aspire to be economically successful, to lift their standard of living. And we gain in the process. Nations that trade openly are by and large successful nations.
Nations that do not, by and large are not successful. That's the whole thing for me. I do think that it would be a mistake to impose environmental and labor standards on these fledgling, some younger countries or small countries or poverty stricken countries, because I think the best thing we could do as a condition for free trade with us, the best thing we can do to alleviate those kinds of problems is to have free trade, and it's only helping lift them out of poverty that free trade will bring about that they will improve their environmental conditions, for example, not because of any mandates we lay on them.

Leon Panetta: President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney testified before the 9/11 commission with no press coverage. Should the public know what was said and why?

Fred Thompson: I think that there's something to be said for a certain amount of informality in a situation like this. They're trying for -- in a way, I would like to have had a transcript of it, but I think the main thing is to impart information, and if they're really interested in information, on having a frank back and forth and give and take as they did with the President and Vice President as they did with President Clinton and Vice President Gore, I think this forum and this format with regard to this commission, which I think is a bipartisan commission and nobody is going to get away with anything of any substance, I think, is a decent format to do that in. And I incidentally think that from all the turmoil that they've had from time to time and controversies that the commission has had, that a couple of important things are going to come out of it.
One is that the American people now know what those of us who have been in the Senate, especially those of us who have been on intelligence Committees, and the American people, if they have been paying attention, should have already known, and that is that we have a great deficiency in terms of our intelligence capabilities and what that leads to, and I think President Bush has now said that we need reform, we need to do some things differently. He has somewhat of an excuse, I think, in a way seven months, how much can you do it, takes longer and longer to get a team together, each succeeding President it takes longer and so forth.
Up to a point. But it became obvious some time ago that we had great deficiencies there and it had to be done. I think he's making that statement now, one that's long overdue, quite frankly, and I think a lot of it had to do with the fact that now everybody has seen how bad the situation is and what the consequences are. The other thing that's coming out of the 9/11 Commission is the consensus, it seems like by the Commission, that sometimes, sometimes pre-emptive action is something you have to do. We can debate over when and where and so forth, but the President is taking a lot of criticism, by the majority of the Commission, it seems, for not having done more before September 11 in terms of -- it could only be described as, pre-emptive terms.

Leon Panetta: Let me ask Fred: how did a person who was a counsel become a movie actor? And then become District Attorney on "law and order"?

Fred Thompson: First of all, I appreciate the compliment. I once pointed out, I said I just happened into this thing, I never took an acting lesson.
They said we know, we saw it. We've seen your work. No, it's like most things that have happened of any importance in my life, total serendipity. I was practicing law, they made a movie about a case I had and I played myself in the movie, so it was a terrible mistake that they made, letting me in on the inside there, because I wouldn't turn them loose, so I did 18 features and then for the Senate, and I often say that with all of the political activity in Hollywood, that I had to leave the Senate and go back into show business to get my points heard again.

http://www.panettainstitute.org/lib/04/mitchell_thompson.htm

Qualifications

2007-05-11T11:47:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson
Qualifications

- Served on the US-China Economic Review Commission
- AEG Scholar specializing in Diplomatic Relations and Foreign Intelligence
- Special Counsel to both the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under President Reagan
- Chairman of the International Security Advisory Board currently; a high-level panel charged with evaluating long-term threats to U. S. security
- Member of the powerful Senate Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over, among other things, international trade.
- Member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
- Member of the National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors executive branch negotiations with foreign governments.
- Member of the Council on Foreign Relations, an organization that promotes improved understanding of international affairs through public and private discussion.
- Member of the American Enterprise Institute for Policy Research, studies national security and intelligence, with a focus on China, North Korea, and Russia.
- Chairman of the Government Affairs Committee 1997-2001
- Ranking Republican Minority Member of the Government Affairs Committee 2001-2003
- Chairman of the Youth Violence Committee 1995-1997
- Chairman of the Senate Government Oversight Committee
- Foreign Relations Committee, 1995-96
- Member, Judiciary Committee, 1995-98
- Member, Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights, 1997-98
- Member, Technology, Terrorism and Gov't. Information, 1995-98
- Member, Finance Committee, 1999-2002
- Finance subcommittees Member, International Trade, 1999-2002 Member, Taxation and Oversight, 1999-2002 Member, Social Security and Family Policy, 1999-2002 Member, Health Care, 1999-2002
- Earned "Restoring the Balance" Award from National Conference of State Legislatures; given annually to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators
- Recognized by Citizens Against Government Waste for his report documenting the federal government's staggering levels of waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Thompson presented the report, which includes his recommendations for addressing those problems, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels at a press conference in Washington. Report includes analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government: workforce management, financial management, information technology management, and overlap and duplication. In addition, the report includes an agency-by-agency appendix citing examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. The report also contains a list of the "Top Ten" worst examples of mismanagement in the government. CAGW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government.
-
- Interest Group Ratings:
- National Abortion Reproductive Rights: 0
- US Chamber of Commerce: 100%
- ACLU: 11%
- American Conservative Union: 85%
- AFT: perfect 0
- League of Private Property Owners: 90%
- National Tax Limitation Committee: 97%
- National Taxpayers Union: 88%
- ADA (liberal): perfect score
- Supported Newt’s Contract with America 100% of the time
- Planned Parenthood 0%
- NARAL 0%

Important Proposals and Inclusions Introduced while in the Senate:
- Nuclear Proliferation Act
- Special Counsel Act
- Aviation Security Bill Amendment
- FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill
- Regulatory Right-To-Know Act
- Homeland Security Workforce Act
- Homeland Security Education Act
- The Thompson amendment in the Treasury-Postal Title (Section 646) of the
Consolidated Appropriations Bill
- Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981)
- Thompson Amendment to the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act
- Thompson Amendment to the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Act
- The Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act
- The Federalism Accountability Act
- The Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA)
- The Thompson Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act
- The Truth in Regulation Act

Weekly Column 12-20-01

2007-04-29T13:16:00.000-07:00

Education and Retention Essential To Our National Security
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
December 20, 2001
Uzbek, Serbo-Croation and Arabic.
These are just a few of the languages spoken in regions of the world central to our national security. With few Americans speaking these languages fluently, the problem is clear. If we can't read or write in these languages, our ability to collect intelligence information is compromised and our national security is at risk.
Language, science, and math skills are areas relating to our national security where our federal workforce lacks the necessary degree of proficiency. With an unprecedented increase in the number of federal employees retiring, this problem is exacerbated.
I recently joined with two of my colleagues in the Senate to introduce a pair of bills that provide a comprehensive strategy to deal with these weaknesses. The Homeland Security Education Act and the Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act address specific problems in the federal government's ability to recruit and retain the most talented and qualified national security professionals.
Through the Homeland Security Education Act, experts will be drawn into fields relating to National Security through educational grants, loan forgiveness programs, and opportunities for overseas language training. In addition to this, foreign language education will be addressed and developed at all levels, from elementary schools to universities and beyond.
The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act will also create incentives to join the federal workforce at agencies including the Departments of Defense, State, Energy, and Justice as well as the CIA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the National Security Agency. Like its sister legislation, it will establish loan forgiveness programs and educational grants.
The Workforce Act will also create a National Security Service Corps, through which federal national security agencies will conduct exchange programs for mid-level employees. Perhaps most importantly, this legislation will better track our future needs for national security personnel by requiring agencies to address human capital needs when assessing agency strength and future plans.
These bills were a product of many of the recommendations made by the Hart/Rudman Commissionon National Security in the 21st Century earlier this year. The commission warned in its most recent report that maintaining American power in the world would depend on the quality of our federal workforce. Such a recommendation was underscored by the events we witnessed on September 11th.
Employing the best possible federal workforce is a matter of national security. The federal government's workforce crisis is real and will remain unless we begin to think strategically about what our needs are and then match our most skilled people with opportunities for development and incentives to stay.
For more information on this column or other issues, visit my website at http://thompson.senate.gov.

Weekly Column 11-30-01

2007-04-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

Fighting the Scourge of Methamphetamine
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
November 30, 2001
Methamphetamine, commonly called Meth, is a drug many people had never heard of until recent years. Yet it has spread through our state at a dangerous rate, taking a toll on our people, our environment, and our local governments.
Congress has taken action to combat Methamphetamine, recently providing $20 million to assist state and local law enforcement agencies in Tennessee and across the country with the cleanup of toxic meth labs. The production of methamphetamine, a dangerous chemical process carried out in labs often hidden in private homes, many times results in chemical explosions and fires. While dangerous to manufacturers and users who face serious burns and long term consequences including lung disease and rotting teeth, children living side-by-side with labs are affected as well.
Tennessee investigators arrested several adults on child abuse and neglect charges earlier this year after young children were discovered in homes and apartments housing labs. In the worst of these cases, a small child died in February of cardiac arrest reportedly caused by complications from severe burns suffered during a meth lab explosion.
Methamphetamine production also threatens our environment, with five or six pounds of toxic waste generated by every pound of meth produced. And the cleanup of just one meth lab costs from $3,000 to $100,000, depleting the financial resources of our local communities.
Tennessee law enforcement officials have actively responded to the meth problem, shutting down labs and arresting manufacturers and distributors. In Dunlap, during a three-day meth crackdown in October, Sequatchie County Sheriff's investigators confiscated at least four working meth labs, leading to 13 arrests. In September, members of the Marion County Drug Task Force destroyed approximately 30 labs and arrested 58 people on charges ranging from possession of marijuana to manufacturing meth. According to the National Drug Intelligence Center, 510 meth labs were seized in Tennessee between January 1999 and July 2001.
With the funds set aside by Congress, in addition to a $1 million grant pledged to Southeast Tennessee by the Department of Justice, our local law enforcement officers will be able to continue eradicating these labs and protecting our environment without draining limited resources from our local communities.
Meth is a dangerous drug, not only for what it does to users and manufacturers, but also for what it does to the innocent bystanders who are dragged into its path. Finding and destroying labs is the first step in combating the underworld of methamphetamine and I'm very pleased Congress is supporting these efforts. For more information on this column or other issues, visit my web site at
http://thompson.senate.gov

Weekly Column 11-05-01

2007-04-28T16:55:00.001-07:00

Effective Government Management Will Be Vital In War on Terrorism
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
November 5, 2001
In peacetime, effective government management is very important. In a time of war, it's vital.
Success in the war against terrorism is going to require efficient use of our government resources and effective management of government personnel. Recently, I introduced legislation referred to Congress by President Bush that seeks to make our government more responsive and better equipped to effectively manage its workforce and resources.
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 Freedom to Manage 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 Managerial Flexibility Act would allow other reform proposals, submitted to Congress by the President, to be considered quickly by the Congress. I will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and others in the Senate to enact this important package.
Programs attempting such accountability have worked well when attempted in the past. The Navy successfully experimented with performance-oriented pay for more than a decade. However, the authority for them to extend that program or make it permanent, or for other agencies to experiment with similar programs, required special authorizing legislation. The Managerial Flexibility Act allows a successful demonstration project, such as the Navy's, to be made permanent and available for other agencies to adopt in the future.
Federal managers complain that the federal hiring process takes too long and is too complicated, often preventing them from hiring the most qualified candidates. This legislation would allow them to hire the most qualified individuals as quickly and efficiently as possible by using alternative ranking and selection procedures while maintaining veterans' preferences. As with the Navy example above, this undertaking was successfully implemented for over a decade, by the Department of Agriculture.
One of the greatest challenges to effective management involves outdated and ineffective laws. This legislative package would call on agency heads to identify such laws and Congress would be required to consider repealing them quickly.
At a time when our national security is being tested as it has never been before, this legislation allows the Department of Defense to best manage its personnel. In January 2001, the General Accounting Office reported that the Defense Department, like other federal agencies, continues to face difficulties in hiring and retaining the people it needs to accomplish its mission. With shortages in intelligence analysts and computer programmers, our intelligence gathering capabilities are stretched to the limit. We must grant the Defense Department the flexibility it needs to hire and retain those individuals essential to protecting American interests.
Portions of our government have suffered from a lack of quality management for some time and we're now reaping the harvest for a lot of it, especially in regard to our national security. There has never been a more crucial time to reform the management of our federal government and the legislation we're pursuing is a strong step in that direction.
For more information on this column and other issues, visit my web site at http://web.archive.org/web/20020626124250/http://thompson.senate.gov/.

Weekly Column 10-01-01

2007-04-28T16:54:00.001-07:00

Fighting Back Against Terrorism
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
October 1, 2001
In the aftermath of the tragic events of September 11, our nation is being tested as we?ve never been tested before. In fighting a war against terrorism, we are confronting an enemy that has no stated diplomatic goals, no real territory of its own to defend, and no remorse about killing countless innocent civilians.
Following September 11, many said we were living in a new world. However, the world changed long before these attacks. Osama bin Laden declared war on us years ago and commission after commission warned us that we had better be ready to deal with a terrorist attack here in the United States. Now it?s happened and we will respond, not out a sense of anger or thirst for vengeance, but out of a desire for justice and to prevent future incidents.
During his recent speech before Congress, President Bush emerged as a true world leader. The President?s words were simple and direct. He gave voice to the spirit of the American people. And I can?t think of a more talented group than Vice President Cheney, Secretary of State Powell, National Security Advisor Rice, and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld to help him plan and carry out the task at hand.
The President?s campaign against terrorism has begun. We are assembling and beginning to deploy our military forces. Our diplomatic efforts have resulted in declarations of support and pledges of assistance from around the globe. One of the primary weapons in this campaign will be cutting off the terrorists? money supply. The Treasury Department has frozen approximately 30 Al Qaeda accounts in the U.S. and almost 20 overseas. The Justice Department has arrested or detained over 400 persons and issued over 4,000 subpoenas. In the vital area of information gathering, over 100 countries have offered increased intelligence support. Approximately 150 arrests and detentions of terrorists and suspected supporters of terrorism have taken place in over 25 countries.
At the same time, Congress has worked in a bipartisan manner to pass important legislation to aid the President?s efforts. We are working on additional pieces of legislation to combat terrorism, increase security at airports, and boost our economy. We know at the outset that we won?t agree on everything, but the partisan squabbling over issues that aren?t as important has been replaced by bipartisan agreement to work on issues that are.
Finally, I have been heartened over the past several weeks by the response of Tennesseans to this tragedy, though it came as no surprise. In the days following September 11, I repeatedly saw stories from all across the state about local efforts to help the victims and their families. I was filled with pride to see the Volunteer spirit on display during this crisis. I had the honor to spend some time at the Pentagon meeting with a group of Tennesseans from Memphis who were assisting with the recovery efforts there. I was impressed not only with their dedication, but with their spirit in the face of a very difficult task.
Shortly after the attacks, I was fortunate to be able to travel across Tennessee, meeting with folks and talking about what had happened, and what was going to happen. I talked about how this will not be a quick made-for-television war marked by pinprick responses. We?re in for the long haul, and we?re going to have to make sacrifices. The Tennesseans who came up to me, whether it was following a church service, an event at a school, or elsewhere, demonstrated a strong resolve to see this through.
Our opponents are counting on just the opposite. They are banking on the false hope that we will not be able to sustain such a high level of commitment. They are wrong. They don?t understand us and they underestimate us. This will be their downfall. As President Bush said in his speech, this campaign will not be won in a matter of weeks or months. Rather, the fight against terrorism will be a sustained effort that will last years. But in the end, we will prevail.
For more information on this column and other issues, visit my web site at http://web.archive.org/web/20020626123651/http://thompson.senate.gov/.

Weekly Column 09-14-01

2007-04-28T16:53:00.000-07:00

We Cannot Alter the Past, but We Can Affect the Future
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
September 14, 2001
In this time of unmatched national tragedy, I realize that words cannot begin to express the sorrow and anger that fills our hearts. Despite this, we must make every effort to express these feelings, on behalf of the family and friends of thousands of innocent victims, and on behalf of our entire nation.
We teach our children that the United States is a beacon of hope and liberty for the world. Today they must be wondering how or why we, of all countries, could become the world's main target of such savagery.
We are a target because those teachings are true. It is because our history and the principles on which our country was founded go against the trends of human history. Before the United States, the world saw thousands of years of "might makes right," of rulers and dictatorships of all shapes and forms, and of religious intolerance and subjugation.
We have shown the world that it doesn't have to be that way. And today's tyrants and would-be tyrants cannot afford to let that example stand. But stand it will. If this giant has been sleeping as some say, it has been awakened once again and will not rest until an example has been made of those who would murder our innocent citizens and tear at the very fabric of our national existence.
We must act as a deterrent to outrageous activity when our interests are involved. And America's response in this matter should set a lasting example of what happens to those who unleash bloody attacks -- especially upon our own soil. The time for carefully measured pinprick responses to terrorist activities has passed.
Since our victory in the Cold War, we have become somewhat complacent in the notion that the most significant danger to our nation has passed. We have seen such a mentality played out in dialogues about our military budget and we have heard it in our rhetoric. We attempted to decide with precision what the chances were of a missile attack by a rogue nation or by terrorists versus a suitcase bomb versus a biological or cyber attack. This recent attack should remind us of how faulty such predictions can be.
Surely, we must now realize that as the world's number one target, we must protect our citizens from all of these possibilities. While protection can never be complete, who is going to decide which window of vulnerability we are going to allow to remain open?
The old Soviet threat has been replaced by new ones that are in many ways more dangerous and more deceitful. We have been warned about this repeatedly -- by the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission, by the Bremer Commission and by the experts in numerous committee hearings. Surely, now we will listen.
It is essential that we resist the temptation to place our defense requirements in secondary position to our domestic wish list. And surely, we must reevaluate the wisdom of America contributing to the proliferation of military useful technology simply because we want the sales. It is my belief that this is what the Senate did when it recently passed the Export Administration Act.
If we place short term considerations, our desire for profit, or our desire to maintain record high surpluses above our national security, we will become much more vulnerable to the potential of experiencing more days like one we so recently endured.
Historians tell us of another Democracy that after major military success cut its military budget, turned inward, and failed to react to provocation in hopes of maintaining peace. A nation whose leaders followed the popular demand for more butter and fewer guns, and who felt that if worse came to worse, technology could bail them out and that treaties with dictators would substitute for defenses.
That country was England after World War I, and those policies contributed to causing the biggest war in the history of the world. We must not make a similar mistake.
We cannot alter the past. But we can affect the future. In the coming months, I will join my colleagues in the Senate in considering our appropriations bills. In our budget considerations, we must do everything necessary to keep this country safe. It is not only the right and necessary thing to do. It is also the real tribute we can pay to our citizens who have paid the ultimate price simply for being American.
For more information on this column and other issues, visit my web site at http://web.archive.org/web/20020626123043/http://thompson.senate.gov/.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626123043/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/091401.html

Weekly Column 08-31-01

2007-04-28T16:52:00.000-07:00

A Presidential Call For Washington Reform
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
August 31, 2001
Public criticism of the way government operates is not a new phenomenon, nor is it entirely unhealthy. Our democracy benefits from the voices of critics and champions alike who drive the constant battle for improved efficiency and transparency in Washington. But the watchful eye of the public cannot itself bring about change in Washington. What is needed and has been sorely missed in recent years is real leadership from the executive branch in enacting management reform.
Too often, seemingly urgent national problems shine the limelight of hope on the newest, fix-all government program. Soon, such hope fades into indifference and the program is doomed to join the long list of government programs that meant well, but just didn't achieve their goals. The President needs to work with Congress to put an end to the Washington way of constantly creating and expanding federal programs before looking strategically at what would actually produce improved government performance. I am pleased that President Bush is making good on his pledge to do just that.
This spring, Director Mitch Daniels of the President's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) joined me as I released a comprehensive report, titled "Government at the Brink," documenting the daunting management problems the Bush Administration inherited. It included an analysis of management challenges involving the federal workforce, government finance, information technology, and overlap and duplication, as well as recommendations for addressing those problems. OMB Director Daniels welcomed the report and promised to work with Congress to curb pervasive mismanagement.
Recently, President Bush took the next important step in reforming the federal government by outlining an impressive management agenda, integrating government-wide and program-specific initiatives that will improve the government's performance. His Administration not only identified fourteen long-neglected management problems in the federal government, but set forth logical and realistic goals for fixing them. By targeting specific deficiencies and setting achievable goals for improvement, we have the opportunity to see real results.
A number of the reforms the President outlined complement the work of the Governmental Affairs Committee. For instance, the agenda calls for improved financial management to curb the loss of billions and billions of taxpayer dollars each year, something the Committee has been addressing for many years. It encourages a strategic approach to hiring, training, motivating, and retaining the right employees for federal jobs. It proposes increased competition throughout government to improve efficiency and encourage innovation. It advocates tying the federal budget process to performance measures so that federal dollars will produce maximum results. And it promotes efforts to use the power of the Internet to make interacting with government easier, cheaper, faster, and more comprehensible.
President Bush's substantive initiatives for reforming the federal government illustrate that his administration refuses to succumb to the contagious indifference that has afflicted so many in Washington for so long. By tackling mismanagement early and head on, the President is walking the walk of positive change he and I both hope will spread from the highest office in Washington to the local post office in rural Tennessee. Genuine, results-oriented leadership from those working in government is necessary for real change in the federal government. I am encouraged by President Bush's management initiatives and look forward to working with him to make sure that the American people are provided with the efficient and effective service they deserve.
For more information on this column and other issues, visit my web site at http://web.archive.org/web/20020527154108/http://thompson.senate.gov/.

Weekly Column 08-06-01

2007-04-28T16:51:00.000-07:00

Congress is Working to Address Tennessee's Agriculture Needs
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
August 6, 2001
Tennessee is fortunate to have an extraordinary agricultural community. Our farmers work hard to produce outstanding agricultural products for folks here in Tennessee and across the country. Unfortunately, Tennessee farmers have battled rough times in recent years. While farming is an inherently risky profession, weather conditions, persistent pests, and changes in markets have made things even more difficult. However, Congress is taking steps to help our farmers through legislation and by approving much-needed funding for agriculture. I'm pleased to announce that important funding for Tennessee projects has been included in the Senate Agriculture Appropriation bill for Fiscal Year 2002.
* The Senate bill includes $72 million for the Boll Weevil Eradication Program, and a portion of these funds will be directed toward the completion of Tennessee's program. Boll weevil infestation has placed added production costs on cotton growers in Tennessee and across the country. In states where the Boll Weevil Eradication Program operations are complete, growers have benefitted from lower costs, increased cotton production and significant environmental benefits from reduced pesticide application. Increased support for the Boll Weevil Eradication Program is a big win for Tennessee growers.
* $3.6 million in funding has been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) effort to stem the spread of fire ants through the South. Fire ant infestations have caused considerable problems for Tennessee's agricultural community. These are aggressive insects that, in large numbers, can seriously injure or even kill livestock, pets, and humans. USDA's quarantine program restricts the movement of regulated articles like soil, plants, and sod from quarantined areas in order to prevent the spread of imported fire ants into areas that are not infested. The program has helped states develop a consistent set of rules for all nurseries in quarantined areas to prevent the spread of this damaging and invasive species. We must address this problem in the safest, most efficient way possible.
* The bill provides $600,000 for the horticulture research initiative at the University of Tennessee. Floriculture and nursery crops collectively constitute the third most valuable crop in the U.S., after corn and soybeans. Our state has a vibrant nursery industry and a growing floricultural and greenhouse industry, but there are many challenges that must be addressed. These include pests, pathogens, and weeds, as well as a lack of environmentally-friendly production practices. The targeted, mission-based research conducted at UT will certainly help to meet these challenges.
* $450,000 is included in the bill for UT's wood utilization project, which is a part of UDSA's Special Research Grants Program. With these funds, UT has started the Tennessee Quality Lumber Initiative to improve lumber quality and manufacturing productivity at hardwood sawmills. In addition, UT has also conducted research and industry outreach on wood residue utilization. By creating more efficient methods of disposal and by directing wood residue to companies for other uses, the amount of waste received at the state's landfills has already been reduced.
In addition, the Senate recently passed the Emergency Agriculture Assistance Act of 2001, legislation to address the continued economic crisis affecting farmers. The bill provides $4.6 billion in supplemental income assistance payments nationwide for producers of grain, wheat, rice and cotton. In addition, $900 million is provided for producers of cottonseed, oilseed, peanuts, wool, and tobacco.
These are important steps toward strengthening our agricultural community. Tennessee's farms cover more than half of our state's land area and are extremely important to our economy. Farmers preserve the rural way of life, feed millions of Americans, and provide an enormous portion of our nation's exports. I look forward to our continued work in Congress to address the needs of Tennessee agriculture.
For more information on this column and other issues, visit my web site at http://web.archive.org/web/20020626123429/http://thompson.senate.gov/.

Weekly Column 07-01-01

2007-04-28T16:50:00.000-07:00

PROTECTING THE GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS FOR FUTURE GENERATIONS
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
July 1, 2001
Tennessee is fortunate to be the home of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, often referred to as the crown jewel of the national park system. The Smokies cover over half a million acres and host an astounding variety of plant and animal species. The natural beauty of these mountains and the abundance of recreational opportunities also make the Smokies the nation's most visited national park. Each year the Smokies welcome more visitors than the Grand Canyon and Yosemite National Parks combined.
As a result, the Great Smoky Mountains National Park is arguably the nation's most threatened national park. Due to the high number of visitors it receives each year, the Smokies are suffering from extraordinary wear and tear. In addition, air quality problems have landed it on the National Parks Conservation Association's list of the ten most endangered parks in the country for each of the past three years. Most shocking to me is that, according to park officials, air quality in the Smokies is so poor during the summer months that hiking on backcountry trails is more hazardous to your health than walking along the streets of Manhattan.
As chairman of the Great Smoky Mountains Congressional Caucus, I have made addressing the needs of the Smokies a top priority. Too often, the budget debate in Washington focuses on short term needs rather than on long term infrastructure deficiencies such as the neglect of our national park system. I believe the federal government has a fundamental responsibility to ensure the protection of our national parks for future generations to enjoy. I have called on President Bush to help us address these concerns, and I am encouraged by his commitment to help eliminate the National Park Service's maintenance and repair backlog, as well as to address air quality problems in our national parks.
Traffic congestion is contributing to the air quality problems in the Smokies, detracting from the enjoyment of those who visit, and threatening public access. Accordingly, I have cosponsored the Transit in Parks Act, legislation designed to help the Smokies and surrounding communities deal with growing regional transportation problems threatening the park's future. The legislation would create a federal transit program, administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation, and provide $65 million each year for the next six years to develop alternative transportation systems such as light rail, alternative fuel buses, and bicycle and pedestrian pathways. It encourages national parks to work with states and local communities to address these problems and provides federal funding to help implement meaningful solutions.
I am pleased that the Senate Appropriations Committee recently approved $4.7 million to construct a new science research center and laboratory in the park. This facility is part of a national effort to better understand and preserve natural resources and biologically diverse ecosystems, as well as to provide researchers and students with new opportunities to learn more about conservation efforts and threats to our national parks. In addition, $375,000 has been approved by the committee for restoration and repair of 77 pioneer log cabins and more than 100 historic structures throughout the park.
I am hopeful the full Senate will move quickly to approve this funding. We have also requested $300,000 in federal funds to be used in ongoing efforts to monitor ground-level ozone and other air pollutants in the Smokies as part of the East Tennessee Ozone Study.
The popularity of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park has placed a significant burden on its infrastructure and services. However, I am confident that we are taking important steps toward preserving this national treasure for our children, grandchildren, and the generations to come.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626123005/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/070101.html

Weekly Column 06-22-01

2007-04-28T16:48:00.000-07:00

PEOPLE IN THE VOLUNTEER STATE ARE ANSWERING THE CALL OF SERVICE
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
June 22, 2001
Tennessee has several nicknames, but is most often referred to as "The Volunteer State." This nickname originated during the War of 1812, when Governor Willie Blount issued a call for volunteers that resulted in thousands of enlistments. Today, there are many extraordinary Tennesseans volunteering their time and talents, a few of whom have recently received much-deserved recognition for their selfless, outstanding service.
Heather Henderson is a young Tennessean working to make a difference. The teenage Girl Scout from Ooltewah has received national recognition for her work with the Craniofacial Foundation of America, which supports the Tennessee Craniofacial Center in Chattanooga. Heather worked to organize a camping weekend at Booker T. Washington State Park for patients and families of the center.
The planning of the weekend involved many logistics, including seeking donations from the community and funds from the Ronald McDonald House Children's Charities. In addition, the weekend's activities, meals, and medical staffing had to be arranged. This is no easy task for a teenager with school duties and other responsibilities. When she planned the camping outing last year, Heather designed the weekend for 16 participants. However, she received such an overwhelming response that the number of participants doubled.
For her effort and dedication, Heather was named, by Girl Scouts of the USA, one of only eleven Girl Scouts nation-wide to receive the Girl Scout Gold Award, Young Women of Distinction. Heather's "Dreams Do Come True" project will continue to make a difference in people's lives, as the camping weekend will be continued in the future under the Girl Scouts of Moccasin Bend Council.
Two Tennesseans recently traveled to Washington to receive Jefferson Awards from the American Institute for Public Service. Jefferson Awards are given on both the local and national level to recognize ordinary citizens for outstanding community and public service. These volunteers give their time without any desire for recognition or reward, and they are nominated by various Jefferson Awards media sponsors.
Willie Mae Nunley was nominated by WRCB-TV in Chattanooga for her perseverance and dedication in helping low-income citizens in Grundy County. Willie Mae, who was raised in poverty herself, began her service over a decade ago. She and her friends founded the Appalachian Women's Guild, which provides families with numerous resources and services such as food, clothing, job training, counseling, and crisis assistance.
When a fire tragically consumed the Guild, Willie Mae worked to rebuild the facility and continue its service to those in the community. In addition to the Appalachian Women's Guild, Willie Mae founded The Barefoot Boy Program, which helps families receive clothes and basic school supplies such as books, paper, pencils, and backpacks. By providing students with the supplies they need, but might not be able to afford, Willie Mae is playing an important role in helping students learn so they can succeed in the future.
Dr. Allen O. Battle, a clinical psychologist and teacher at the University of Tennessee Mental Health Center was nominated by The Commercial Appeal in Memphis. He was recognized for dedicating his life to helping others emotionally and physically through establishing an all-volunteer Memphis Suicide Prevention and Crisis Center. For nearly 30 years, Dr. Battle has taken time from a busy practice to recruit and train volunteers to work at the center and take calls from those in crisis. Dr. Battle has also worked with numerous programs and agencies, including the Memphis Police Department, to train individuals to deal with suicide threats and other mental health crises.
Work like this saves lives and strengthens those around us. Tennessee is fortunate to have compassionate individuals like Heather, Willie Mae, Dr. Battle, and the many others in our state who have answered the call of service. When we work to strengthen our communities through good works, we remove barriers, give people a chance to succeed, and strengthen our nation for the better.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626122416/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/062201.html

Weekly Column 06-15-01

2007-04-28T16:47:00.000-07:00

REFORMING THEPRESIDENTIAL APPOINTMENT PROCESS
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
June 15, 2001
I hope Gale Norton, our new Secretary of Interior, has seen the movie "Home Alone." Because that's what she is as the only confirmed political appointee at the Department of the Interior. Other federal agencies aren't much better off ? The Department of Education has just two of 16 appointees confirmed, or 13 percent; Justice six of 34, 18 percent; Transportation four out of 18, 22 percent; and Treasury just five out of 21, or 24 percent. In fact, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill had to travel all the way around the world to a meeting of the Asian Development Bank because he didn't have the appointee in place that he would ordinarily send. This is a real problem.
When our system of government was designed more than two hundred years ago, the Founding Fathers realized that in order to do the work of the people, the efforts of elected officials would need to be supplemented by the service of non-elected public servants. In order to prevent them from abusing their significant power, our Founding Fathers included in the Constitution a requirement that certain high-ranking officials receive the advice and consent of the Senate in order to assume their influential positions. The theory behind this process is that even though the appointees themselves are not elected, the public can hold the President and Congress responsible for the appointee's actions while he or she serves the public interest.
Over time, our federal government has grown in complexity. The executive branch has expanded immensely, and Congress has been required to handle many more nominations than the Founding Fathers would ever have imagined. The entire appointment process has become so difficult, complex, intrusive, and expensive that some of the best-qualified people are reportedly turning down the opportunity to serve the public. Citing privacy concerns, severe post-employment restrictions, and the sometimes low public image of government officials, potential appointees are reluctant to enter the fray.
It is incumbent on the President and Congress to ensure that appointees meet exacting standards. But all too often the appointment process becomes mired in politics. Nominees face burdensome, duplicative, perhaps unnecessary paperwork, and confusing ethics laws which in large part have lost sight of their initial purpose. In fact, the process of recruiting and confirming nominees has evolved into a bureaucratic maze that has been referred to by some as a "hazing process." It is neither the responsibility nor the right of Congress to divulge every intimate detail of a nominee's life to the public's insatiable appetite for knowledge of its elected officials. While potential conflicts of interest need to be identified, what a nominee did with his or her lunch money in the fourth grade does not.
The broken appointment system is unfair to both the appointee and to the President, and the problem seems to be getting worse with each new administration. If estimates are right, it may take a full year for President Bush's nominees to be appointed and confirmed. The President will be without his necessary key advisors for one-quarter of a presidential term. To date, only 120 out of 495 nominees have been confirmed.
It's clear we're going to have to look at things differently. During my tenure as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, I presided over a set of hearings on the state of the presidential appointment process, where those most familiar with the confirmation gauntlet presented thoughtful and reasoned testimony identifying ways to improve the process. Witnesses identified ways the White House can improve the way it addresses the issue. Further, the Senate needs to take a look at timing, the holds process, and the many duplicative forms. The Office of Government Ethics has made recommendations on ways to reduce the paperwork burden nominees must complete.
I plan to pursue improvements in this area. The ability of a President-elect to attract the best people to public service and put them to work is obviously of critical importance. The process must be streamlined in order to make it easier for the President's nominees to accept appointments.
Recently, the Presidential Appointee Initiative released a "Nominee's Bill of Rights," calling for Congress and the White House to treat nominees with fairness, courtesy and respect. Paul Light, Senior Adviser to The Presidential Appointee Initiative, noted, "If we believe - as the Founders did - that public service should be both a duty and an honor, the White House and Congress should make the process simple, fast, and as fair as possible."
I can't imagine anything of greater civic importance than getting the right people to heed the call to public service. Further, we owe it to the President and his key appointees the ability to get a team in place in a timely fashion. The government should not be responsible for maintaining undue barriers to public service, and the President must not be asked to do the people's business with only a skeleton crew in place.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020527144436/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/061501.html

Weekly Column 06-08-01

2007-04-28T16:46:00.000-07:00

GOVERNMENT AT THE BRINK OF PROGRAM FAILURE
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
June 8, 2001
One of my primary objectives since coming to Washington has been to monitor the way the government operates and to crack down on the waste, fraud, and abuse that results from mismanagement within federal government agencies. Recently, I released a comprehensive report documenting the daunting management problems the Bush Administration has inherited from the previous administration.
For some time now, our government has been mismanaged to an extent that the average person would find shocking. The federal government's core management problems have persisted for years and, in fact, have grown worse. They are ticking time bombs that will undermine everything else that the government is trying to do and will exact a terrible toll on public trust and confidence in the federal government.
My report, Government at the Brink, shows that our government is on the verge of major program failure. It includes a detailed analysis of the four greatest challenges facing the federal government, including workforce management, financial management, information technology management, as well as overlap and duplication.
The good news is that federal agencies already have a wealth of tools to combat these problems. The missing ingredient up to now has been leadership and sustained commitment from the President and Congress. If we can develop the political will to take on these problems, solutions will surely follow. Our report outlines some specific recommendations for the various problems, but before we can get serious action on them, several other things have to happen:
Political leadership: The President and Congress must make clear in word and deed that resolving these management problems is one of their priorities, and that they will keep after the agencies and the government's key management agency, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), until the job is done.
Agency follow-up: OMB must establish specific performance goals, measures, strategies, and timetables to resolve the problems. They should use as a starting point potential solutions that have already been identified.
Investing in improvements: As part of their improvement strategies, agencies and the OMB must identify funding needed to resolve the problems and Congress must be willing to provide it. If done right, relatively modest investments in improvements will repay themselves many times over.
Linking funding to results: Both the President and the Congress need to insist on reliable performance information to determine what's working and what's not, and then hold agencies and programs accountable where it counts - in their budgets. Where programs overlap, we should concentrate our resources on those that work best or can be made to work best. The fact that a program isn't performing well doesn't automatically mean it should be defunded. Maybe it needs a legislative fix or even more funding. However, letting non-performing programs simply continue as is should not be an option.
The new OMB Director, Mitch Daniels, joined me recently at a press conference in front of the Capitol to announce the release of the report. He said improving government performance is a top priority of President Bush's and that our report would serve as a road map as the Administration implements its reform agenda.
I was very pleased to hear that, because a degree of public skepticism toward our government is a healthy thing. Rampant cynicism is not. We cannot change the fact that we have these problems, but we can certainly take the necessary steps to find sensible solutions that will in turn make government more effective and better serve taxpayers
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626122237/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/060801.html

Weekly Column 06-01-01

2007-04-28T16:45:00.000-07:00

TAX RELIEF FOR TENNESSEANS IS ON THE WAY
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
June 1, 2001
For the last decade, the American people have seen the federal government take an increasing share of their personal income, and federal taxes are at an all-time high. I am pleased to say that help is on the way, as Congress recently approved the Tax Reconciliation Act of 2001, a historic tax relief plan. This bill, passed by both the House and Senate, and soon to be signed into law by President Bush, contains every major element of the President's original tax cut proposal.
The plan provides $1.35 trillion in tax relief over the next 11 years, cutting tax rates across the board, eliminating the death tax, providing relief from the marriage penalty, and doubling the child tax credit. It provides an immediate boost to our economy, puts money back in people's pockets this year, and provides tax relief to every American who pays income taxes.
I'm very pleased that the bill we passed cuts income tax rates across the board. Every income taxpayer gets a tax cut, rather than having Congress pick winners and losers based on government-sanctioned behavior.
Beginning this summer and throughout the fall, taxpayers will get refund checks from the federal government, and their tax bills will continue to go down over the next ten years. This year, single taxpayers will get a refund check of as much as $300, single parents will receive up to $500, and married taxpayers will get as much as a $600 refund check.
The Tax Reconciliation Act helps farmers, small business owners, and others by addressing the onerous death tax. Our bill repeals the tax in 2010 and provides some immediate relief as well. For example, the current estate tax exemption of $675,000 will increase to $1 million in 2002, and it continues to increase after that until it is completely repealed.
Saving for a child's education is not always easy, but the bill we passed will help parents save by increasing the limit on education savings account contributions to $2,000 a year and allowing the funds to be used for K-12 expenses. It permits tax-free distributions from state prepaid tuition plans, such as Tennessee Best, and allows private institutions to offer prepaid plans.
Some other key provisions include expanding the earned income credit and making the child credit refundable to put more money in the hands of millions of working families with children. In addition, the plan increases the adoption tax credit to $10,000, increases the child care tax credit, and creates a new tax credit for employers that provide child care facilities for their employees.
Personal saving in this country is at an all-time low. To make it easier for Americans to save for their retirement, the tax plan will increase the IRA contribution limit to $5,000 and allow for IRA catch-up contributions. It also will create a new low-income savers tax credit of up to $1,000 for contributions to an IRA or 401(k) plan. In addition, it enhances pension portability when Americans change jobs and simplifies pension rules for businesses and their employees.
In recent years, those of us who have tried to cut taxes have seen our efforts thwarted by President Clinton's veto pen, but this year we have achieved success. I believe this tax relief package is a an important step toward reducing the tax burden for Tennesseans. By doing so, we help to improve the quality of life for families working to make ends meet and set the stage for long-term economic growth.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626122304/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/060101.html

Weekly Column 05-25-01

2007-04-28T16:44:00.002-07:00

PRIVACY PROTECTION IN THE INFORMATION AGE
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
May 25, 2001
Every citizen in Tennessee and across America has a right to his or her privacy. However, in these times of rapidly changing technology, people are uncertain and fearful about who has access to their personal information and how that information is being used. In fact, a recent poll shows that Americans perceive government as the greatest threat to their personal privacy, above both the media and corporations.
Last summer, after the Clinton White House Office of National Drug Control Policy was found to be using unauthorized information-collecting devices, also known as "cookies," on Internet search engines, I requested that the General Accounting Office (GAO) investigate federal agencies' use of these devices on their own Web sites.
GAO only had time to investigate a small sample of federal agency sites, but they found a number of unauthorized cookies, despite the Clinton Administration's restriction on their use. In one case, GAO found a cookie that was operated by a third-party private company on an agency Web site under an agreement that gave the private company co-ownership of the data collected on visitors to the site.
As a follow-up to the GAO investigation, Congressman Jay Inslee and I worked together on an amendment to require all agency Inspectors General to report to Congress on each agency's Internet information-collection practices. The findings of these reports are cause for concern.
According to the Inspectors General, some federal agencies have been struggling to manage their Internet sites and data collection practices without violating Administration privacy policies. Although fewer than half of the reports have been completed, the Inspectors General identified 64 federal agency Internet sites that were using unauthorized information-collection devices during the last days of the Clinton Administration.
Most Inspectors General also commented on the need to create and enforce agency-wide procedures for the maintenance of federal Internet sites. I commend those Inspectors General that are working to eliminate cookies and bring the Web sites into compliance with existing privacy policies.
As Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, I am deeply concerned about privacy protection. Accordingly, I have held a number of hearings on the security of government computer systems and have conducted oversight of federal agencies to ensure that citizens' privacy is not being abused.
Recently, I introduced The Citizens' Privacy Commission Act. This bipartisan legislation will address the concerns people have about the potential misuse of their personal information by the government. It establishes an 11-member commission to examine how federal, state, and local governments collect and use our personal information.
The legislation also instructs the Commission to make recommendations to Congress on how to map out government privacy protections for the future. The Citizens' Privacy Commission will investigate all aspects of privacy in the government, such as FBI e-mail interception, IRS data security, agency Web site privacy, as well as the current applications of the Privacy Act of 1974 and other laws addressing government privacy practices.
One of the Bush Administration's early priorities should be to address the previous Administration's failure to comply with their own Internet privacy policy. The federal government should be setting the standard for privacy protection in the Information Age. I believe my legislation takes a critical and necessary step toward establishing privacy standards and guidelines for the future.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021020111655/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/052501.html

Weekly Column 05-18-01

2007-04-28T16:44:00.001-07:00

TENNESSEE'S TROOPS DESERVEOUR THANKS AND SUPPORT
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
May 18, 2001
The State of Tennessee is rich in military tradition and is home to the finest men and women serving in our armed services. Each time I visit one of our state's military installations, I am so proud of the high level of skill and professionalism demonstrated by our troops. I recently had the honor of celebrating Armed Forces Day with members of the Tennessee Army National Guard at McGhee-Tyson Airport in Alcoa. It was an exciting day as we held a christening ceremony for the Guard's newest aircraft, the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter.
State-of-the-art aircraft, like the Kiowa Warrior, are a necessity if our troops are to carry out their missions. Every single day, our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line, whether they are in battle or simply carrying out their daily duties. It is critical that our weapons systems remain on the cutting edge. During the Gulf War, our military technology was critical to our success. We must ensure that military technology continues to be a top priority.
I have said time and again that one of the primary responsibilities of the federal government is protecting the security of the American people. With the Cold War over, some argue that national security does not need to be as much of a priority as it once was. I disagree. It's true that we enjoy peace and prosperity, and it is true that America is the strongest country in the world. However, the world is still a dangerous place and rather than facing one primary threat, as was the case during the Cold War, we now face several.
Both Russia and China are proliferating weapons of mass destruction and the materials to produce them to nations like North Korea, Iraq, and Iran. As evidenced by the recent incident with our reconnaissance plane over the South China Sea, the Chinese are not happy about our presence in that part of the world. China and other nations are increasing their efforts to obtain our highly sensitive national security information - information that could one day be used against us.
As Members of Congress, we must ensure that our troops have the resources they need to carry out their duties. We must continue to increase funding for research and development, for procurement, and especially for quality of life. We cannot send our troops into battle ill-equipped.
We cannot continue to cannibalize our vehicles and aircraft, leaving some to sit unused.
We also cannot continue to ask our troops to do more with less, while increasing their operations and asking them to stay away from their families for longer periods of time. Many of our troops live in substandard housing, and some even qualify for food stamps. This is unacceptable. Fortunately, Congress has taken steps to improve their quality of life through pay increases, as well as increased funding for housing, recreational, and training facilities. We must continue this commitment.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626121614/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/051801.html

Weekly Column 05-11-01

2007-04-28T16:42:00.000-07:00

TAX RELIEF FOR TENNESSEE IS A TOP PRIORITY
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
May 11, 2001
Federal taxes are at an all time high, and folks in Tennessee and across America bear a heavy tax burden. They are taxed when they work, when they put gas in their cars, when they buy groceries, when they save for the future, and even when they die. Folks should be rewarded, not punished, for working hard, and we in Congress are trying to do just that.
Both the House and Senate recently agreed on a federal budget for the next fiscal year. The purpose of the budget is to serve as a road map for how we will fund America's priorities. Included in this budget are dollars that will eventually be directed to Tennessee for priorities such as national defense, education, national parks and roads, help for our farmers, and a host of other important priorities.
I am very pleased that the budget also allows for significant tax relief for all Tennesseans. Specifically, the budget calls for $1.35 trillion in tax relief over the next eleven years, beginning this year (2001). In the next few weeks, the Senate will begin to map out the specifics of this plan.
The plan included in the budget will reduce income tax rates for every American taxpayer, with the greatest benefit going to the lowest-income taxpayers. As structured, it would remove six million low-income families from the tax rolls altogether. In addition, the plan provides for an immediate economic stimulus of $100 billion in 2001 and 2002, and authorizes additional tax or debt relief if surpluses exceed expectations.
We will also be working to repeal the death tax and provide significant marriage penalty relief. Folks should not have to pay nearly $1,400 more in taxes each year simply because they are married. Eliminating the death tax will ensure that our family farms and small businesses can be passed on for generations to come.
Recently, we recognized what many have come to call "Tax Freedom Day." This day was designated to emphasize the fact that many taxpayers actually work from January until the month of May just to pay their taxes. In 1992, National Tax Freedom Day fell on April 18, but with taxes now taking a larger portion of income, Tax Freedom Day was on May 3 this year.
We must put a stop to this trend. It's just common sense. When we have excess cash flowing into Washington, and we have more than we need to operate the government, we should return a little back to the folks who earned it in the first place. If we leave it in Washington, it will get spent. This money belongs to hard-working Tennesseans and that is who should decide how to spend it.
The President and the Congress are committed to providing tax relief this year. That's good news for Tennessee
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626121746/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/051101.html

Weekly Column 05-04-01

2007-04-28T16:41:00.000-07:00

LONG OVERDUE STEPS TOWARD A MISSILE DEFENSE
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
May 4, 2001
President Bush recently announced plans to develop a National Missile Defense (NMD) system that would protect the United States and our allies from future attacks by rogue nations and terrorist groups. This robust, multi-layered system would incorporate ground and sea-based assets initially, and would also protect the U.S. from accidental and unauthorized launches.
I strongly support the President in this important initiative. Even though the Cold War is over, the world remains a dangerous place and the threats are growing. Rogue nations such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea have, or will soon have, the capability to launch a ballistic missile against the United States or its allies. Some of these countries have already conducted test launches. Many have extensive nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs; and a few of these countries are proliferating these dangerous technologies to others. Of particular concern to the U.S. is that many of these states use terror and intimidation as major foreign policy tools.
Deterrence alone is no longer an effective strategy. We must also develop the means to defend ourselves from the unpredictable and ever-changing threats we face today. Moreover, by building a missile defense system, we will also prevent the blackmail and coercion that adversaries may employ to limit our freedom of action abroad when our allies or interests are threatened. In addition, we may also deter potential adversaries from pursuing costly and time-consuming programs to build these destructive weapons.
Today's world is fundamentally different than it was 30 years ago. For that reason alone, we need different concepts and capabilities in order to defend our country and our interests. We must move beyond the constraints of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and do what is necessary to protect ourselves. That said, we should work with our allies and the Russians to establish a new framework, and a new relationship, that reflects today's strategic environment. To this end, the President will send senior U.S. officials to consult with our allies in Europe, Asia, and Canada, and to reach out to other interested countries. I applaud the President's willingness to take the time to hear the views of our friends and allies.
I am troubled that some do not recognize the need for measures that enhance our national security. Critics charge that missile defenses will start a new arms race, yet they fail to mention that China and Russia have been modernizing their nuclear forces for years. Opponents of NMD also cite the threat posed by "suitcase bombs" and other means as the ones requiring greater emphasis. We all agree that the United States should seek to counter the threat posed by terrorists armed with a weapon of mass destruction. This is why we spend more than $11 billion a year to deal with threat of terrorist attacks. At the same time, though, the $2 billion we spend annually on missile defense is wholly inadequate for addressing the rapidly growing threat of a missile attack. We need to do both in a balanced manner.
The federal government's primary role is to protect our country and its citizens. We in Congress are working to ensure that our military has the resources it needs, while we also strive to improve our defenses against terrorism and missile attack. While advances in technology have made the world smaller and the threats greater, they have also improved our ability to defend against these threats. But first, we must change our way of thinking as we seek to develop and employ new systems and technologies. What Thomas Jefferson said 200 years ago still rings true: "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626122008/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/050401.html

Weekly Column 04-27-01

2007-04-28T16:40:00.000-07:00

DURING THE FIRST 100 DAYS,A NEW TONE IS SET IN WASHINGTON
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
April 27, 2001
I have often said that lawmakers have a breach to repair with the folks who sent them to Washington to do their business. With each election, we see more disenchanted voters, fewer young voters, and greater cynicism than before. We in Congress are committed to working with President Bush to heal our political wounds, renew a spirit of optimism, and change the way we do business in Washington.
Upon being elected, President Bush said, "Civility is not a tactic or a sentiment. It is the determined choice of trust over cynicism." During his first 100 days in office, the President has worked to set a new tone in Washington, building on his promise to work with both Republicans and Democrats to address the issues that are important to Americans and Tennesseans. He promised to usher in a new way of thinking, and he is keeping his word.
Focusing on his compassionate conservative agenda, he has already presented plans to cut taxes, strengthen our economy, improve schools, empower faith-based and community organizations to help those in need, rebuild our military, and improve the quality of life for our men and women in uniform. During the first 100 days, America has faced some tense situations, particularly overseas, but the President has led with a steady hand without compromising our country's principles.
The President has been decisive, measured, and realistic with regard to foreign policy. He is committed to working with our friends and allies to advance our common security around the globe. During his first 100 days, the President traveled to Mexico and worked to strengthen alliances in our hemisphere at the Summit of the Americas in Canada, guided diplomacy that brought home our crew when they were unlawfully detained after a mid-air collision over the South China Sea, and personally met with more than 20 world leaders to build relationships and discuss common interests and concerns.
Only days after assuming office, the President took his education agenda into various elementary schools, meeting with teachers and visiting with students. One of the top priorities of the Bush Administration is to improve education, because every child in Tennessee and across America deserves a first class education that will carry them toward a bright and successful future. The President and Congress are near an agreement on a comprehensive, bipartisan education reform bill.
Earlier this year, the President submitted his first budget to Congress. It is a good budget that will fund important priorities, reduce historic levels of debt, and provide tax relief to working families in Tennessee and across the country. We have been working to cut taxes across the board while also eliminating the marriage penalty and the death tax and providing education tax credits. The Senate passed the budget with the support of no less than fifteen Democrats, proof that an emphasis on teamwork is yielding results.
Recognizing the importance of bipartisanship, the President has met with members of both parties to discuss the issues. In addition, he has taken his agenda directly to the people by visiting more than half of our states already.
The President's leadership is helping to replace a culture of gridlock and cynicism in our nation's capital with a constructive spirit of bipartisan respect. When debate is focused on shared values, respect, and results, accomplishments will prevail.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020527145202/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/042701.html

Weekly Column 04-06-01

2007-04-28T16:39:00.002-07:00

A VICTORY IN THE FIGHT FORCAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
April 6, 2001
Recently, the Senate took a major step to change the message we are sending to the American people. By a 59-41 vote, we passed the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. The McCain-Feingold bill bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on campaign ads, and provides greater disclosure and stronger elections laws.
When I ran for office in 1994, I promised to try to change the way Washington works, including the way we finance our federal campaigns. In 1995, I cosponsored the original legislation introduced by Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Russell Feingold (D-WI) to ban "soft money" -- the unlimited and unregulated sums of money that flow into political parties. Soft money was originally intended for grassroots party building activities that didn't benefit individual campaigns. Now the political parties are just a conduit for soft money, which goes almost directly to assist individual campaigns.
We were unsuccessful in our initial effort to pass campaign finance reform and the problem got worse. The ability to use soft money to fund sham issue ads created a non-stop money chase that resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars being exchanged for access to the highest levels of government. The final report of our Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Special Investigation in 1997 documented numerous examples of apparent and actual corruption involving soft money. In 2000, the national political parties took in unregulated soft money contributions totaling almost half a billion dollars.
Even where there is no wrongdoing, there are still serious appearance problems when you have all that money going to the parties to be spent on individual candidates when Congress is considering important pieces of legislation. It seems every time we debate an issue we read about how much money those affected by it have donated to the parties. When this occurs, we are all diminished. The American people cannot trust a government they believe is influenced by large corporations, labor unions, and a few wealthy individuals. Due to the soft money chase, we have moved from a system based on many small contributors to one based on a few huge contributors.
I am increasingly concerned that the people we were elected to serve have lost faith in the political process. Too many people do not even bother to vote because they suspect that their voices are drowned out by five- and six-figure donations. I believe passage of McCain-Feingold will help change that. We can help restore the public's confidence in the way we fund our elections by eliminating these massive, unregulated soft money contributions.
While we move to rid the political system of special interests' soft money, we should find a way to increase the regulated "hard money" contribution limit. The costs of running a campaign have increased ten-fold since the $1,000 hard money contribution was put in place in 1974. In order to bridge this disparity, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and I sponsored an amendment to the McCain-Feingold bill that increases the amount of "hard money" individuals can contribute to candidates from $1,000 to $2,000 and indexes it for inflation.
Hard money is the most legitimate and most fully disclosed way for individuals to financially support a candidate. The $1,000 hard money limit had not been raised since 1974 and, given the increasing cost of advertising, was making it difficult for anyone other than incumbents and millionaires to effectively get their message to the voters. Now, a challenger will have an easier time raising the legitimate money needed to compete. The higher limit will also allow members of Congress to spend less time fundraising and more time legislating.
I am proud to be a part of this bipartisan effort to reform our campaign finance system. The McCain-Feingold bill is an important first step in restoring the public's trust in their government and in their elected officials.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626121129/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/040601.html

Weekly Column 03-30-01

2007-04-28T16:39:00.001-07:00

TAX FAIRNESS FOR TENNESSEE
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
March 30, 2001
Tennesseans are discriminated against under federal tax laws simply because our state chooses to raise revenue primarily through a sales tax instead of an income tax. Federal law enables taxpayers to deduct their state income tax from their federal tax liability, but not their state sales tax. That's unfair.
Therefore, residents of eight states are treated differently from residents of states that have an income tax. Six states ? Texas, Wyoming, Florida, South Dakota, Washington, and Nevada ? have no state income tax. Two states ? Tennessee and New Hampshire ? only impose an income tax on interest and dividends, but not wages. Tennesseans pay more than $750 million more in taxes to the federal government each year than they should because of this inequity in the tax code.
I have introduced legislation that will address this by allowing taxpayers to deduct either their state and local sales taxes or their state and local income taxes on their federal tax forms, but not both.
Prior to 1986, taxpayers were permitted to deduct all of their state and local taxes paid (including income, sales and property taxes) when computing their federal tax liability. The ability to deduct all state and local taxes is based on the principle that levying a tax on a tax is unfair. In 1986, however, Congress made dramatic changes to the tax code. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 significantly reduced federal tax rates on individuals. In exchange for these lower rates, Congress broadened the base of income that is taxed by eliminating many of the deductions and credits that previously existed in the code, including the deduction for state and local sales taxes. The deduction for state and local income taxes, however, was retained.
It's long past time to restore equity for persons living in states without an income tax. My legislation would do this in a fair and simple manner. Under the legislation, persons claiming a deduction for state and local sales taxes would simply have to refer to an IRS chart to determine the amount they could deduct. The amount of the deduction would be based on a taxpayer's income and family size. This way, taxpayers would not be burdened with keeping track of their receipts all year.
Passage of this legislation won't be easy, as only eight other states share Tennessee's situation, but it's an effort we must undertake. Similar legislation has been introduced in the House and the Tennessee delegation is working in a bi-partisan manner to generate support for our effort.
I believe that our federal tax laws should be neutral with respect to the treatment of state and local taxes. The current tax code is biased in favor of states that raise revenue through an income tax. I strongly support comprehensive reform of the tax code that will address issues such as neutrality, fairness and simplicity. As we work to reform the overall tax code, restoring equity in this area should be a part of the discussion.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021020105534/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/033001.html

Weekly Column 03-16-01

2007-04-28T16:38:00.001-07:00

ADDRESSING INHERITED MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS WILL BE VITAL TO BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S SUCCESS
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
March 16, 2001
The Bush Administration begins with an array of pre-existing management problems of unprecedented depth and breadth that will severely test the President's ability to achieve his policy goals. The federal government's core management problems have persisted for years and, in fact, have grown worse. In 1990, the General Accounting Office (GAO) launched its biennial ?high risk list' with 14 problem areas. The list issued this year contains 22.
We're living on borrowed time. Peace and prosperity mask a lot of these problems, but that won't always be the case. When we no longer have peace and prosperity, who's going to trust the federal government if we've eroded public confidence by failing to address these problems?
There are four overarching areas that I believe are the most pervasive and critical:
Financial management. Poor financial management wastes billions of taxpayer dollars each year. No one knows how much because the federal government makes no comprehensive effort to keep track of it.
Information technology management. Advances in information technology have yet to register with the federal government. In addition, weaknesses in government information systems make them vulnerable to computer attacks. This vulnerability poses national security threats and jeopardizes the confidentiality of sensitive information on individuals the government holds.
Human capital management. Recent government downsizing has been conducted without any strategic planning for the workforce needs of the 21st century. As a result, agencies lack workforces with the necessary skills and experience to perform their missions.
Program overlap and fragmentation. The federal statute books are full of programs created randomly over the years in response to the real or perceived needs of the moment. Once created, however, it is virtually impossible to eliminate them even if they have long since ceased serving their purpose.
These problems cause hardships for all Americans. Human capital weaknesses threaten the Social Security Administration's ability to serve the public. Beneficiaries often can't get accurate information by phone and wait hours for appointments. Flight delays have more than doubled over the last five years, yet our air traffic control system is based on archaic technology. Many programs lose significant portions of their budgets to waste, fraud and abuse.
The tools to fix these problems exist, however, via management improvement laws enacted by Congress over the last decade and recommendations provided by the GAO and the various agency inspectors general. However, the missing ingredient up to now has been leadership and sustained commitment from the President and Congress.
The President must make clear in word and deed that resolving these management problems is one of his priorities, and that he will keep after the agencies and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) until the job is done. OMB and the agencies must then follow up and establish specific performance goals, strategies and timetables to meet them. In addition, agencies must identify, and Congress must provide, the funding needed to resolve the problems. However, funding must be linked to results.
I believe that the federal government should be smaller, more efficient, and more accountable to the American people, and I was very encouraged by early indications that the Bush Administration is taking management and performance improvement seriously. OMB Director Mitch Daniels recently instructed agencies to develop performance goals to implement the President's management reform initiatives and to resolve their mission-critical problems. Likewise, the preliminary budget blueprint that the Administration put out last week has more to say on management improvements than anything I've seen in years.
During the 107th Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I chair, will work to encourage and support those efforts.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020527145313/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/031601.html

Weekly Column 02-16-01

2007-04-28T16:36:00.000-07:00

A Two-Pronged Approach to China
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
February 16, 2001
Many experts are now focusing on China's future. The optimists point out that with the advent of the Internet, modern telecommunications and free trade, China will become more free and open. Pessimists, on the other hand, remind us that China is an emerging power, and that emerging powers more often than not try to change the realities of the world around them.
An unsettling Chinese white paper on national defense released last November characterized the United States as a global menace and a threat to peace. And a Defense Department report on China's military power, which was delivered to Congress last year, said that China's leaders have been discussing ways to counter U.S. power, including accelerating their military modernization, pursuing strategic cooperation with Russia, and increasing China's weapons proliferation activities abroad.
No one is sure how China will evolve, but we do know that we must try to engage China in trade, hope for democratic change, and remain firm on our policies, priorities, and interests. Unfortunately, over the last eight years, when it came to Chinese military money going to the Democratic National Committee, China's theft of the designs of our most sophisticated nuclear warheads, or Beijing's threats against Taiwan, the Clinton Administration's response was usually inadequate. And in each case, a timid U.S. response led to a more assertive China.
President Bush is correct when he says that China is neither our enemy nor our strategic partner; China is clearly our competitor. While we are troubled by their proliferation record, regional assertiveness, and threatening statements toward the United States and our friends in Asia, we can be encouraged by the Chinese people's desire for greater political freedom, individual rights, and reform.
Like many, I believe that increased trade and engagement may help open up China in the long run and give the Chinese people the means to bring about political, social, and economic reform. But, at the same time, I believe we must be clear and consistent about our commitment to universal principles such as human rights and religious freedom and our desire to advance the rule of law and democracy.
The United States must also welcome China into the World Trade Organization, for its participation is important to our long term economic growth and China's long term political reform. While doing so, we must demand that Beijing stick to its agreements, abide by the rules of the WTO, and support Taiwan's entry into the WTO at the same time.
The U.S. walks a delicate tightrope as it balances national security, foreign policy and trade with China. Free trade and open markets are essential to continued prosperity, and promoting our values abroad are also important, but our national security cannot be sacrificed for the promise of future profits. Nowhere is this choice between trade and security more difficult, or more important, than in the area of China's continued proliferation activities, including its diversion of sensitive, commercially-available "dual-use" technologies.
We must be clear to the Chinese that the U.S. will not tolerate the continued transfer of dangerous items to rogue states and others, or for China's own military modernization efforts. After all, at a time when China is being invited to become a member in good standing of the global trading community, is it asking too much for a fellow permanent member of the U.N. Security Council to obey international rules and norms with regard to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and other technology? For example, the Bush Administration has recently confronted the Chinese about the sale of fiber-optic cables to Iraq in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Administration officials point out that the fiber-optic cables provided by the Chinese would link Iraqi anti-aircraft systems and endanger U.S. and British pilots enforcing no-fly zones over Iraq.
Next, the United States should deploy as soon as technologically possible a robust, multi- tiered missile defense system that will protect us against ballistic missiles from rogue states like North Korea. Beijing is deeply concerned that a NMD will nullify its own plan and could even lead to missile defenses for Taiwan. Nonetheless, the bottom line is that the United States must act in its national interests to protect our country.
Finally, the United States needs to dedicate more resources and attention to bolstering our intelligence capabilities; tightening security at our national labs, facilities, and federal agencies; and strengthening our export controls. And we must ensure that our armed forces are the best trained and equipped in the world and that they are able to meet the new, technically sophisticated threats that are emerging.
It goes without saying that we do not want a shaky relationship with a country as important as China to degenerate further. It is equally obvious that turning a blind eye toward activity that is harmful to our interests has not improved our relationship with China. We must demonstrate strength as well as restraint to them and the rest of the world. We cannot afford to take one approach without the other.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626120632/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/021601.html

Weekly Column 02-09-01

2007-04-28T16:35:00.000-07:00

Help for Our Local Heroes
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
February 9, 2001
Among the new proposals President Bush introduced during his first few weeks in office, one in particular may change the way we provide help for those in need. Last week, President Bush proposed a new White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and introduced a plan to allow faith-based organizations to compete for federal funding for social services.
Private charities are the cornerstones of many communities' efforts to help their citizens in need. Over the years, research has proved that faith-based organizations are successful in reducing addiction, abuse and juvenile crime. Many communities, as well as state governments, have their own faith-based initiative programs. Faith-based programs and organizations have a long history of successfully reaching out to Tennesseans who need their help, including at-risk youth, the poor, or those addicted to illegal drugs.
For example, St. Luke's Community House serves families in a largely low-income district of West Nashville. St. Luke's was founded by Daughters of the King and provides care for children, counseling for families, and services for senior citizens, among its many important functions. St. Luke's operates solely on volunteer support and donations.
Under President Bush's plan, St. Luke's and thousands more faith-based community groups will be able to compete with non-faith-based organizations for federal funding under the expansion of the Charitable Choice plan. Currently, Charitable Choice allows faith-based groups to compete on equal-footing for federal welfare funds while forbidding religious discrimination against the recipients of the services. President Bush believes that, just as Charitable Choice worked as part of welfare reform, the federal government should not impede the efforts of private charities or discriminate against faith-based institutions as long as the organizations provide social services and do not promote religion.
The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) and parallel offices in a number of federal agencies will examine areas where executive action, legislation, or regulatory relief will lend a hand to faith-based organizations that are successfully serving the needy in Tennessee and across the nation.
The Bush Faith-Based initiative will also encourage charitable giving by expanding the charitable deduction for the 80 million taxpayers who don't itemize on their tax returns. It will allow penalty-free IRA withdrawals from individual retirement accounts (IRAs) for charitable contributions.
I believe that we should stop spending billions of dollars on programs we don't know are working and allow faith-based programs to compete for this funding. These programs can work, and the federal government can set this initiative up in a way that satisfies Constitution requirements. President Bush's proposal for the Faith-Based initiative is an example of what can happen when government decision-makers search for creative approaches to building effective social programs.
Across America, community organizations like St. Luke's are lifting people out of poverty and despair, one act of compassion at a time. These unsung local heroes can't reach every needy person because the government has not viewed them as partners in the fight to improve the quality of life for these Americans. President Bush's plan will remove the barriers that prevent community and faith-based groups from feeding the hungry, fighting crime, strengthening families, and overcoming poverty.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020627063715/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/020901.html

Weekly Column 01-24-01

2007-04-28T16:34:00.000-07:00

Restoring Faith in Our Political System
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
January 24, 2001
Lawmakers have a breach to repair with the folks who sent them to Washington to do their business. With each election, we see more disenchanted voters, fewer young voters, and greater cynicism than in the one before. There's one explanation for this disenchantment---there's too much unregulated money in politics.
If lawmakers are going to regain the trust of the American people, we are going to have to repair a broken system of financing our election campaigns. Our current system of money and politics serves no one well, and it furthers some Americans' belief that their votes and participation in our democracy don't count. That's certainly not what the Founding Fathers envisioned, and it's not a situation that we can ignore.
This week I joined a bipartisan coalition including Senators John McCain (R-AZ), Russell Feingold (D-WI), Thad Cochran (R-MS), and others to introduce the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001.
I have long been a supporter of campaign finance reform and joined Senators McCain and Feingold when they first began the battle to rid our election system of the unregulated and unlimited contributions to political parties called "soft money" back in 1995. But this time around, the fight seems different. We've been joined by a number of others who believe, like we do, that it is time to get rid of these large, unregulated "soft money" contributions that leave so many Americans with the feeling that they don't have a say in their government's agenda. More Americans than ever seem to feel that this is a fight worth taking up, and they're asking their members of Congress to support campaign finance reform. It seems like the tide is turning.
In the last election, both national political parties saw unregulated contributions of up to $500,000. Our legislation will put a stop to the practice of raising these exorbitant, unlimited amounts of "soft money" by prohibiting all such contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals.
If you watched television at all in the months preceding the November presidential election, you probably noticed the ads funded by corporations and unions. These ads stuck to the letter of the law by avoiding the use of appeals to "vote for" or "vote against" a particular candidate, but they violated the spirit of the law by disguising their appeals as issue ads. McCain-Feingold-Cochran will address the spiraling proliferation of these ads by prohibiting labor unions and for-profit corporations from spending their treasury funds on "electioneering communications" within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election.
The bill will also strengthen existing law to ensure that foreign money stays out of the American political system. It will prohibit foreign nationals from making any contributions in a federal, state, or local election.
Finally, the legislation will bring greater transparency and strength to our election laws by improving the disclosure of campaign finance information and strengthening the enforcement of the law. It will provide for more timely disclosure of independent expenditures and clarify the circumstances under which activities by outside groups are considered to be coordinated with candidates. The legislation will bar federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, and it will strengthen current law to make it expressly clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on federal property.
Individually, I plan to work on increasing the "hard money" limits. Not only have our "hard money" limits fallen behind in terms of the enormous expenses attendant to running a campaign, but the focus of campaigns has changed from "hard money" to "soft money" to independent ads in the last election. McCain-Feingold-Cochran addresses these areas, but we can do more. I plan to pursue an increase in the "hard money" limits because I believe it will help counter the increasing influence of independent groups. The current "hard money" limit, the maximum amount an individual can contribute to a candidate, was set at $1000 in 1974 and has never been increased to reflect inflation. Increasing the contribution limit will help candidates facing wealthy, self-financed candidates and will allow members of Congress to spend less time fundraising and more time legislating.
We just witnessed one of the closest elections in American history. It taught us that now, more than ever, every vote counts. So it's time to rid Washington of even the semblance of corruption by cleaning up the way we finance our campaigns. I believe that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is a good framework to do so, and I'll continue working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make some significant progress on this issue.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626115738/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/012401.html

Weekly Column 01-17-01

2007-04-28T16:33:00.001-07:00

U.S. Intelligence in the 21st Century
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
January 17, 2001
On August 31, 1998, North Korea test-fired a missile with the potential of striking U.S. territory. Though our intelligence community was aware of a possible missile launch, it was surprised when the missile sported a third stage, allowing it to travel much farther than expected. Our intelligence analysis on the missile's capabilities had been woefully incomplete. Most recently, the terrorist attack on the U.S.S. Cole was a tragic reminder of the need for detailed and timely intelligence of current threats. These failings put our nation at risk and demonstrated the need for reform within our intelligence community.
When the Berlin Wall fell and the Soviet Union collapsed, many believed that the United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, could afford to cut back on its intelligence gathering operations. In fact, some went as far as to propose dismantling several of our intelligence agencies. Beginning in 1993, the intelligence community was forced make serious budget cuts, which limited their recruitment of new sources, restricted their analysis of intelligence information, and postponed the modernization of their surveillance and communication systems. These shortfalls resulted in an overall decline in our intelligence capabilities.
The end of the Cold War, however, has not brought a decrease in assignments for our intelligence services. Rather, they have experienced an unprecedented growth in their responsibilities. During the last half of the twentieth century, our intelligence agencies focused primarily on monitoring Soviet military power; today, we focus on numerous threats---the rogue states and others---and on a wider variety of issues. The intelligence community is now required to report on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction by supplier states, the development of ballistic missiles by rogue nations, the activities of terrorist groups, and the smuggling of illegal drugs. And intelligence officials provide critical information on diplomatic negotiations, regional conflicts, and impending crises. These new assignments have required the intelligence community to reinvent itself with new goals, purposes, and means.
Over the last five years, Congress has expressed considerable concern about the erosion in our country's intelligence capabilities. In particular, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), which is one of two congressional committees responsible for overseeing our intelligence agencies, has worked hard to reverse this trend. In the past, the SSCI has taken the lead on reforms that have improved our intelligence agencies' collection and analysis capabilities, improved the protection of classified information, eliminated the duplication of work, and streamlined costs. Most recently, the SSCI advocated increased funding for modernization and investments in intelligence gathering resources; the restructuring of some of our more convoluted agencies; and the reduction in government waste.
I am honored to the have opportunity to join the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in the 107th Congress. This new assignment will build upon my experience as a former member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and now, as the Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. And it will be provide an excellent opportunity to keep working on tightening U.S. export controls, enforcing sanctions laws, responding to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and developing a National Missile Defense.
This year, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is expected to look at new ways to further enhance our nation's intelligence capabilities. As a member of the committee, I look forward to working with my colleagues to secure additional funding for more human intelligence; the modernization of our electronic surveillance assets; and the purchase of advanced communications systems. On the policy side, we'll look at ways to help the intelligence community increase its support for military operations; upgrade security at our weapons facilities; better protect its classified information; and implement more effective management, accountability, and reporting standards.
As we enter the twenty-first century, the United States is, without a doubt, the world's preeminent economic, military, and political power. While few countries will risk a direct confrontation with the U.S., there are many that seek to challenge us indirectly through terrorism, espionage, and cyber-attacks. Our intelligence agencies are our first line of defense against such attacks. As the North Korean missile launch clearly demonstrated, and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole reminded us, there is still much that must be done. Our intelligence agencies need a boost, and it is time to provide it.
http://web.archive.org/web/20021020110727/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/011701.html

Weekly Column 01-17-01

2007-04-28T16:33:00.000-07:00

Weekly Column 01-10-01

2007-04-28T16:32:00.000-07:00

THREAT OF WEAPONS PROLIFERATION CONTINUES
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
January 10, 2001
The Pentagon recently released a report entitled "Proliferation Threat and Response," which details the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs that threaten the United States and the Department of Defense?s response. It should come as no surprise that the threats to the United States are rising, and entities in Russia and China remain the worst offenders. Worse yet, our military remains largely unprepared to meet such a threat.
The report states that many of the world?s rogue nations?North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya, for example?have made aggressive efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and the means to deliver them. Communist North Korea is also a key supplier state of ballistic missiles and may be providing other rogue states with the material necessary to build nuclear weapons. This report claims that the prospect of these weapons and material falling into the hands of terrorists or extremist groups is increasing.
As this report clearly illustrates, proliferation continues to pose a clear and present threat to the security of the United States. And this is not the first such report. Last year, a separate analysis from the U.S. intelligence community stated that China transferred missile technology to Libya, provided missile-related goods to North Korea, and may still be providing secret technical assistance to Pakistan's nuclear programs. The report added that Russia was providing Iran with missile and nuclear technology?items which threaten U.S. interests, forces, and allies in the Persian Gulf region. In many of these cases, the Clinton Administration either ignored the facts, failed to take action in accordance with U.S. law, or sought new "agreements" that were either ineffective or rarely fulfilled.
That is why I introduced legislation last year that would provide an annual review of proliferation by key supplier states, outline the United States? response to these activities, and require sanctions under U.S. law to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, missile technologies and advanced conventional weapons by key supplier countries. The legislation, "The China Nonproliferation Act," would require the President to impose non-trade related sanctions on individuals, companies, and groups if he determines that violations have occurred. Unfortunately, this bipartisan effort was derailed last year during the debate over granting Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) to China.
Nations have also advanced their WMD and ballistic missile programs by diverting commercial technologies such as high-performance computers and wind tunnels toward military applications. China, for example, has misused sensitive "dual-use" technologies, which were legally acquired from United States corporations, to further its military modernization and nuclear weapons programs. Many rogue states and terrorist groups are doing the same. The diversion of high-technology items and know-how for military and illegal uses must stop. The best way to do this is to strengthen our export control laws and regulations, improve our export review procedures, and provide federal agencies with the resources and authority they need to do their jobs.
The Department of Defense (DoD) has made some progress in countering these threats, particularly with the creation of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, whose primary mission is to protect our country from WMD threats. But more must be done. Our nation continues to lack sufficient resources for critical WMD defense programs, including medical biological defense, domestic emergency coordination, and ballistic missile defense. DoD?s organizational structure in this area remains convoluted. International efforts have shown only limited results, and coordination with state and local agencies on a domestic response has been spotty.
The "Proliferation Threats and Response" Report by the Department of Defense is the latest in a long list of evidence that the world remains a dangerous place. It is clear that the United States must take tough and immediate action to curb the proliferation of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and ballistic missiles.
During this session of Congress, I intend to work hard to strengthen our export control laws and make our licensing procedures more efficient. I?ll be focused on giving our intelligence community the resources it needs and ensuring that the United States develops a robust national missile defense system that can protect America. I also believe that the Congress needs to consider legislation that will make the activities of the world?s worst proliferators, and the United States? response, more transparent and open to public scrutiny. Only by taking action today to prevent the further spread of these dangerous weapons and technologies can we ensure the safety of our country and our families tomorrow
http://web.archive.org/web/20021002074905/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/011001.html

Weekly Column 01-03-01

2007-04-28T16:30:00.000-07:00

CONSENSUS FOR AMERICA'S STUDENTS
by
Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN)
January 3, 2001
America's ability to compete in a global economy hinges in no small part on the education and preparation of our nation's school children. They are our most precious resource, and we have to do everything we can to give them the tools and the education they deserve.
This is a premise on which everyone can agree, but an astounding 40 percent of American fourth graders still can't read at the basic level. American twelfth graders rank dead-last in advanced physics when compared with students in 18 other countries. And one-third of college freshmen have to enroll in a remedial class---either in reading, math, or writing.
While our schools need more flexibility at the local level to deal effectively with the problems facing our educators and our students, there is a federal role in the fight to provide a quality education for each and every student in America. But it's not the traditional role of top-down federal mandates that fail more and more of our students each year; rather, we at the federal level need to focus on achieving a bipartisan consensus on initiatives that will promote flexibility and accountability. These initiatives should guide local administrators and teachers in measuring results, so they can praise success and confront failure.
Fifty years ago the biggest obstacle to classroom learning was talking out of turn or chewing gum in class. Today our students face things like school violence, drug abuse and teen pregnancy, but the specific challenges vary from classroom to classroom, school to school, state to state. So cumbersome one-size-fits-all mandates from Washington are not working. That's why Republicans and Democrats in Congress are united behind the concepts of flexibility and accountability as the keys to results.
As the 107th Congress commences, we'll be focused on President-elect George W. Bush's proposal to increase educational flexibility at the local level. He proposes that we reduce the number of categories of federal education aid from more than 50 to five, cutting the number of hoops an administrator must jump through and giving states the flexibility to implement the education reforms that meet their students' needs. The plan expands schools' freedom by consolidating funding into one of five categories: improving academic performance of disadvantaged students, English proficiency, teacher training and recruitment, student safety, and parental choice and innovative practices.
The Bush plan will also increase federal education funding for the programs in these five categories by $25 billion over five years. Specifically, the additional funding would support important initiatives like Bush's "Reading First," a concentrated and systematic approach to making sure every child reads by the third grade by identifying early reading problems and getting children the help they need to read at age-level. It will include diagnostic tests, intensive teacher training, and summer school and after-school reading programs.
Under the Bush education plan, greater flexibility and more education funding are the cornerstones of increased accountability. State testing of every student in grades three through eight every year in math and science will help ensure that they're on track. The results will be quantified through school report cards and will yield financial incentives for states that demonstrate sustained student improvement. Schools that don't improve will see their funds reduced. In short, President- elect Bush's plan will redefine the relationship between the states and the federal government by granting freedom from regulation in exchange for results.
Education will determine America's success or failure in the global economy. If we want better schools, safer schools and children who know right from wrong, the federal government has a role: providing teachers, administrators and parents with the flexibility and the funding to get the job done and then holding them accountable if they don't.
Congress is ready to work together with President-elect Bush to create the kind of 21st century education system that our children deserve. It's about time.
http://web.archive.org/web/20020626120100/thompson.senate.gov/press/2001/columns/010301.html

Fred Talks Sports

2007-04-28T12:04:00.000-07:00

The Draft
Sports, friends, sports.
By Fred Thompson

I’ve been a dedicated fan of professional football since I was a kid. I have the “premium” satellite football package and I’ve had seats for Tennessee Titans games since they first came to Nashville. So you can probably guess what I’ll be doing this weekend. Like a lot of other fans, I’ll be listening to draft guru Mel Kiper Jr., as the NFL draft plays out in New York. This year, though, the process of player selection has taken a decidedly political turn. You might even think it was taking place in Washington. D.C., with the league scolding teams for leaking personal information about prospective players, such as admissions of marijuana use. There have even been reports that top draft picks have been tailed for weeks by private detectives looking for signs of character flaws.The backstory for this new focus on off-field behavior, of course, is the disastrous public-relations season the NFL had last year. So let me turn my attention for a moment from more pleasant topics, like how great Vince Young will be with a year under his helmet, to ask the league brass a few questions. Here’s one" Why do these teams keep drafting players with character defects you can see at 100 yards in the dark with your back turned?To use a phrase increasingly familiar to NFL players: Your honor, I give you “Exhibit A” — in this case, one Adam “Pacman” Jones, the sixth overall pick of the 2005 draft. Pacman plays (or did play) cornerback for the Titans. Watching him return a punt through tacklers was like trying to watch a bullet ricochet. As a wag once said about a young baseball player: He can turn out the light and be in bed before it’s dark. Unfortunately, Pacman seems to think his talent entitles him to behave like one of Tony Soprano’s cousins. In his brief career, he’s probably already cost the Titans games with his “look at me” celebrations and cheap-shot penalties. His on-field behavior, though, is a model of decorum compared to what he’s done off the field — including reports of assault (twice), disorderly conduct, vandalism, marijuana possession and taking a swing at a police officer. Finally, as most football fans and all Titans boosters know, Jones and his entourage invaded a strip club (the usual scene of his hooliganisms) during this year’s NBA All Star Weekend in Las Vegas. There, he reportedly “made it rain” by showering the ladies with a satchel full of more than $80,000 in dollar bills. Apparently, some of the performers thought the money was meant for them and started picking it up. Pacman, however, thought he was going to get it back and a disagreement ensued. Naturally, this called for gunplay and someone — whom the club owner says was part of Pacman’s group, though the cornerback denies it — shot three people and left a 43-year-old security guard paralyzed below the waist for life. This was too much even for the NFL, which booted Pacman from the 2007 season. Unfortunately, this was not the only stain on the sport last year. Nine Cincinnati Bengals, trying perhaps for at least one year-end record, were arrested. Maybe their parole officer ought to have a desk in their locker room. So here are a few more questions: Has there ever been a case where a young player first showed his penchant for getting arrested on a regular basis only after turning pro? I doubt it. Similarly, are NFL teams operating under the assumption that having a few million dollars of spending money in their pockets is going to make better citizens out of these guys? The drill must go something like this. On draft day, they look at a young man’s talent. Then they look at his rap sheet. Then someone evidently concludes, “He’ll be better when he’s with me. He’ll change.” That’s right — same line used by starry-eyed, self-deceived brides — same results.Then the athlete is drafted and the problems resume — arrest, headlines, lawyers, team meetings, arrest, apologies, civil suits, suspensions, more apologies, rationalization by team and finally, as in Pacman’s case, the loss of an entire season. So this is my last question for the teams this year: Wouldn’t it make more sense to draft a kid with just a little less talent, but a bit more understanding of just how fortunate he is to be playing in the big leagues? There are a lot of kids out there who idolize star players and will copy their behavior — whether it is good sportsmanship or hanging out at crime scenes. In the long run, though, it may be purely business that teaches the league the cost of benching morality. The Titans, after all, are going to play a year without one of their best players. I wonder what that’s going to do to their bottom line.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDQwYmI1OGQ0NWM0NTFlMDA1MGE1NGExMDRiMTc2Y2U=

Working For Tennessee- 2002

2007-04-28T11:57:00.000-07:00

Working for Tennessee

Since his election to the United States Senate in 1994, Fred Thompson has been working to make sure that Tennesseans and issues important to Tennessee are well represented in our nation?s capital. Whether listening to constituents in visits to all 95 Tennessee counties, or debating issues on the Senate floor in Washington, Senator Thompson is doing the business of Tennessee.
He pushed legislation to protect 2,000 civilian Tennesseans working on the Kentucky side of Fort Campbell from being forced to pay unfair Kentucky state taxes. As Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee at that time, his hearings on the issue led to long-sought relief.
After a spring trip to our nation?s most visited national park, Thompson founded the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Congressional Caucus to raise the profile of the park in Congress and with the National Park Service. Recognizing the challenges faced by a park, which receives 10 million visitors a year, Thompson helped pass legislation allowing the park to keep 100 percent of the fees collected within--up from 80 percent. He worked with the Park Service on an agreement allowing the Friends of the Smokies to keep their donation boxes in the park, and helped secure much-needed resources for trail maintenance and a study of the park?s air quality.
When the Senate considered the increasing funding for highways, Thompson worked to make sure Tennessee received the federal investment it needs for safe roads and bridges. In the past, Tennessee motorists have paid significantly more in federal highway user taxes than the federal government gave back for construction, repairs and maintenance. Thompson made sure that Tennessee drivers will get a fair share, and a commitment to safer roads.
In the 1998 and 1999 budgets, Thompson convinced the Senate to continue funding for the Tennessee Valley Authority to carry out its important land and water stewardship activities, paid for by the federal government in all other parts of the country. When the Clinton Administration and the House of Representatives made the decision to slash funding, Thompson returned with a proposal to allow TVA to refinance its federal debt and save ratepayers millions each year. This refinancing proposal was enacted into law.
Whether in the arena of research and development or defense work vital to our national security, Thompson has long been a supporter of the important work being done at Oak Ridge. Due to his efforts, Congress has provided funding for the initial construction of the Spallation Neutron Source, a billion dollar project which will provide 2,300 jobs during construction, and 1,500 permanent jobs at Oak Ridge.
In addition, Thompson helped secure critical funding for infrastructure upgrades at the Y-12 plant, passed an amendment naming Y-12 a ?National Prototype Center,? and helped pass an amendment prohibiting the president from choosing Oak Ridge as a temporary dumping site for spent nuclear fuel.
As a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Thompson urged passage of copyright term extension legislation protecting songwriters. In addition, he helped expedite Senate confirmation of qualified Tennesseans for the federal bench, including Ron Gilman in the Sixth Circuit, Aleta Trauger as the first woman appointed to Tennessee?s Middle District, and Bernice Donald to the Western District. Judge Donald is the first African-American woman ever to sit on the federal bench in Tennessee. And to ease the pressures of severe overcrowding, Thompson pushed through funding for construction of a new federal courthouse in Greeneville.
To protect Tennessee?s farmers, Thompson supported emergency funding during economic hardship, and opposed a massive tobacco tax increase.
To preserve Tennessee?s rich historical legacy and treasured natural resources, Thompson successfully persuaded Congress to invest in the fight against erosion at Shiloh National Military Park, and helped pass legislation authorizing the federal government to purchase land for the Chickamauga-Chattanooga National Military Park.
As a result of an adverse pipeline decision in Marion County, Tennessee, Thompson introduced legislation guaranteeing that property owners receive personal notice, by certified mail, when a private company is seeking the right to acquire an interest in their land through the power of eminent domain. As a result, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has announced its intention to adopt a system that closely follows the Thompson bill.
Thompson recognizes the need to protect tourism and travel in Tennessee. In 1998 the Senate passed legislation he cosponsored to bring more air service to underserved communities such as Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities, helped secure funding for a ?New World Runway? in Memphis, and cosponsored a Senate resolution calling on the President to end the Northwest Airlines strike.
Believing that resources should not be wasted, Thompson successfully authored an amendment providing for the transfer of 1,000 acres at the Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant to the City of Chattanooga and Hamilton County, making it available for immediate economic development.
In addition, when the U.S. Postal Service was considering relocating its Southeastern Regional Headquarters to Atlanta, Thompson intervened to save 87 jobs in Memphis.
From saving jobs in Tennessee to protecting farmers and preserving Tennessee?s natural resources, Fred Thompson has proven his dedication to one purpose in Washington: working for Tennessee.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021006211133/thompson.senate.gov/text/record2.html

Veterans- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:56:00.000-07:00

Veterans

The men and women who serve the United States agree to protect it both in times of peace and in times of war. They take great risks. They are often sent overseas and spend many months away from their family and loved ones. U.S. service members have answered this country's call, and they have done so willingly. In return, the U.S. promised that it would look after them once they put away their uniforms.
This country pledged to provide them with retirement pay, educational assistance, and secure, comprehensive medical coverage. The Congress has worked very hard to fulfill this promise. For instance, in 2001 the Senate passed legislation that will provide nearly $51 billion for the Department of Veterans Affairs, which is an increase of $1.1 billion over last year's budget. Much of this increase will be spent on improving medical care, expanding prescription drug coverage, providing better education benefits, and helping homeless veterans.
In a separate effort, the Congress passed a plan that would give military retirees who are 65 or older the option to remain in the Department of Defense's health programs. Medicare-eligible retirees are currently forced to leave the Defense Department's health program and either enroll in expensive private health care plans or rely solely upon Medicare. This policy change will allow them to use the Department of Defense's health care program as a "second-payer" to Medicare, potentially saving military retirees thousands of dollars a year. It will also make available to retirees additional prescription drug coverage.
Senator Thompson also introduced and passed legislation to restore GI Bill education benefits to those Vietnam War veterans who served our country faithfully but have been unfairly denied their much-deserved benefits. These veterans separated from the military for a short time and then later rejoined. Unfortunately, because of provisions in the 1984 Montgomery GI Bill, they were unable to qualify for education benefits. These provisions were unfair and denied benefits to thousands of veterans. Senator Thompson's legislation, which was signed into law by the President in January of 2002, corrects this injustice and honors America's pledge to its veterans.
Senator Thompson firmly believes the U.S. must keep its promises to veterans. Our men and women in uniform put their lives on the line for this country. Some suffered debilitating injuries as a result of their service. Some gave their lives. They sacrificed so that the American people would not have to. This country owes them its gratitude.
In addition, keeping this commitment to our veterans will help keep the military strong. The U.S. must make an extra effort to ensure that the needs of this country's military personnel are being met. If these needs are met, Senator Thompson believes that the military's morale and readiness will rise, and U.S. service members will be more likely to re-enlist, and encourage their friends and family to serve.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020816171719/thompson.senate.gov/text/veterans.html

China Nonproliferation Act- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:54:00.000-07:00

The China Nonproliferation Act

The world is a more dangerous place today because countries like the People's Republic of China (PRC) continue to proliferate weapons of mass destruction to rogue states like North Korea, Iran, and Libya. These rogue states are using many of these technologies to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them, and Senator Thompson has repeatedly called for the immediate deployment of a multi-tiered national missile defense system to protect the United States.
In July 1999, shortly after North Korea surprised intelligence agencies by successfully launching a three-stage rocket over Japan and demonstrated the technological know-how to hit the United States with a small warhead, the bipartisan Deutch Commission concluded that the federal government is not ready to combat proliferation. And two unclassified CIA reports to Congress in 2000 confirmed that Chinese businesses provided missile-related items, raw materials, and/or assistance to rogue nations, including Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan. It also outlined Chinese support of Pakistan's nuclear and missile programs and explained how North Korea obtained materials for its ballistic missile programs from firms in China.
Many of these rogue states are also working to acquire "dual use" items from the West. Russian entities have provided Iran's missile programs with specialty steels and alloys, tungsten coated graphite, guidance technology, rocket engine and fuel technology, and laser equipment. And North Korea has provided missile technology and assistance to Iran and Libya and is reportedly building a missile factory in Sudan for Iraq.
Dangers to the United States clearly exist and are increasing. The unfettered sale of "dual use" and military-related technology aid those threats, and this problem is fueled by a few "key suppliers" like China. The U.S. walks a delicate tightrope as it balances national security and trade with China. Free trade and open markets are essential, but the federal government's first responsibility is our national security.
Senator Thompson introduced the China Nonproliferation Act, which requires an annual review of proliferation, establishes clear standards, reasonable penalties, adequate presidential waivers, congressional oversight, and much-needed transparency. The goal of Senator Thompson's legislation is to address the proliferation of key suppliers like China, Russia, and North Korea while minimizing any negative impact on U.S. businesses or workers.
Recently, on the eve of the Senate's consideration of Permanent Normal Trade Relations (PNTR) for China, it was revealed that China was assisting Libyan experts with that country's missile program, illegally diverting U.S. supercomputers for use in the PRC's nuclear weapons program, and helping build a second M-11 missile plant in Pakistan. And Iran successfully test-fired its Shahab-3 missile, which is capable of striking Israel, American troops in Saudi Arabia, or American bases located within the borders of our NATO ally, Turkey. The missile was developed and built with significant assistance from China.
Clearly, diplomacy alone will not resolve this serious threat to our national security. In a three week period in late June and July, no less than three senior U.S. delegations traveled to Beijing to discuss these issues. Each was sent back to Washington empty-handed, under the explicit threat that if the U.S. continues to assist Taiwan with its defensive needs, or proceed with our own National Missile Defense, the PRC will continue to proliferate offensive weapons and technology to whomever it pleases.
At a time of monumental change in the U.S. relationship with Beijing, Senator Thompson believes that it is not too much to ask that China obey international rules and norms with regard to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. His bill is a bipartisan approach that addresses the threat in a firm, responsible, and balanced manner. The China Nonproliferation Act will send the right message abroad by allowing for engaging and trading while establishing a framework for appropriate response to actions that threaten the United States.
Despite the fact that the China Nonproliferation Act was not adopted as an amendment to the legislation granting China permanent normal trade relations, Senator Thompson intends to continue to pursue the issue of nonproliferation, hold hearings, and introduce legislation that will ensure that the American people and United States interests are protected.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811194254/thompson.senate.gov/text/cnpa.html

Tennessee Valley Authority- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:53:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Valley Authority

Senator Thompson has been a leader in the fight to ensure that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and its customers are treated fairly. In the face of opposition from the White House and the House of Representatives, Senator Thompson and Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) fought to preserve federal funding for TVA?s non-power programs. When it became clear that, although the Senate supported this funding, the House would not approve it, Senators Thompson and Frist successfully engineered passage of legislation allowing TVA to refinance the $3.2 billion in debt it owed to the Federal Financing Bank (FFB). This debt refinancing will save TVA over $100 million every year for the next decade ? more than enough to continue to fully fund its land and water stewardship responsibilities.
In addition, Senator Thompson supports the consensus ?TVA title? agreed to by TVA, all 159 of its distributors, and the Tennessee Valley Industrial Committee (TVIC) for inclusion in comprehensive electricity restructuring legislation being considered by Congress. Senator Thompson, Senator Frist, and Senator Thad Cochran (R-MS) have introduced this consensus title as a stand-alone bill in the Senate (S. 2570), and have urged their colleagues on the Senate Energy Committee and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee to consider it as they debate TVA?s role in a deregulated environment.
During his time as Chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which has oversight responsibility over all federal agencies, Senator Thompson has also closely examined the management of TVA. Last year, Senator Thompson asked the General Accounting Office (GAO) to investigate an ongoing dispute between the TVA Inspector General (IG) and the TVA Board. After receiving the GAO report, Senator Thompson introduced legislation (S. 1707) to enhance the independence of the TVA IG by making this position presidentially appointed, rather than one that is hired and fired by the TVA Board. The Senate passed this legislation unanimously on November 19, 1999.
In addition, Thompson asked the GAO to examine issues surrounding the Center for Rural Studies, a $30 million irrevocable trust established by the TVA Board in 1994 and terminated a year later. The Governmental Affairs Committee is continuing its investigation into this matter.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020816090619/thompson.senate.gov/text/tva.html

Tennessee Tourism & Travel- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:52:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Tourism & Travel

Senator Thompson recognizes the need to protect tourism and travel in Tennessee, and has spoken on the topic to groups such as the Knoxville Tourist Bureau and the Tri-Cities Economic Summit. And he backs up his words with action.
In 1998, the Senate passed legislation to bring more air services to under served communities such as Chattanooga and Tri-Cities. "Most people agree that airline deregulation, on balance, has produced substantial consumer benefits," Thompson said. "On the other hand, studies show that one-third of our country's mid-sized communities -- including Chatanooga and Tri-Cities -- actually face higher fares than ever before, some as much as 20 percent higher. This bill would offer creative solutions for many of the air-service problems that have been identified, without imposing burdensome federal regulations on the airline industry." Although the House and Senate failed to agree on this bill last year, Senator Thompson continues to press for passage of legislation that addresses these problems, which are so important to Tennessee's small and mid-sized communities.
In June 1997, Senators Thompson and Frist wrote a letter to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation requesting support for construction of a ?World Runway? at Memphis International Airport. Due to their efforts, the Senate passed language in December 1997 requesting a committment from the Federal Aviation Administration for full funding of this major project. The final victory was realized at a ground breaking ceremony at the airport in April of 1998.
The 11,000 foot runway is expected to be complete in 2000. Thompson said: "With the World Runway project complete, Memphis will truly become a national and international distribution hub. I am confident that this expansion, allowing non-stop flights to Asia, will create jobs and boost economic growth throughout the Mid-South."
Concerned about a strike which caused 27,500 workers to be laid off in one day and crippled nearly half of Tennessee's air service, Thompson cosponsored a Senate resolution calling on the president to end the Northwest Airlines strike.
When the Senate considered the federal highway bill, Thompson worked to make sure Tennessee received the federal investment it needs for safe roads and bridges. In the past, Tennessee motorists have paid significantly more in federal highway user taxes than the federal government gave back for construction, repairs and maintenance. Thompson made sure that Tennessee drivers will get a fair share, and a commitment to safer roads. Under the bill, Tennessee will receive a total of $3.56 billion over six years for highways, a 62 percent increase over the $2.2 billion the state received over the past six years.
Additionally, Thompson has worked hard to secure Senate funding for improved transportation projects throughout the state, including a riverfront project in Memphis, a light rail system in downtown Knoxville, a traffic and parking guidance system for the Nashville area, and a commuter rail in Nashville .
Understanding the need for regional cooperation in the pursuit of sustained economic development, Thompson also helped to secure funding for the Kentucky Lock, which allows barge access to the Tennessee River from Kentucky.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020816084136/thompson.senate.gov/text/tourism.html

Tennessee Preservation- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:51:00.000-07:00

Tennessee Preservation

Senator Thompson believes that we must be good stewards of our natural resources, beginning in our own backyards.
In 1998, he founded the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Congressional Caucus to raise the profile of the park within Congress and the National Park Service. "Tennessee and North Carolina are blessed to share one of the most beautiful natural resources in the world--the Great Smoky Mountains National Park," Thompson said. When Senator Thompson saw firsthand the many challenges faced by park officials, he immediately set to work on helping the park meet those challenges. "That's why I decided that those of us who have a direct interest in and responsibility for it should band together and coordinate our efforts on its behalf. We need to help protect this natural resources so it can be enjoyed for generations to come."
Senator Thompson invited his colleagues from Tennessee and North Carolina to join the Smokies Caucus, which has met several times to discuss the park's funding needs and the growing air quality problems in the park. Park Service officials, Friends of the Smokies Executive Director Charles Maynard, and officials from TVA, EPA, and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy have testified before the caucus.
The Smokies Caucus has been successful at achieving a number of accomplishments for the park. In 1999, Senator Thompson helped to secure $450,000 for the design and study of a new science building to hold the Great Smoky Mountains National Park's natural history and specimen collections. This lab will support the exciting Discover Life in America project, which was created to coordinate the inventory of the 100,000 species of plants and animals living tin the Smokies. Information learned from this valuable effort will be available to scientific, educational and government entities around the world.
In 2000, Senator Thompson is working to secure $500,000 to protect and maintain back country resources in the Smokies, $500,000 to improve campgrounds and roads, and $97,000 for air quality monitoring efforts in the park.
Members of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park Congressional Caucus include Senator Thompson, Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), Senator Jesse Helms (R-NC), Senator John Edwards (D-NC), Congressman John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN), Congressman Bill Jenkins (R-TN), Congressman Zach Wamp (R-TN), Congressman Cass Ballenger (R-NC) and Congressman Charles Taylor (R-NC).
Since he was elected to the Senate, Senator Thompson has also successfully fought for funding to halt erosion at Shiloh National Military Park in Jackson. The park is bordered by the Tennessee River, and severe erosion along the river banks has threatened to destroy ancient Indian burial mounds and Civil War graves. "I'm glad Shiloh is finally getting the attention it deserves," said Thompson. In 1999, Senator Thompson secured $1.5 million in federal funding to stabilize the most critical areas in the park. This year he is working to obtain an additional $1 million to ensure completion of the erosion construction project in Shiloh.
In further efforts to preserve Tennessee's natural resources, Senator Thompson secured $3.5 million for the purchase of the Gulf Tract in the Cherokee National Forest in 1999. The Gulf Tract is located in the head waters of the Gulf Fork of Big Creek in upper East Tennessee. Federal ownership of this additional acreage will ensure that the natural beauty of this area is preserved. In 2000, Senator Thompson is working to obtain $1,000,000 for improvements to the Flatwoods Road Recreation Access Road in the Cherokee National Forest. The Flatwoods Road provides the primary access for the highly desirable Little Oak campground on the South Holston Lake.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616043700/thompson.senate.gov/text/history.html

Tax Relief- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:50:00.000-07:00

Tax Relief

Americans are being taxed at the highest rate since World War II. The typical family pays 39 percent of its income in taxes at the federal, state and local level -- more than they spend on food, clothing and shelter combined. Senator Thompson believes that is simply too high, and he has been a leader in moving tax relief legislation through the Senate.
Senator Thompson is a member of the powerful Committee on Finance, which has jurisdiction over all tax issues. From this position, he helped write the largest tax cut bill in history ? the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999. This bill would have provided Americans with $792 billion of tax relief over 10 years. Specifically, the bill would have reduced the burden on all taxpayers by cutting tax rates across-the-board. It would have provided couples with relief from the marriage penalty tax. It would have provided relief to Americans who have worked hard to build up a business or farm and want to pass it along to their children by repealing the death tax. It would have made the cost of health insurance more affordable. It would also have provided increased incentives for Americans to save for their retirement and their children's education. Unfortunately, that bill never became law, because it was vetoed by President Clinton.
In 2000, Senator Thompson is continuing his efforts to deliver tax relief to hard-working Americans. He has helped draft and move a number of tax bills through the Senate. For example, the Senate has passed the Affordable Education Act of 2000. This bill would help families save for their children's education by increasing the amount they can contribute to an education savings account from the current $500 to $2,000 per year, by allowing education savings account funds to be used for K-12 expenses (such as tutors, computers or uniforms), and by making withdrawals from state and private pre-paid tuition plans tax-free. In addition, this bill would help state and local governments modernize existing schools or build new schools by easing the tax-exempt bond rules.
The Senate has passed a package of tax cuts for small businesses. This bill would immediately increase to 100 percent the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed, repeal the 0.2 percent temporary federal unemployment payroll tax (FUTA), make permanent the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC), increase from 50 to 80 percent the amount of business meal expenses small business are permitted to deduct, reform the pension laws to make it easier for small businesses to offer an employee pension plan, and allow small businesses to deduct immediately purchases of equipment of up to $30,000 per year.
The Senate has also passed the Patients' Bill of Rights Plus Act, which includes tax provisions aimed at increaseing access to health insurance by reducing the cost of health care coverage. Specifically, this bill would expand Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs) so that they are available to all Americans, increase to 100 percent immediately the deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed, and make long term care insurance deductible.
Finally, Senator Thompson is working to pass legislation that would provide all American couples with relief from the marriage penalty tax. Senator Thompson believes that the marriage penalty unfairly discriminates against hard-working families and should be eliminated. That is why he supports the Marriage Tax Relief Act of 2000, which was passed by the Finance Committee and is now pending before the full Senate. This bill would increase the standard deduction for married couples to make it twice the deduction for a single taxpayer. It would expand the 15 and 28 percent tax brackets for those who file joint returns to twice the income level for single filers. It would raise the income phase-out limit for the Earned Income Tax Credit by $2,500 to remove the marriage penalty for the lowest income Americans. This bill would also provide middle income taxpayers with permanent relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT) by allowing families to benefit from various tax credits (such as the $500 child tax credit) without being caught up in the AMT.
Senator Thompson believes that the present tax code has become to intricate, too complicated, and, in many ways, simply unfair. That is why he is a strong supporter of both tax relief and fundamental tax reform. By enacting reforms that simply our tax laws and reduce the tax burden on most Americans, Senator Thompson believes we can strengthen our families, stimulate economic growth, help create new jobs, and return some common sense to our system of taxation.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020617213830/thompson.senate.gov/text/taxref.html

Weapons of Mass Destruction- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:49:00.000-07:00

Stopping the Spread of Weapons of Mass Destruction
The proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and the means to deliver them, such as ballistic and cruise missiles, has made the world a more dangerous place. A number of independent commissions and a multitude of assessments by the U.S. Intelligence Community have consistently reported that the threat has steadily increased since the end of the Cold War.
These threats to our national security are being fueled in no small measure by "key supplier" countries like China, Russia, and North Korea. China has sold nuclear components and missiles to Pakistan, missile parts to Libya, cruise missiles to Iran, and shared a wide variety of sensitive technologies with North Korea. Russia has provided nuclear weapons assistance to Iran, and missile technology to North Korea. And North Korea has provided missile technology to a variety of countries in the Middle East and Africa, and openly acknowledges that these sales are one of its main sources of hard currency.
China and others have also diverted or misused many sensitive "dual-use" technologies, which were legally acquired from United States corporations, to further their military modernization programs. These actions have occurred despite many of these countries' public reassurances and commitments to several international nonproliferation treaties.
All of these events lead to one bottom line: that dangers to the United States exist and are increasing; that the unfettered sale of "dual-use" and military-related technologies are abetting those threats; and that the problem is being fueled by a few key suppliers like China, Russia, and North Korea.
During his time as Chairman and now Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has jurisdiction over proliferation, Senator Thompson has examined these issues very closely. The Government Affairs Committee held numerous hearings on the threat to our national security posed by proliferation. During the Clinton Administration, the committee exposed the failure to vigorously enforce U.S. nonproliferation and export control laws.
In 2001, Senator Thompson was a vocal opponent of the Export Administration Act, legislation that contained provisions significantly weakening our export control laws. The primary reason for export controls is to protect our national security. This legislation made it easier to transfer items and technology potentially usable for military or proliferation purposes to countries that are actively engaged in the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. While the bill was improved by a number of amendments, it still did not do enough to prevent sensitive technologies from getting into the hands of weapons proliferators. For this reason, Senator Thompson voted against it.
Senator Thompson believes that following the terror attacks of September 11th, we must reanalyze the wisdom of America contributing to the proliferation of militarily useful technology simply because we want to generate business. If we place our desire for profit above our national security, we will become much more vulnerable to the potential of experiencing such attacks in the future. The U.S. should not be selling technology to rogue states and others that could be possibly used against the United States and its allies in some future conflict.
He believes this serious threat of proliferation requires us to act in a firm, responsible, and balanced manner. The U.S. must send the right message abroad: the United States will not tolerate continued proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and related technologies.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811190320/thompson.senate.gov/text/massd.html

Social Security- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:48:00.000-07:00

Social Security

Senator Thompson is a cosponsor of legislation to create a ?Social Security Lockbox? to prevent the surpluses in the Social Security Trust Fund from being spent on government programs other than Social Security. While Democrats have successfully filibustered this legislation in the Senate, Republicans have committed to protecting the Social Security surplus from being raided, and have passed budgets in each of the last two years that balance without touching one penny of the Social Security surplus.
In addition, in each of the last two Congresses, Senator Thompson has been an original cosponsor of the leading bipartisan Social Security reform proposal in the Senate. This legislation, the ?Bipartisan Social Security Reform Act,? is also supported by Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH), John Breaux (D-LA), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), Craig Thomas (R-WY), and Chuck Robb (D-VA).
Senator Thompson believes that our strong economy provides us with a tremendous window of opportunity to strengthen and reform this important program. Many people know that the Social Security program gets in serious financial trouble when the Baby Boomers start retiring less than ten years from now. Social Security experts tell us that, in just 15 years, Social Security will begin paying out more in benefits than it receives in taxes. By the year 2037, if no changes are made, the Social Security Trust Funds will be bankrupt and will only be able to pay 72% of the benefits that have been promised.
Protecting and preserving Social Security for future generations is one of the greatest challenges we face as a nation. And the time for action is now. Our economy is strong, our budget surplus is growing and the Congressional Budget Office predicts that it will continue to grow over the next decade. Just as important, the 76 million Baby Boomers are still in the workforce paying taxes into the Social Security system. If we wait until this enormous group stops paying taxes and instead begins drawing benefits, the fixes will have to be much more severe.
The bipartisan plan that Senator Thompson has endorsed would put the Social Security program on the path to long-term solvency and would establish an individual savings account for every worker under the age of 55. This proposal represents one effort to reach across party lines and craft a solution that will enable Social Security to provide for our grandchildren like it did for our grandparents.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042907/thompson.senate.gov/text/socsec.html

Presidential Appointment Process- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:47:00.000-07:00

Reforming the Presidential Appointment Process

The presidential appointment system is broken. It's a problem that's unfair to both the appointee and to the President, and one that appears to be getting worse with each new administration. It is estimated that President Bush will have served his first year in office without one-fourth of his nominees. This is bad for our democracy.
When our system of government was designed more than two hundred years ago, the Founding Fathers realized that in order to do the work of the people, the efforts of elected officials would need to be supplemented by the service of non-elected public servants. In order to prevent them from abusing their significant power, our leaders included in the Constitution a requirement that certain high-ranking officials receive the advice and consent of the Senate in order to assume their influential positions. The theory behind this process was that even though the appointees themselves are not elected, the public can hold the President and Congress responsible for the appointee's actions while he or she serves the public interest.
Over time, our federal government has grown in complexity. The executive branch has expanded immensely, and Congress has been required to handle many more nominations than the Founding Fathers would ever have imagined. The entire appointment process has become so difficult, complex, intrusive, and expensive that some of the best-qualified people are reportedly turning down the opportunity to serve the public. Citing privacy concerns, severe post-employment restrictions, and the sometimes low public image of government officials, potential appointees are reluctant to enter the fray.
It is incumbent on the President and Congress to ensure that appointees meet exacting standards. But all too often the appointment process become mired in politics. Nominees face burdensome and duplicative paperwork, and confusing ethics laws which in large part have lost sight of their initial purpose. In fact, the process of recruiting and confirming nominees has evolved into a bureaucratic maze.
Senator Thompson believes that at some point we must stand up for the right of every nominee's privacy. While potential conflicts of interest need to be identified, It is neither the right, nor the responsibility, of Congress to divulge every intimate detail of a nominee's life to the public's insatiable appetite for knowledge.
As the former Chairman, and now-ranking Republican member of the Government Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson presided over hearings on the state of the presidential appointment process in 2001. During these hearings, those most familiar with the confirmation gauntlet presented thoughtful and reasoned testimony identifying ways to improve the process. Witnesses identified ways the White House could improve the way it addresses the issue. Senator Thompson came out of these hearings believing that in addition to the need for a different strategy from the executive branch, the Senate needed to take a look at a variety of ways to address the problem, including time, the holds process, and the many duplicative forms of the confirmation process.
Recently, the Presidential Appointee Initiative released a "Nominee's Bill of Rights," calling for Congress and the White House to treat nominees with fairness, courtesy and respect. Paul Light, Senior Adviser to the Presidential Appointee Initiative, noted, "If we believe ? as the founding fathers did ? that public service should be both a duty and an honor, the White House and Congress should make the process simple, fast, and as fair as possible."
Senator Thompson plans to lead the way in these Senate reforms and is preparing legislation to implement them. The ability of the President-elect to attract the best people to public service and put them to work is of critical importance. The process must be streamlined in order to make it easier for the President's nominees to accept appointments. The government should not be responsible for maintaining undue barriers to public service, and the President must not be asked to do the people's business with only a skeleton crew in place.
The first responsibility of government is the defense of the country, the people, and our way of life. And while it is clear we have a legal and constitutional obligation to build a National Missile Defense, we also have a moral responsibility to protect our country and our families.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811191710/thompson.senate.gov/text/reform.html

Armed Forces- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:45:00.000-07:00

Our Armed Forces

National security is the first responsibility of the federal government. A strong, respected, and highly capable military ensures that America's democratic values, freedoms, and way of life will be protected. On September 11, 2001, International terrorism struck our nation with terrible force, but our nation remains unshaken and our military is strong.
Senator Thompson believes that the strength of our military is the dedicated men and women who serve proudly around the globe, and that we must continue to support them by improving pay, benefits, and quality of life for military personnel.
The federal government must continue to provide the military with the resources its needs to defend our homeland, safeguard America's interests, and protect Americans aboard. However, after almost a decade of neglect, our military still lacks the critical resources it needs to effectively combat the growing threat to our nation.
Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the strength of our nation's military forces has been reduced from 2.1 million to slightly under 1.4 million active-duty troops. The Army has been reduced from 18 divisions to ten; the Navy from 546 ships to about 300; and the Air Force from 37 fighter wing equivalents to just over 20. Our defense spending in fiscal year 2000 was the lowest, as a percentage of gross domestic product, since the isolationist period preceding World War II.
The Bush Administration and the Congress have worked diligently to arrest the decline and gradually improve the capabilities of our military force. A review of all U.S. military capabilities was undertaken to set the goal of how best to achieve the necessary transformation to meet the new challenges of the 21st century. And since September 11th, the Secretary of Defense has led the effort to transform the way U.S. military forces defend our country. The President's fiscal year 2003 budget proposes $369 billion for the Department of Defense (DoD), with an additional $10 billion, if needed, to fight the war on terrorism, the largest increase in two decades.
Senator Thompson supports these defense increases, but believes more should be done. Many military analysts have expressed concern that our military can barely maintain its current force structure and can not afford to significantly invest in sufficient research and development activities or purchase new equipment to ensure that our military remains the most technologically advanced fighting force in the world. Emphasizing this point is the fact that many of our Air Force's fighter planes are based on designs developed in the 1970s and our land forces are not mobile enough to respond to a global crisis without significant preparation. We have relied on the technological innovations gained and military equipment built during the 1980s, and our failure to invest in new systems is starting to catch up with us. It is time to reverse this trend.
Senator Thompson believes that as new threats arise, the United States must develop new defenses. Combating terrorism has become one of the primary missions of our military. Working in conjunction with our intelligence services and domestic law enforcement agencies, the DoD has taken steps to detect, deter, prevent, and respond to terrorist threats. In addition, as the ballistic missile threat continues to grow, we should be building defenses capable of protecting our country from attack. The Bush Administration has requested $7.8 billion for developing a national missile defense system.
Senator Thompson supports the Bush Administration's funding increases and will continue to look for ways to improve the quality of life for military personnel, develop and buy new weaponry to maintain our technological superiority, and improve military readiness. Above all, Senator Thompson will continue working to support efforts to ensure that our armed forces have the resources to respond forcefully and decisively when they are called into action. Only by taking the actions described above can we ensure that our military is best in the world and that our national security is protected.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042715/thompson.senate.gov/text/defense.html

Oak Ridge- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:44:00.000-07:00

Oak Ridge

Senator Thompson is a strong supporter of the Department of Energy's activities in Oak Ridge. He has pushed for funding for the Spallation Neutron Source, an exciting new facility being constructed at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that will once again make Oak Ridge the world leader in neutron science. He has fought against attempts to locate SNS at another laboratory and to slash its funding, and has built strong Senate support for the project over the past several years.
Senator Thompson has also worked to protect the Y-12 plant's critical national security mission and to secure funding for the modernization of its manufacturing facilities. In 1997, he passed an amendment designating the Y-12 plant as a "National Prototype Center," which will help to attract work from outside sources to keep workers' manufacturing skills sharp.
In June 1998, Senator Thompson traveled to Russia to assess the proliferation threat posed by the decline of Russia's nuclear weapons complex, inadequate safeguarding of Russia's nuclear weapons materials, and continued Russian export of various weapons-related technologies. Upon his return, Senator Thompson hosted a roundtable discussion in Oak Ridge to explore ways in which the experience and expertise of Oak Ridge scientists can be utilized to address the global proliferation threat and the specific problems he encountered on his trip.
Senator Thompson has also led the effort to provide fair compensation to workers in Oak Ridge who have contracted illnesses as a result of their service to our nation at one of the DOE facilities located there. In 1997, Senator Thompson called on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to investigate reports of unexplained illnesses in Oak Ridge. Although the results of the CDC study were inconclusive, Senator Thompson continued to push the Department of Energy to take action to help workers who are suffering from work-related illnesses. In March 2000, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, which Senator Thompson then chaired, held a hearing on this important issue. Along with several of his colleagues, Senator Thompson has introduced legislation to compensate workers who are suffering from an illness linked to exposures received in the course of their work at a DOE facility (S. 2519), and he will continue to push for a fair solution to this matter.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616031453/thompson.senate.gov/text/oakridge.html

National Record of Accomplishments- official 2002

2007-04-28T11:42:00.000-07:00

National Record of Accomplishments

When Fred Thompson ran for the Senate he promised the people of Tennessee that he would work to protect our national security, make government work for families, and improve the way Washington does business. Since he took office in 1994, he's made good on those promises with a record of achievement and leadership.
Protecting National Security
Senator Thompson is a well-respected and knowledgeable leader on foreign policy and national security affairs. He was recently named to serve on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence as well as the prestigious National Security Working Group, which observes and monitors Executive Branch negotiations with foreign governments on a range of national security topics.
Senator Thompson believes that the United States has a unique role in the world given our economic prosperity, military power, and the strength of our principles, democratic ideals, and values. He believes the United States should be active in promoting the concepts of free trade and open markets, holding other countries responsible for their actions and affairs, yet acting firmly and clearly where our national interests and values are at stake.
As Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson held more than a dozen hearings on important national security issues, including the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and missile technology and the relaxation of export controls and sensitive "dual use" items.
Last year, he introduced the China Nonproliferation Act, which confronts proliferation by "key supplier" countries like China and Russia to rogue nations like Iran, Iraq, and Libya. This is a dangerous problem that threatens our nation's security and important interests. The bill requires an annual review of these countries' proliferation activities, establishes clear standards, reasonable penalties, adequate presidential waivers, congressional oversight, and much-needed transparency.
In September, Thompson was successful in bringing the measure to the floor during the debate on Permanent Normal Trade Status for China. The debate on the Thompson amendment provided the Senator with a valuable opportunity to bring the proliferation issue to the forefront and highlight the problem for his colleagues and the nation. In the coming year, Thompson will continue his efforts to combat the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
Senator Thompson has also been at the forefront of the debate on national missile defense. The threats to our country are growing largely because of weapons proliferation to rogue states. The Intelligence Community and a variety of independent commissions have determined that North Korea may have the means of striking the U.S. with a missile by 2005. As a result of these threats, Thompson is a strong supporter of a robust, multi-tier national missile defense.
He also supports increased funding for the military, with particular emphasis on expanding the force structure to deal with known threats, building new weapons and providing better training for our armed forces. Most importantly, he believes that our military personnel deserve higher pay, better benefits, improved health care, and more predictability for themselves and their families. This also includes providing military retirees and veterans with the programs and benefits that our country owes them for their service.
Thompson was successful in the 106th Congress in leading a bipartisan effort to pass legislation requiring the federal government to take responsibility for illnesses incurred by men and women who worked Department of Energy (DOE) facilities in Tennessee and across the country. His legislation establishing a compensation program for workers suffering from illnesses linked to their service at DOE facilities was approved as part of the National Defense Authorization Act.
"This is a victory for the men and women who helped this country win the Cold War," Thompson said. "It's been a long, hard fight, but Congress made good on its obligation to those who are suffering as a result of their service to our country."
In 1998, Thompson was chosen by Senate leadership to serve on the special Senate task force to examine whether the Chinese government improperly obtained American satellite and missile technology. His Governmental Affairs Committee and the Subcommittee on International Security and Proliferation held hearings to determine whether export control laws are effective in keeping dangerous, dual-use military technology out of the hands of potential adversaries. As a result, Congress returned satellite export control authority to the State Department.
Making Government Work for Families
In 1999, Senator Thompson joined the Senate Finance Committee, where he is working to cut taxes and reform our Social Security and Medicare programs so they will be there for future generations. Thompson is a member of a bi-partisan group of senators endorsing a plan to reform Social Security by cutting payroll taxes and allowing workers to invest in personal savings accounts, while at the same time making structural reforms to the program to ensure its solvency for future retirees.
Thompson has teamed up with Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) to push for a biennial budget. This bipartisan measure would end the yearly budget battle in Congress and replace it with a less repetitive process that enacts a two-year budget every other year.
"We create a lot of expensive agencies and programs, and then we pretty much turn our backs on them while they run for years and years," Thompson said. "A biennial budget would give us time to delve into what's working and what's not ? and it would also encourage members of Congress to stay in closer contact with constituents by freeing up more time for them to spend in their home states."
Improving the Way Washington Does Business
Senator Thompson came to Washington with a basic belief that the federal government should be smaller, more efficient, and more accountable. To make that goal a reality, he has worked for and achieved a string of significant reforms, becoming what USA Today called, "a leader on a range of clean-up Washington issues."
Thompson has taken the lead on the issue of campaign finance reform, consistently co- sponsoring a bipartisan bill to ban "soft money," the unlimited, unregulated cash raised by political parties. Thompson said, "We must get back to winning elections, not on the basis of who can raise the most money, but on the basis of competition of ideas." He believes that reform of the way in which campaigns are financed is critical to Congress' accountably in other areas. He recently cosponsored the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, the latest version of the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill, which bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending on campaign ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger election laws.
At the start of the 105th Congress, Senator Thompson's colleagues elected him Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, making him among the most junior senators in history to serve as a major chairman. This Committee is charged with broad oversight of federal agencies, and Thompson used the post to demand accountability in government.
During the 106th Congress, he authored and passed several important pieces of legislation to change the way Washington works.
Following hearings in the Governmental Affairs Committee that highlighted our nation's vulnerability to computer attacks - from terrorists, crime rings, and hackers - Senator Thompson authored the Government Information Security Act. The legislation, which was signed into law, provides a new framework for protecting the government's computers from outside attack by hackers.
"Effective computer security starts with effective management and this legislation will help federal agencies get a handle on preventing hackers from wreaking havoc with citizens' sensitive information," Thompson said.
In the area of regulatory reform, Thompson joined a bipartisan group of Senators to pass the Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. The Act requires the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to disclose to the public the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, as well as an analysis of the impact of federal regulations on state, local, and tribal governments, small business, and economic growth.
"People have a right to know the costs and benefits of important regulatory decisions. This will help the Congress, the President, and the public better understand whether regulations are sensible and fair," Thompson said.
Thompson also scored a victory in the 106th Congress for those concerned about privacy protection on federal web sites. In December, Congress approved his legislation to ensure that Congress and the public are made aware of potential privacy violations on federal agency Internet sites. In October, Thompson released a General Accounting Office report revealing that many agencies were still using cookies - information-gathering devices that can be used to track the activities of Internet users - on their web sites without disclosing their use.
The American people have a right to know what information is being collected about them on federal web sites," Thompson said. "This bill will ensure that we know about agencies' data collection practices so that we in Congress can make sure that privacy rights of citizens are not being violated. The federal government should be setting the standard for privacy protection in cyberspace." The Thompson privacy amendment will require the Inspector General of each agency to report to Congress on how the agency collects and reviews personal information on its web site.
Shortly after he became chairman, Thompson worked with the General Accounting Office to unveil the first ever audit of the federal government. "The government failed miserably," Thompson said. "The government's deteriorating accounting systems put Congress at a severe disadvantage because we lack reliable information to assess program performance, control costs, and stop widespread waste, fraud, and abuse. We must do better."
Thompson has held a series of hearings and released numerous reports highlighting waste, fraud and abuse involving taxpayer dollars. In 2000, he introduced legislation that would require the use of a technique called ?recovery auditing,' which would be applied to a federal agency's records to identify improper payments or payment errors made by federal agencies.
"Over $20 billion in taxpayer dollars was lost by just a handful of federal programs in 1999," Thompson said. "Most agencies don't even know how much they're losing. This will provide a tool to help discover and eliminate this waste."
To address mushrooming federal regulations which are imposed with little public scrutiny, Thompson introduced the Regulatory Improvement Act. Thompson's bill promotes the public's right to know why agencies make regulatory decisions, improves the quality of government decision-making, and increases government accountability to the public.
"We all want clean air, clean water, and safer workplaces," Thompson said. "Smarter regulation could help us better achieve these goals." The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis has heartily endorsed the legislation, and estimates that 60,000 lives per year could be saved through smarter regulatory priorities.
In 1997, Thompson's committee was designated by the Senate leadership to conduct an investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 federal campaigns.
The committee exposed a campaign system rife with abuse and open to foreign influence, and produced a 9,600 page report that led to several indictments and a number of on-going criminal investigations. The New York Times declared that Thompson "forced Attorney General Janet Reno and a snoozing FBI to quit ignoring any and all indications of corruption in the 1996 campaign."
Guiding all of Senator Thompson's efforts is a strong belief in the Tenth Amendment - that government closer to the people works best. He believes that federal and state government should be limited to their constitutionally defined roles, and that in recent years those roles have been distorted by interference from Washington. "Each level of government is uniquely qualified to do certain things," Thompson said. "And far too often, Washington politicians involved get involved in matters where they have no business, and where state and local governments are in a much better position to respond to people's concerns.
In the 107th Congress, Thompson will continue his efforts to change the way Washington does business, to let working families keep more of their hard-earned money, to ensure Congress works to protect our national security, and to make sure Social Security and Medicare are preserved for future generations.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811192700/thompson.senate.gov/text/record.html

National Defense- Official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:41:00.000-07:00

National Missile Defense

The Cold War is over, but the world continues to be a dangerous place due to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons) and the means to deliver them. Today, many rogue nations, such as Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, have -- or will soon have -- the capability to launch a ballistic missile against the United States or our allies.
While the United States has the military capability to respond to any military threat, Senator Thompson does not believe deterrence alone is an effective means to prevent rogue nations from launching an attack. He does not wish to see American cities become hostages when our interests elsewhere in the world are challenged by a rogue state. If we have the means to deny a potential adversary this capability, then we should do so. The only way to combat this threat is for the United States to deploy a robust, multi-tiered National Missile Defense system.
In 1998, a bipartisan commission headed by former defense secretary Don Rumsfeld challenged the Clinton Administration by concluding that rogue states like North Korea and Iran could develop an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile within five years of deciding to do so. Shortly thereafter, North Korea surprised our intelligence agencies by successfully launching a three- stage rocket over Japan, demonstrating the technological know-how to hit the United States with a small warhead.
In September 1999, the Intelligence Community released a new National Intelligence Estimate of the ballistic missile threat. This report asserted that "during the next 15 years the United States most likely will face ICBM threats from Russia, China and North Korea, probably from Iran, and possibly from Iraq." North Korea could convert its Taepo Dong-1 space launch vehicle to deliver a light payload?sufficient for a biological or chemical attack?to the United States. And Iran's missile program is not far behind. In short, some rogue states may have ICBMs much sooner than previously thought, and those missiles will be more sophisticated and dangerous than previously estimated.
All of these reports confirm the fact that the United States is faced with the real threat of a missile attack. Senator Thompson believes that the best way to confront these threats and protect American lives, is to develop and deploy a multi-tiered missile defense system. He strongly favors a layered missile defense system that includes sea-based interceptors to destroy enemy missiles as soon as they are launched, spaced-based interceptors to destroy enemy missiles as they enter space, and a land-based system to intercept missiles during re-entry. Only a layered defense with multiple systems can protect us from a missile attack.
Senator Thompson believes that, while we need to work with our Allies to address their concerns, we also need to convince the Russians that we are no longer adversaries, and that our missile defense system is not directed at them. We all share the same concerns regarding attacks from rogue states, terrorist groups, and accidental launches. Ultimately, though, the United States must do what is in our national interest.
Delaying missile defense won't delay the threats, which continue to grow. Continued American vulnerability to ballistic missile attack serves only the interests of those who would exploit that vulnerability. Many of these nations have used the threat posed by their missile programs to extract concessions from the United States and our Allies. A prominent example of this is the Clinton Administration's appeasement of North Korea, which now receives the most U.S. aid of any country in Asia, despite that country's hostility. Further, we have a legal and moral responsibility to defend the American people, and deliberate vulnerability neglects that responsibility. As Henry Kissinger, former National Security Adviser and author of the ABM Treaty, said, "Deliberate vulnerability when the technologies are available to avoid it cannot be a strategic objective, cannot be a political objective, and cannot be a moral objective of any American president." For the United States to deliberately remain defenseless against foreign missile attack is unconscionable.
Today, the United States spends over $10 billion a year to counter domestic terrorism and prepare for the consequences of attacks that use weapons of mass destruction, yet spends less than $2 billion a year on missile defense. This is less than one-tenth of 1% of the federal budget, and it is money well spent. But we need to do more. In addition to devoting more attention and resources at the federal, state and local levels to deal with these types of threats after they occur, we also need to prevent them by defending ourselves before they occur. That is why we must maintain our commitment to a national missile defense, and deploy a system as soon as possible.
The first responsibility of government is the defense of the country, the people, and our way of life. And while it is clear we have a legal and constitutional obligation to build a National Missile Defense, we also have a moral responsibility to protect our country and our families.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042348/thompson.senate.gov/text/space.html

Government Waste, Fraud & Abuse- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:40:00.000-07:00

Govovernment Waste, Fraud & Abuse

As chairman and now ranking member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson has worked to make government more accountable and more efficient. As government grows smaller it is even more important that it work effectively so that people who depend on it will be better served. Thompson said, "Recent public surveys have found that wasteful federal spending is the leading cause of low public confidence in government. The American people want value for their money -- good service for the least amount of money. They don't want a hollow government or one with grandiose missions that can't deliver the goods. They want a smaller one that gets results."
No one knows how much the federal government loses to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Federal agencies are not required to keep this information, and most don?t. When the Governmental Affairs Committee added up examples of waste, fraud, and abuse from various government reports, it documented more than $220 billion in taxpayer losses.
Senator Thompson has committed the resources of the Committee to press agencies to resolve the most egregious cases of government waste and mismanagement. Twenty five programs collectively known as ?high risk programs? have been identified by the General Accounting Office (GAO) as particularly vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse. At a hearing exploring solutions to these high risk problems, Senator Thompson said he was "deeply disturbed that so many of these areas are on the list year after year, with little improvement.
In 1999, Senator Thompson wrote individual letters to 24 major federal agencies detailing their most serious management problems, including unresolved recommendations made to each agency by the GAO and the Inspectors General (IG). Senator Thompson said at the time, ?Each year, we get reports from agencies, the media and the GAO detailing how many billions of dollars the government wastes. We bring the responsible agency up here and fuss at them, but then everyone goes back to business as usual. I am determined to be persistent and helpful in following up on getting these problems corrected once and for all.? The Committee has met with each of these agencies to ensure that they are taking action to address many of the problems of waste, fraud, and abuse plaguing the federal government.
The Committee held a series of hearings during the 105th Congress on high risk areas at the IRS, the Department of Defense, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Bureau of the Census as well as on the government-wide high risk problems of computer security and the Year 2000 software conversion. The Committee will continue to search for solutions to get these programs off the ?high risk list.?
Senator Thompson relentlessly pursues instances of waste, fraud, and abuse among Executive Branch agencies. Such efforts include disclosing that the average cost per passenger under NASA?s charter contract ranged from $2,753 to $19,883, which resulted in the cancellation of the contract; discovering widespread fraud and mismanagement in a Department of Agriculture?s child feeding program; and the improper discharge of almost $80 million in loans under the Federal Family Education Loan Program.
Another key component of Senator Thompson?s fight against government waste, fraud, and abuse is his leadership role in the Inspector General community. Inspectors General (IGs) are statutorily-created offices at 59 federal agencies whose job it is to identify problems in federal government programs and help government run more cheaply, responsibly, and wisely. The Governmental Affairs Committee oversees the IGs.
The Committee has made good use of the IGs, relying on their work regarding computer security, dual-use and munitions controls, and regulatory reform. The Committee held hearings to study what makes an IG effective and to determine whether the Clinton Administration is providing these important officials enough support and guidance

http://web.archive.org/web/20020816084200/thompson.senate.gov/text/trash.html

Government Accountability- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:38:00.000-07:00

Government Accountability

REGULATORY REFORM

"Congress should bring more common sense into the regulatory process,? said Senator Thompson. ?Right now the Code of Federal Regulations is about 130,000 pages long, and takes up more than 21 feet of shelf space.? The regulations that fill these 200 volumes cost the average American family about $7,000 every year. ?Even well-intentioned laws can produce unsatisfactory results," Thompson said. ?We need a clean environment, safe products and safe medications. But if we regulate smarter, we can achieve our goals and make our government more effective, more efficient and more accountable than ever."

THE REGULATORY RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT

In 1998, Congress passed Thompson?s regulatory accounting amendment as part of the fiscal year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act. The Thompson Amendment requires OMB to do a peer-reviewed report on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, due in February 2000. The Thompson Amendment strengthened the prior Stevens regulatory accounting amendment, enacted in 1996, by requiring: (1) independent peer review of the report; (2) OMB guidelines to the agencies to ensure the credibility of the information; (3) more details on the costs and benefits of individual agency programs, to the extent feasible; and (4) information on the costs and benefits of paperwork requirements, including tax compliance.
S. 59, the "Regulatory Right-to-Know" Act of 1999, was introduced by Thompson on January 19, 1999 and is co-sponsored by the following Senators: Christopher Bond (R-MO), John Breaux (D-LA), Michael Crapo (R-ID), Judd Gregg (R-NH), Chuch Hagel (R-NE), Tim Hutchinson (R-AR), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Trent Lott (R-MS), Charles Robb (D-VA), William Roth (R-DE), Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Ted Stevens (R-AK), George Voinovich (R-OH).
This legislation will continue the requirement that OMB report to Congress on the costs and benefits of regulatory programs, which began in 1996 with the Stevens Amendment. S. 59 also adds to previous initiatives in several respects. First, it will finally make the regulatory accounting a permanent statutory requirement. Regulatory accounting will become a regular exercise to help ensure that regulatory programs are cost-effective, sensible, and fair. Second, this legislation will require OMB to provide a more complete picture of the regulatory system, including the incremental costs and benefits of particular programs and regulations, as well as an analysis of regulatory impacts on small business, governments, the private sector, wages and economic growth. OMB also will look back at the annual regulatory costs and benefits for the preceding 4 fiscal years, building on information generated under the Stevens Amendment. Finally, this legislation will help ensure that OMB provides better information as time goes on. Requirements for OMB guidelines and independent peer review should improve future regulatory accounting reports. Government has an obligation to think carefully and be accountable for requirements that impose costs on people and limit their freedom.

THE "REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT," S. 746

On March 25, 1999, Senators Levin and Thompson reintroduced the "Regulatory Improvement Act," with broad bipartisan support. S. 746 requires agencies to issue regulatory analyses for major rules which include: (1) cost-benefit analysis examining regulatory alternatives; (2) risk assessment; (3) scientific or economic information relied upon in cost-benefut analysis and risk assessment; and (4) scientific information on substitution risks to health, safety, or the environment.
S. 746 would establish a framework for cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment of major rules and executive oversight of the regulatory process. Agencies would perform a cost-benefit analysis when issuing rules that cost $100 million or have other significant impacts. The agency would determine whether the benefits of the rule justify its costs; whether the rule is more cost-effective, or provides greater net benefits, than other regulatory options; and whether the rule adopts a flexible regulatory approach. If the rule does not do so, the agency would explain the reasons why it selected the rule, including any statutory provision that required the rule. If the rule addresses a risk to health, safety, or the environment, the agency would do a risk assessment to analyze the risk reduction benefits of the rule. Cost-benefit analyses for rules costing over $500 million and all covered risk assessments would undergo independent peer review. The Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on the Regulatory Improvement Act on September 12, 1997 and February 24, 1998. S. 746 has been cosponsored by 7 Democrats and 10 Republicans.

THE TRUTH IN REGULATING ACT OF 2000

This legislation, which has been passed by the Senate, establishes a three-year pilot project to support Congressional oversight to ensure that important regulatory decisions are efficient, effective, and fair. Under the pilot project, the chairman or ranking member of a committee with jurisdiction over a particular federal agency may request the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review a proposed economically significant regulation. The GAO would then have 180 days to submit to the requesting committee a report evaluating the agency?s cost-benefit and regulatory analysis of the regulation. This report would help Congress to engage in oversight of the regulation.
S. 1198 was originally introduced as the Congressional Accountability for Regulatory Information Act of 1999 by Senator Richard Shelby. Senator Thompson introduced S. 1244, the Truth in Regulating Act of 1999. These two similar bills were synthesized along with changes made in collaboration with Senator Joe Lieberman, Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee. The resulting bill was approved by the Committee on November 3, 1999 and by the full Senate on May 9, 2000. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Government Reform on May 10, 2000.
In addition to Senator Thompson, S. 1198 is cosponsored by the following Senators: Robert Bennett (R-UT), Kit Bond (R-MO), John Breaux (D-LA), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), James Inhofe (R-OK), Robert Kerrey (D-NE), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Trent Lott (R-MS), Charles Robb (D-VA), William Roth, Jr. (R-DE), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and George Voinovich (R-OH).

FISCAL DISCIPLINE AND FAIRNESS

There are many public management issues that need to be addressed if the government is going to become more efficient and accountable to the taxpayers. Senator Thompson is working to ensure that the government operates with accountability, efficiency, and fiscal discipline. For example:
The Results Act, passed by congress in 1993, is designed to provide policy-makers and the public with systematic, reliable information about where federal programs and activities are going, how they will get there, and how we will know when they have arrived. Agencies have had mixed results complying with the reporting to be filed by March 31st of each year (link). Senator Thompson is working to ensure the successful implementation of the Results Act in order to hold federal agencies accountable for results.
Agencies are required, under the Chief Financial Officers Act, to report on their finiancial statements by March 1 of each year. Senator Thompson is working to ensure that agencies submit timely financial statements to ensure that federal operations have the benefit of basic information with which to manage the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. Without basic financial information, agencies cannot accurately and in a timely manner, measure the full cost and financial performance of programs, cannot effectively and efficiently manage their operations, and/or cannot ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
Congress passed into law the Federal Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 which was reported out of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee with a Thompson amendment. This bill will help the federal government better manage the $7 billion of travel expenses and save $90 million by requiring federal employees to use travel charge cards and streamlining the antiquated auditing procedures associated with federal travel expenses.

http://web.archive.org/web/20021006213211/thompson.senate.gov/text/accounts.html

Federalism- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:36:00.000-07:00

Federalism

The Framers of the Constitution envisioned a federal government of limited and defined powers, with most governmental activity taking place at the state and local levels. This fundamental principle of "federalism," embodied in the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, has been circumvented in recent decades as the federal government has infringed on state sovereignty and concentrated more power in Washington. Senator Thompson has been working to reverse this trend and to return power to states and communities. He has been an independent voice for a smaller federal government, and has cast his vote against measures to federalize what should be state and local issues.
There is renewed interest in the relationship between the federal government, states and localities as Congress seeks to improve the effectiveness of federal programs and determine which programs are best administered at the state or local levels. The federal presence in state and local government is large, witnessed by the fact that federal grants comprise 23 percent of total state spending. However, many things required by the federal government are never paid for by the federal government. Senator Thompson is concerned with the imposition of unfunded federal mandates on state and local governments, which force our nation's governor's, mayors, and other state and local elected officials to raise taxes or cut services in order to pay for them.
The Tenth Amendment was designed to protect states from Washington's big government tendencies ? but this pillar of our Democracy was attacked by the Clinton Administration. In 1998, President Clinton tried to overturn the long-standing Reagan executive order on federalism with a new order that justified federal intervention in state and local affairs. Senator Thompson offered an amendment on the Senate floor, which passed unanimously, calling on the President to revoke his executive order. The new executive order was suspended shortly thereafter.
In June of 1999, Senator Thompson introduced the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214). The bill was approved by a bi-partisan vote of 12-2 by the Governmental Affairs Committee in August of that year, but did not pass the Senate prior to the end of the 106th Congress. The Federal Accountability Act would have required the report accompanying any public bill or joint resolution from a Senate and House committee or conference report to contain an explicit statement on the extent to which the bill or resolution preempts state or local government law and the reasons for this preemption. The Act would also have established a rule of construction providing that courts would not construe a statute or regulation to preempt state or local law unless the statute or regulation explicitly stated that such preemption was intended or unless there was a direct conflict with state law.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811185350/thompson.senate.gov/text/federalism.html

Education- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:35:00.000-07:00

Education

America?s K-12 education system is not achieving the results it should be. Forty percent of American children can?t read at their grade level. For 35 years, the federal government has been dictating how states and local communities use federal education dollars. Senator Thompson believes that when it comes to educating America?s children, parents and teachers make better decisions than bureaucrats in Washington.
In 2001, Senator Thompson is continuing his efforts to return control of education to states and local communities. He supports President Bush?s blueprint for education, which consolidates over 50 existing federal programs into just seven flexible categories to provide much-needed flexibility to parents and teachers. This legislation would build on the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 ("Ed-Flex") to further move decision-making about our students? education to the parents and teachers who know best.
In 2000, Senator Thompson supported the Affordable Education Act of 2000. This bill, which was passed by the Senate, would have helped families save for their children?s education by increasing the amount they could contribute to an education savings account from the current $500 to $2,000 per year, by allowing education savings account funds to be used for K-12 expenses (such as tutors, computers or uniforms), and by making withdrawals from state and private pre-paid tuition plans tax-free. In addition, this bill would have helped state and local government modernize existing schools or build new schools by easing tax-exempt bond rules.
Senator Thompson was an original cosponsor of the 1999 Ed-Flex bill. This landmark legislation gave states and local school officials greater freedom from federal regulation in the use of federal funds to administer education programs in their districts. Under Ed-Flex, it is the states, and not the federal Department of Education, that can grant local school districts temporary waivers from cumbersome federal requirements.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020811185618/thompson.senate.gov/text/edu.html

Computer Security- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:34:00.000-07:00

Computer Security

Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) reminded a packed hearing room on March 2, 2000, ? that the federal government?s underlying information infrastructure is "riddled with vulnerabilities which represent severe security flaws and risks to our national security, public safety, and personal privacy "Year after year, expert witnesses have told this committee that an underlying cause of federal information security vulnerabilities is inadequate security program planning and management," said Thompson.
"What is most alarming to me is that after all this time, and all these reports and expert testimony, there is still no organization-wide approach to preventing cyberattacks. And the security program management is totally inadequate. This is yet another example of how difficult it is to get the federal bureaucracy to move, even in an area important as this."
Kevin Mitnick, a self-described reformed hacker, testified that all computer systems, government and industry, are vulnerable to attack. Mitnick, who served 59 months and 7 days for breaking into Digital Equipment Corporation?s computers said, "If someone has the time, the money and motivation, they can get into any computer."
Also testifying were Jack Brock with the Government Accounting Office (GAO) and the Inspector General of NASA, Roberta Gross. Both expressed support for the Thompson/Lieberman bill (S. 1993) which mandates good management practices. Brock said, "We support S. 1993. It provides a better management framework for addressing information security issues and provides a mechanism for independently checking how those issues are being addressed."
The third and final panel offered an industry perspective with testimony from Ken Watson, Manager of Critical Infrastructure Protection at Cisco Systems, Inc. and James Adams, CEO of Infrastructure Defense, Inc., a security consulting company. Adams added, "By stepping up to the plate and tackling computer security with an innovative, bold approach, the Thompson-Lieberman bill significantly boosts the chances of reversing the current bureaucratic approach to a dynamic problem."
S. 1993, the Government Information Security Act was introduced by then Chairman Thompson and Ranking Minority Member Joseph I. Lieberman (D-CT) on November 19, 1999. This legislation was the result of the Governmental Affairs Committee oversight work in the area of information security and cyberterrorism.
It is intended to protect Federal government information systems from cyberattack. Among other things, S.1993 would strengthen the Office of Management and Budget?s information security duties, consistent with its existing responsibilities under the Paperwork Reduction Act; establish Federal agency accountability for information security as needed to cost-effectively protect the assets and operations of the agency; provide for the application of a unified and logical set of government-wide controls by including national security systems within the application of the legislation; and require agencies to have an annual independent evaluation of their information security programs and practices.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616042107/thompson.senate.gov/text/compsec.html

Campaign Finance Reform- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:33:00.000-07:00

Campaign Finance Reform

Americans have less and less faith in their government. One of the main reasons is that they are distrustful of the system we have in place to elect our political leaders. People look at the huge amounts of money in the system that both political parties raise to elect their candidates and they ask: "Where does such a system leave the average citizen with his or her $100 contribution?"
Senator Thompson too has the simple belief that there is too much money in the system. He believes that an excellent witness on this topic is Barry Goldwater. In testifying before Congress in 1983, he said that big money "eats at the heart of the democratic process. It feeds the growth of special interests groups created solely to channel money into political campaigns. It creates the impression that every candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers. And it causes elected officials to devote more time to raising money than their political duties. If present trends continue, voter participation will drop significantly, public respect will fall to an all time low, political campaigns will be controlled by slick packaging artists, and neglect of public duties by absentee officials will undermine government operations." His predictions were accurate and his concerns are still valid today.
Senator Thompson witnessed first hand the corruption in our campaign finance system during the Governmental Affairs Committee's special investigation into alleged improper or illegal activities growing out of the 1996 federal campaigns. The Committee exposed a campaign finance system rife with abuse and open to foreign influence, and produced a 9,600-page report that led to several indictments and a number of on-going criminal investigations.
Senator Thompson has been a supporter of the McCain/Feingold campaign finance legislation. That bill would ban the unlimited amounts of soft money that currently flow into the coffers of the national parties and helped create the numerous scandals and violations we saw in the 1996 presidential campaign. Senator Thompson believes that by banning soft money contributions and fully disclosing the source of donations to political campaigns the American people will be able to have more confidence that the decisions made by their leaders

http://web.archive.org/web/20021006213721/thompson.senate.gov/text/campref.html

Biennial Budget- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:32:00.000-07:00

Biennial Budget

"The current budget process is broken,? says Senator Thompson. ?We need to enact sensible reforms, such as the biennial budget legislation, to give Congress more time for the important tasks that often get short shrift these days, such as conducting oversight and long-range planning, and spending more time at home with the people who sent us here."
Senator Thompson is working to do just that. He, along with Senators Pete Domenici and Joe Lieberman, has introduced S. 92, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act. This legislation converts the annual budget, appropriations and authorization process to a two-year cycle. This bill makes budgeting and appropriating a priority for the first session of each Congress, with the second session reserved for the consideration of authorization bills and oversight of federal programs.
This legislation enjoys bipartisan support and was the subject of a joint hearing held by the Committee on Governmental Affairs and the Committee on the Budget this past January. In March, the Committee approved legislation and sent it to the full Senate for consideration by a vote of 9 - 4 vote.
Senator Thompson has also led the fight to improve control over federal emergency spending and in preventing future government shutdowns. Under Senator Thompson's leadership, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee approved two additional budget process reform bills. S. 557 is intended to help control government spending designated as emergencies by requiring that any spending designated as an "emergency" must meet certain criteria. Further, the bill establishes a point of order in the Senate against spending designated as an "emergency." The point of order can be waived by an affirmative vote of a simple majority.
S. 558 is intended to prevent a federal government shutdown when Congress and the President fail to reach a timely agreement on the annual appropriations bills. This bill would ensure that federal government activities depending on such funding would continue without threat of interruption due to lack of funding.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616094300/thompson.senate.gov/text/biennial.html

War On Terror- official position 2002

2007-04-28T11:30:00.000-07:00

America's War on Terrorism

On September 11, 2001, the United States fell victim to the worst terrorist attack in our history as more than 3000 persons were killed in attacks in New York City and at the Pentagon, and in a thwarted attack that led to a plane crash in Pennsylvania. From his Senate office, Senator Thompson watched with members of his staff as the events unfolded on television.
While the Senate offices were soon evacuated, Senator Thompson returned to the Capitol that night to join a bi-partisan group of senators for a display of unity on the Capitol steps. He later appeared on television with several colleagues to help reassure the American people that their government was functioning and would respond to the attacks.
Speaking on the Senate floor the following day, Senator Thompson said, "If this giant has been sleeping as some say, it has been awakened once again and will not rest until an example is made of those who would murder our innocent citizens and tear at the very fabric of our national existence...America's response in this matter should set a lasting example of what happens to those who unleash bloody attacks, especially on our own soil. The time for carefully measured pinprick responses to terrorists activities has passed."
That weekend, the Senator returned to Tennessee. He traveled from Nashville to Memphis, and then to Knoxville, Chattanooga and the Tri-Cities, speaking at churches and schools about the events of September 11 and the task ahead. At Two Rivers Baptist Church in Nashville, he said, "We will not cower, we will not hide. When we finish our mourning, we will continue on. And with God's blessing, we will remain the beacon of hope and freedom for the rest of the world."
In the weeks and months since September 11, Senator Thompson has worked in the Senate to support President Bush's war against terrorism. As Ranking Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and a member of the Finance Committee, he has participated in hearings covering issues including computer security, homeland defense, aviation security, the economic stimulus package, and the Postal Service's anthrax investigation.
The Aviation Security Act, signed into law by President Bush on November 19, includes Senator Thompson's amendment requiring that those responsible for airport security be held accountable for meeting measurable performance goals, particularly involving the detection of dangerous objects.
"We're changing the basic mind set with regard to measuring airport security performance," Senator Thompson said. "The primary concern of the American people is the bottom line - whether dangerous objects are getting past screeners and whether or not unauthorized individuals are gaining access to secure areas in our airports. That's what we're going to measure from now on, and that's how employee performance will be judged. This is the kind of thing that will help restore confidence in air travel."
In January of 2002, Thompson was part of a bi-partisan group of Senators that traveled to Afghanistan, Pakistan and other countries involved in the war on terror. While in Afghanistan, the group met with interim Afghan leader Hamid Karzai and members of his Cabinet. They also had the opportunity during the trip to meet with U.S. troops serving in the region.
In February of 2002, it was announced that the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, of which Senator Thompson is a member, and the House Intelligence Committee, will hold joint hearings into the events surrounding September 11 and the federal government's response to terrorism.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616034647/thompson.senate.gov/text/america.html

Agriculture- official position

2007-04-28T11:04:00.000-07:00

Agriculture

Senator Thompson recognizes that Tennessee farmers work hard to produce outstanding agricultural products. With approximately 80,000 farms covering 43 percent of the state, Tennessee is a major producer of agricultural commodities such as cattle, lumber, dairy products, tobacco, cotton, nursery products, soybeans, poultry, and hogs.
During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Thompson has been a strong proponent of trade policies that open foreign markets for our farmers goods. He supports Trade Promotion Authority and other policies that will open new export markets for Tennessee's agricultural products.
Senator Thompson believes that excessive taxation prevents farmers from keeping more of their income and saving for the future. He has been a supporter of fundamental tax reform that will create a simpler and fairer tax system. In 2001, Senator Thompson voted to eliminate both the marriage penalty tax and the death, or estate, tax. The death tax forced farmers who worked hard over their lifetimes to face tax rates as high as 55 percent if they wanted to pass their farms on to their children. The Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act signed by President Bush eliminates the death tax by 2010.
Senator Thompson also believes that farmers have suffered from burdensome and often unnecessary federal government regulations. In 2000, Senator Thompson cosponsored the Truth in Regulating Act to promote Congressional oversight of proposed federal regulations.
While Senator Thompson has fought for general improvements to assist farmers, he also realizes that Tennessee's farmers have continued to face unique challenges in recent years. This year, he worked to ensure that 31 Tennessee counties were eligible to receive federal agricultural disaster assistance. Farmers in these counties experienced setbacks in production caused by extreme weather conditions, flooding, and insect infestations in 2001.
Tennessee's farmers feed millions of Americans, preserve the rural way of life, and provide high-quality products to consumers all over the world. Senator Thompson will continue to work with his Congressional colleagues to assist Tennessee's farmers.

http://web.archive.org/web/20020616032046/thompson.senate.gov/text/ag.html

The Republican Dilemma

2007-04-28T09:28:00.000-07:00

Chris Adamo wrote an interesting article that describes the current Republican dilemma, and what a Thompson candidacy means:

With the 2008 Presidential campaign season looming, Republicans stand to make
great gains as a result of this pattern of abominable liberal behavior.
Yet
it is critical to this effort that they remain loyal to those things that
bolstered the conservative wing of the party. Only by so doing can they
unmistakably define themselves as a clear alternative to the increasing liberal
tilt of the Democrats.
Among the chief contenders for the White House, this
contrast would be best borne, by far, by former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.
Of those with a large current showing in the polls, only Thompson can highlight
his own past conservatism with no excuses or back peddling. Thompson merely
needs to loudly proclaim the things for which he has stood and allow the
opposition, in all of its hysteria, to make his case for him.
Rudy Guiliani,
on the other hand, finds himself on the wrong side of two of the three currently
dominating controversies, having staunchly supported both partial-birth abortion
and gun control throughout his political life.
Being far too entrenched as a
liberal, Guiliani amazingly seeks to appeal to conservative America on the basis
that, unlike those who shift to the right for electability purposes, he remains
committed to his liberal mindset. In essence, conservative America is asked to
accept the absurd notion that Rudy ’s unwavering devotion to such defining
principles of liberalism somehow make him less of a liberal than those who
waffle and pander.Ultimately, this strategy promises to be no more convincing to
the voting public than Hillary and her latest bumbling foray into "Ebonics."

He describes Thompson as the only candidate who has consistently been a champion of the conservative ideals. Senator Thompson is alone when it comes to qualifications and a record to back up his claim as the true conservative. All he needs to do is talk the talk like he walks the walk.

Meet Senator Fred Thompson

2007-04-27T13:12:00.000-07:00

1994 Elect Fred Thompson

Fred Thompson- Neil Cavuto Interview Part 1

2007-04-27T13:10:00.000-07:00

Neil Cavuto's Exclusive Interview with Fred Thompson Part 1

Fred Thompson- On the Issues

2007-04-27T13:07:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson- On the Issues
Interview by Chris Wallace

Fred Thompson- September 16, 2001

2007-04-27T13:06:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson- September 16, 2001

Fred Thompson- The Soldier

2007-04-27T13:00:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson- The Soldier

Fred Thompson- Courage

2007-04-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

Fred Thompson on Courage:

Fred Thompson- 1998 Statesman of the Year

2007-04-27T12:32:00.000-07:00

Part II: Federal Workforce Challenges

2007-04-26T11:37:00.000-07:00

Part 2 of Senator Thompson's report on challenges facing the new administration:

MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES FACING THE NEW
ADMINISTRATION

PART 2: FEDERAL WORKFORCE CHALLENGES
OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY

This is one in a series of transition reports that describes core capacity problems facing the Federal Government, discusses their nature and root causes, and proposes ways of solving them. The reports are intended to stimulate action on the part of the incoming Administration and Congress, and to provide them a framework for this important task. This report deals with Federal workforce challenges. Other reports address financial management and the need for results-oriented governance at the Federal level.
The Federal Government’s workforce problems have received little attention, although many experts recognize that they are reaching an increasingly critical stage. Most agencies face serious challenges in hiring, retaining, developing, and motivating a workforce with the right skills to achieve their mission results. These problems have been exacerbated in recent years by random ‘‘downsizing’’ that reduced agency staffs without regard to the skills, experience, and performance of departing employees in relation to agency missions. Typically, downsizing was accomplished by ‘‘buyouts’’ and early retirement offers to experienced employees— thereby causing significant ‘‘brain drain.’’ There is mounting evidence that workforce deficiencies at agencies limit their capacity to serve the public and make them more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
The Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs is responsible for overseeing the government-wide application of the Federal merit system and human resources policies. The current civil service system, a product of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, was created in large part to further standardize some human resource requirements and incorporate into law the merit system principles of fairness, equity, and earned achievement in public employment.
There is broad consensus that this system lacks the flexibility necessary to meet today’s workforce needs. Such flexibility would enable individual workers and their agencies to focus less on conforming to centralized human resource requirements and more on developing human resource policies and practices that support their own mission-related needs.
One expert observed that the current system ‘‘underwhelms at almost every task it undertakes . . . It is slow in the hiring, almost useless in the firing, overly permissive in the promoting, [and] out of touch with actual performance in the rewarding . . .’’ 1 Agencies also suffer from inefficient and wasteful organizational structures with bloated hierarchies and excessive layers of management. Even more fundamentally, the basic civil service model—built around a 30-year career from entry level to retirement with virtually guaranteed job security—does not fit a contemporary workforce that favors greater mobility and has different motivations than in the past.
Strategic workforce planning is essential to the success of private sector organizations. They realize the importance of having employees with the right skills and abilities to accomplish their missions.
However, Federal workforce issues have been neglected for years. The Comptroller General describes workforce management as the ‘‘missing link’’ in efforts to improve the Federal Government’s performance and accountability. The Administration, especially the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), is only now acknowledging the seriousness of the government’s workforce problems. Furthermore, the agency charged with administering the Federal Government’s personnel laws, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), has lacked the requisite leadership from the Administration to address successfully these problems. Most agencies are far behind the curve in addressing these problems. Therefore, the problems require immediate attention and concerted action. The following are a few recommendations to begin to address these problems:
· The Administration must provide much greater leadership in addressing critical workforce problems. In particular, it needs to develop specific remedial plans for which they and the agencies can be held accountable. With this greater leadership, the Administration would encourage OMB and OPM to move away from the status quo and consider personnel reforms in an open and objective way. It is obvious to all that the current system is broken. OPM should become a partner in developing solutions.
· Agencies need to undertake comprehensive workforce planning to: (1) determine their workforce needs in relation to their current functions; (2) assess how their existing workforce compares to their needs; and (3) develop strategies to bridge the gaps between the workforce they need and the one they have.
· In accordance with OMB guidance, agencies should establish Results Act performance goals and measures to address their most serious workforce problems and thereby assume accountability for solving them. Agencies should start with problems that lend themselves to immediate action such as improving recruitment practices and linking employee performance appraisals to performance results. (See below.)
· OPM should ensure that agencies’ program managers fully understand and use the many personnel flexibilities that are now available to them under current laws and regulations. As noted above, OPM also should help develop changes to current laws and regulations to ensure that agencies can effectively obtain and manage the workforces they need to achieve their mission results.
· Agencies should directly link performance assessments and rewards for agency managers to the agency’s performance results. Steps should be taken as well to ensure that all agency employees are accountable for their performance and are rewarded based on their performance.
· Agencies should take immediate action to reduce recruiting and hiring delays and provide better feedback to job applicants. The foregoing recommendations are just a start toward resolving the Federal Government’s critical workforce problems. Additional recommendations are sure to emerge if these long neglected problems get the attention they clearly require.

THE FEDERAL WORKFORCE CRISIS
No longer a ‘‘quiet crisis.’’ For some time now, experts have referred to a ‘‘quiet crisis’’ in the Federal public service. Clearly, the workforce problems confronting the Federal Government have reached an even more critical stage in recent years. A workforce capable of conducting the Federal Government’s business is crucial to the effective implementation of government policies. One leading expert, Paul C. Light of The Brookings Institution, observed: Ultimately, effective governance is impossible if government cannot attract talented citizens to serve at all levels of the hierarchy. As Alexander Hamilton warned 200 years ago in The Federalist Papers, ‘‘a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory, must be in practice a bad government.’’ Citizens cannot have confidence in the integrity of the democratic process if their leaders cannot honor the promises they make, but those leaders cannot honor the promises they make if government cannot attract the talent necessary to both draft and execute the laws. 2
Paul Light paints a bleak picture of a current Federal personnel system ‘‘that underwhelms at almost every task it undertakes.’’
Specifically:
It is slow in the hiring, almost useless in the firing, overly permissive in the promoting, out of touch with actual performance in the rewarding, penurious in the training, and utterly absent in the management of a vast and hidden workforce of contractors and consultants who work side by side, desk by desk with the civil service. 3

The impact of non-strategic ‘‘downsizing.’’ The staffs of many Federal agencies suffer from imbalances in skills and experience as well as structural problems. The spate of ‘‘downsizing’’ during the 1990’s substantially reduced the number of regular, full-time Federal employees. Whether this downsizing really made the Federal Government much smaller is doubtful. According to Paul Light, the ‘‘era of big government’’ is still very much with us. 4 It clearly did not make the government smarter. The downsizing was accomplished indiscriminately through attrition, early retirements, and ‘‘buyouts’’ that resulted in random, across-the-board staff reductions.
Little or no consideration was given to the relative impact of the jobs eliminated—or the skills, experience, or performance of departing employees—on accomplishing agency missions. There is no evidence that this downsizing improved the efficiency or effectiveness of the Federal Government. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the non-strategic way in which downsizing was accomplished actually detracted from the capacity of agencies to carry out essential functions and made them more vulnerable to fraud, waste, and mismanagement.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) found that lack of strategic planning during the initial phases of downsizing threatened the ability of some agencies to achieve their missions. The Comptroller General recently testified that ‘‘it is by no means clear that the current workforce is adequately balanced to properly execute agencies’ missions today, nor that adequate plans are in place to ensure the appropriate balance in the future.’’ 5 His testimony illustrates the perverse consequences of non-strategic downsizing. Agencies hoped to offset the loss of skilled employees by greater reliance on information technology (IT). However, due to staff reductions, they lack the skilled employees needed to take advantage of technology, and they are at a competitive disadvantage in hiring IT professionals.
They also appear to lack the necessary in-house expertise to oversee IT work that they have outsourced to contractors. 6

A top-heavy Federal workforce. Downsizing also has distorted the shape of the Federal workforce, making it more top heavy and less efficient. Not surprisingly, the greatest impact of downsizing occurred at the lowest levels of government. As Paul Light puts it, ‘‘The Federal Government eliminated primarily the jobs that were the easiest to cut, meaning the ones with the highest attrition and the lowest political profile.’’ 7 While middle management levels ostensibly were reduced, this often amounted to nothing more than changing titles. Thus, in reality, the number of political appointees, senior executives, and middle managers remained steady while layers of hierarchy actually expanded.
This effect is apparent in the title glut of recent years. From 1993 to 1998, a number of new senior level positions were established with such titles as ‘‘deputy to the deputy secretary,’’ ‘‘principal assistant deputy under secretary,’’ and ‘‘associate principal deputy assistant secretary.’’ 8 While contributing to greater layering and diffused accountability, high numbers of political appointees also are expensive. According to the Congressional Budget Office, capping the number of political appointees at 2,000 would save the taxpayers about $900 million in salary costs over 10 years. 9

HOW WORKFORCE PROBLEMS IMPEDE AGENCY MISSIONS
The Comptroller General regards workforce (or what he refers to as ‘‘human capital’’) problems as an impending crisis for the Federal Government. He has labeled human capital management as the ‘‘missing link’’ in efforts to improve the Federal Government’s performance and accountability. 10 He adds that human capital management is likely to emerge as a new government-wide problem area when GAO updates its ‘‘high-risk list’’ of Federal program activities most vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement:
[T]he widespread lack of attention to strategic human capital management may be creating a fundamental weakness in Federal management, possibly even putting at risk the Federal Government’s ability to efficiently, economically, and effectively deliver products and services to the taxpayers in the future. These shortcomings in the Federal
Government’s human capital management systems could well earn them GAO’s high-risk designation when the next High Risk Series is issued in 2001. 11
Likewise, Inspectors General (IGs) at nine major Federal agencies have listed workforce problems as one of the top 10 most serious management challenges that their agencies face. 12 Staffing problems underlie many other IG-identified top 10 management challenges at a number of major agencies, such as the lack of expertise to effectively oversee Federal contracts and grants and to provide effective service to the public.
GAO and IG reports are replete with specific examples of how staffing problems adversely affect the ability of Federal agencies to accomplish their missions.

Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). ‘‘An insufficient mix of staff with the proper skills’’ was a key factor causing GAO to designate HUD programs across the board as high risk. 13 Along the same lines, the HUD IG recently testified: The adequacy of staff resources in the Department has long been a concern of the OIG and a root cause of many of HUD’s material weaknesses. Our audits have consistently found a mismatch between the number and complexity of HUD’s programs and the capability of HUD staff to administer those programs. 14
These longstanding workforce problems were exacerbated by random downsizing at HUD, as well as more recent staffing upheavals brought on by the Department’s ‘‘community builders’’ initiative. Despite the apparent lack of staff capacity to effectively carry out its existing programs, HUD consistently seeks to add more programs to the workload of its already beleaguered staff.

Social Security Administration (SSA). The IG at SSA has noted that the combined effect of staff downsizing and hiring restrictions, on the one hand, and the increasing volume and complexity of caseloads on the other, threatens SSA’s ability to provide quality service to the public:
The quality of service SSA provides to its customers continues to be a challenge facing the Agency. . . . The [Social Security Advisory] Board expressed concern about the effect of personnel downsizing and hiring restrictions on SSA’s service delivery mechanism. Such constraints limit the Agency’s ability to strengthen and revitalize employee ranks by bringing in new employees with new skills. This condition exists at the same time that caseloads continue to grow in volume and complexity. . . . The effects of low staffing levels for the customer include: delays in scheduling appointments; crowded reception areas; long waiting times; and inadequate telephone service. At the same time, the Agency is affected by attrition, high turnover, and increased backlogs of pending actions. 15 SSA’s Performance Report for Fiscal Year 1999 confirms that it is falling short of many of its customer service performance goals.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). Experts maintain that the combined effect of increasing applications and inexperienced staff at the Commerce Department’s PTO has resulted in undeserving patents slipping through. This, in turn, poses a critical threat to an economy that runs on intellectual property. One expert was quoted as saying, ‘‘Patent quality in this country is a joke. It’s getting worse.’’ 16
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Last year, NASA lost all four of its spacecraft bound for Mars. This cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars and brought the entire Mars program to a halt. These problems did not stem from the risks inherent in space exploration. Instead, they resulted from simple negligence resulting in part from inexperienced staff and inadequate oversight of contractors. Likewise, GAO reports that an insufficient staff with the proper qualifications poses threats to the performance and safety of NASA’s space shuttle program. 17

THE NEED FOR FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES IN WORKFORCE
MANAGEMENT
Rethinking current systems. Solutions to our workforce problems will not come easily. For one thing, the Federal Government faces daunting recruiting challenges both at professional and leadership levels. In this regard, Paul Light observes: Sad to say, when young Americans are asked to picture themselves in public service careers, particularly at the Federal level, they picture themselves in deadend jobs where seniority, not performance, rules. And when more seasoned Americans are asked to picture themselves in appointive office, they picture themselves in a nomination and confirmation process characterized by endless inspection, over-disclosure, and delays at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. 18
Clearly, the basic assumptions underlying the current civil service system no longer hold true today. In particular, we need to rethink our current civil service paradigm of a large and permanent Federal bureaucracy composed of cradle-to-grave careerists.
We need to develop a new paradigm to fit a contemporary National workforce that features much greater mobility and very different motivations than in the past. In this regard, Paul Light states: Designed to sustain 30-year careers with one way in at the entry level and one way out at retirement, the government- centered public service is increasingly unattractive to a workforce that will change jobs and sectors frequently, and to workers who are much more focused on challenging work than security. Gone are the days when talented employees would endure hiring delays and a mind-numbing application process to get an entry-level government job. Gone, too, are the days when talented employees would accept slow but steady advancement through towering government bureaucracies in exchange for a 30-year commitment.
In the midst of a growing labor shortage, government is becoming an employer of last resort, one that caters more to the security-craver than the risk-taker. 19
Comptroller General Walker also emphasizes the need to rethink our current approach to the Federal workforce in light of changing conditions:
Changes in the demographics of the Federal workforce, in the education and skills required of its workers, and in basic Federal employment structures and arrangements are all continuing to unfold. The Federal workforce is aging; the baby boomers, with their valuable skills and experience, are drawing nearer to retirement; new employees joining the Federal workforce today have different expectations from the generation that preceded them. In response to an increasingly competitive job market, Federal agencies will need the tools and flexibilities to attract, hire, and retain top-flight talent. . . . Agencies’ employment structures and working arrangements will also be changing, and the workplace will need to accommodate a greater mix of full-time, part-time, and temporary workers; more contracting-out; less job security; and the possibility of additional government downsizing and realignments. 20

Improving the basics. It will be difficult to overcome some of the challenges the Federal Government faces in attracting the kind of workforce it needs. The government does not do a good job even in areas that are readily within its control. A recent survey of new hires by the Federal Government’s own Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) identified basic problems in the recruiting process.
For example, respondents reported that the time between submission of an application and being scheduled for an interview was unreasonably long, as was the time between being told they had a job and being able to report for work. The respondents also complained of not receiving timely feedback, or receiving no feedback at all, on the status of their applications. Finally, they did not receive the quality of service they expected from Federal hiring personnel.
Among other things, the MSPB recommended that agencies expedite their hiring processes and improve service to applicants. 21

THE PRIVATE SECTOR CONTRAST
Approaches to workforce management represent a stark contrast between the private sector and the Federal Government. The Federal Government has devoted little attention to workforce planning.
As discussed previously, this lack of attention was most pronounced in the recent downsizing. Downsizing was nothing but a numbers game. Agencies simply reduced in-house staffing without reducing or streamlining any of their functions. By contrast, private sector firms take a strategic approach to workforce issues.
They analyze which of their functions are important and effective, and which are not. They concentrate on improving the important things that they do. With regard to staffing, successful private sector organizations give very high priority to analyzing their workforce needs and ensuring that they are met. These firms systematically identify the skills and characteristics that their leaders and employees need to get the job done and make the investments needed to hire, develop, and retain a workforce that embodies and can sustain these competencies.
In 1999, GAO surveyed private sector firms that are regarded as leaders in workforce or ‘‘human capital’’ management in order to identify common principles that underlay their success. GAO identified 10 such common principles in all, which included the following:
· Treat human capital management as being fundamental to strategic business management. Integrate human capital considerations when identifying the mission, strategic goals, and core values of the organization as well as when designing and implementing operational policies and practices.
· Hire, develop, and sustain leaders according to leadership characteristics identified as essential to achieving specific missions and goals. Identify the leadership traits needed to achieve high performance of mission and goals. Build and sustain the organization’s pool of leaders through recruiting, hiring, development, retention, and succession policies and practices targeted at producing leaders with the identified characteristics.
· Hire, develop, and retain employees according to competencies. Identify the competencies—knowledge, skills, abilities, and behaviors—needed to achieve high performance of mission and goals, and build and sustain the organization’s talent pool through recruiting, hiring, development, and retention policies and practices targeted at building and sustaining those competencies.
· Use performance management systems, including pay and other meaningful incentives, to link performance to results. Provide incentives and hold employees accountable for contributing to the achievement of mission and goals. Reward those employees who meet or exceed clearly defined and transparent standards of high performance.
· Measure the effectiveness of human capital policies and practices.
Evaluate and make fact-based decisions on whether human capital policies and practices support high performance of mission and goals. Identify the performance return on human capital investments. 22

LACK OF LEADERSHIP ON WORKFORCE PLANNING
Unfortunately, the Executive Branch has paid scant attention to Federal workforce issues. There are some indications that its central management agencies—OMB and OPM—are beginning to take the Federal Government’s workforce crisis seriously. However, they are coming to these problems quite late and, as a result, most agencies remain far behind the curve.
For the past 3 fiscal years, OMB has included a set of so-called ‘‘Priority Management Objectives’’ (PMOs) as part of the Government-wide Performance Plan under the Government Performance and Results Act (‘‘Results Act’’). The PMOs are designed to capture the Federal Government’s ‘‘biggest management challenges.’’ Although the PMOs for FY 1999 and 2000 made no mention of Federal workforce problems, the FY 2001 version includes a PMO entitled, ‘‘Align Federal human resources to support agency goals.’’ 23 It states that OPM will:
· design a ‘‘prototype workforce planning model’’ to help agencies strategically assess their human resources needs;
· ‘‘work with’’ agencies on labor-management initiatives to ‘‘empower’’ managers and employees to improve customer service and get mission results;
· encourage agencies to make better use of existing personnel flexibilities and submit any necessary legislative proposals.
In addition, OMB’s guidance for agency Annual Performance Plans under the Results Act for FY 2001 specifically addresses workforce issues for the first time. It states:
The annual plan should include a performance goal(s) covering major human resources strategies, such as recruitment, retention, skill development and training, and appraisals linked to program performance, that help support the agency’s programs. 24
This new emphasis on workforce problems is encouraging. However, given the lack of emphasis in the past, most agencies have yet to address these problems. GAO has found that strategic workforce management was ‘‘notably absent’’ from agency Annual Performance Plans submitted under the Results Act. 25 Thus, there is much ground to make up.
The lack of foresight and leadership on the part of the Administration is particularly striking. Indeed, one publication recently editorialized on OPM’s late entry into Federal workforce problems: The Office of Personnel Management has watched for years as the effects of downsizing and aging on the Federal workforce have reached crisis proportions. Now it comes out with a strategic plan to help agencies improve retention, hiring, training and other human-resource issues. In short, the OPM plan is too late . . . OPM should be leading the effort to address nagging human-resource issues well before the crisis stage. Unfortunately, it took until this year for the Administration to acknowledge that human resources is a government-wide management priority. . . What would have been far more useful for the next Administration and Congress when they take office in January is not a list of ideas to solve problems, but a list of problems that have been solved. 26
Based on reviews of OPM’s past Results Act plans and reports, GAO found that OPM has made little progress toward the following key outcomes:
· The Federal Government has an appropriately constituted workforce with the proper skills to carry out its missions.
· Federal employees are evaluated, rewarded, and otherwise held accountable for their performance. 27
According to the GAO report, ‘‘OPM officials said that fundamental changes to the performance management framework were not deemed necessary.’’ 28 OPM has displayed resistance to change in the status quo. Its reaction to legislative reforms the Comptroller General proposed for GAO’s own workforce is a case in point. GAO faces essentially the same workforce challenges as most other agencies. To its credit, GAO is actively attempting to resolve them. However, in a letter to Congress, OPM Director Lachance stated that the personnel reforms GAO sought, which the Comptroller General deemed essential to restructuring his workforce,‘‘ would be inconsistent with the Administration’s policies for the Executive Branch.’’ She added, ‘‘If Congress chooses to allow these changes for GAO, it must be clear in the legislative history that it has done so without precedence for the Executive Branch.’’ 29

WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE?
The incoming Administration will have to give much higher priority to addressing the Federal Government’s workforce crisis if it is to effectively execute its agenda and provide our citizens the essential services they need. The new Administration should start by charging OPM and OMB with developing new approaches that fit contemporary workforce trends as well as the needs of the Federal Government of the 21st Century.
This will require both long-term and short-term strategies. Over the long term, there is a clear need to reconsider what the Federal Government should do and how best to do it. As past problems with downsizing demonstrate, it makes no sense to restructure the Federal workforce without restructuring what the workforce needs to do. Only after current Federal operations and structures themselves have been redesigned and rationalized can the government’s workforce be redesigned in a meaningful way. This is the difference between random ‘‘downsizing’’ and strategic ‘‘rightsizing.’’ At the same time, the Federal Government needs to develop near-term approaches that can at least ameliorate the current crisis in Federal workforce management. The following recommendations cover some actions that need to be started immediately.
Greater leadership on critical workforce problems. OMB and OPM have acknowledged the seriousness of the Federal Government’s workforce problems. Now, the White House, OMB, and OPM, need to demonstrate strong executive leadership by putting forward specific proposals to address these problems. For example, OMB should develop more results-oriented goals to address workforce problems in the Government-wide Performance Plan. It also needs to include specific performance targets and measures to accompany those goals. For its part, OPM needs to be more open-minded and objective when it comes to changes in current personnel requirements.
There is overwhelming sentiment that Federal personnel systems are fundamentally broken. They clearly don’t enable agencies to align their workforces with their missions and to hold employees accountable for their performance. Yet, as illustrated by its reaction to GAO’s proposals, OPM seems to be reflexively hostile to even modest reforms.
Workforce planning. As discussed previously, many agencies face serious staff deficits and imbalances in terms of having the work- force they need to perform their current missions efficiently and effectively.
An initial means of addressing this problem is for agencies to undertake comprehensive workforce planning. Specifically, agencies should: (1) determine their workforce needs (number of employees, skill, experience levels, etc.) in relation to their current functions; (2) assess how their existing workforce compares to their needs; and (3) develop strategies to bridge the gaps between the workforce they have and the workforce they need. These strategies should encompass hiring, training, reorganizing, and ‘‘rightsizing’’ as appropriate. OPM is in the early stages of developing an automated program that will assist agencies in some aspects of evaluating their workforces. However, OPM will have to do much more to produce a useful and comprehensive workforce planning model that agencies need.
Performance goals to address workforce problems. In accordance with OMB guidance, agencies should establish Results Act performance goals and measures to address their most serious workforce challenges and to ensure accountability. Comprehensive performance goals and strategies probably need to await completion of the workforce planning referred to above. However, agencies can start with those areas that lend themselves to immediate action such as improving their recruitment practices and linking employee performance appraisals to performance results. (See below.)
Personnel flexibilities. OPM must ensure that agencies are aware of, and fully understand how to use, those personnel flexibilities that are now available to them by law and current regulations.
Given the complex and arcane nature of personnel requirements, it is clear that many agencies lack this understanding now. As stated above, OPM also needs to objectively consider and assist in developing changes to current personnel laws, rules, and practices to enable agencies to effectively develop, align, and manage their workforces so as to accomplish their mission results. The question is not whether fundamental changes are needed, but what they should be. Any increase in flexibility must be linked to accountability, as well as adherence to the merit system principles.
Linking performance to results. Accountability for performance results will become a reality for Federal employees when it is directly linked to their individual performance assessments and rewards.
Some agencies have already started doing this for senior managers. OPM recently issued regulations requiring such a linkage for Senior Executive Service staff. Obviously, it is more difficult to link agency performance results to the individual performance of non-managerial employees. However, much can be done to enhance performance accountability on the part of all employees.
Improving recruiting practices. The Federal Government faces many serious recruitment and retention challenges, some of which it has limited ability to influence. However, as recent reports and a host of anecdotes indicate, the government brings some recruitment problems on itself that are entirely within its control and easily remedied. For example, the MSPB report suggests that the government could improve its recruiting chances significantly by reducing inordinate delays in hiring decisions and simply treating applicants with common courtesy.
The foregoing recommendations are by no means exhaustive.
Now that the Federal Government’s workforce problems are finally getting attention, more solutions are sure to emerge. However, the above recommendations are intended to initiate discussion by all interested parties in improving the way the government works.

ENDNOTES
1. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service (The Brookings Institution, 1999).
2. Id. p. 2.
3. Id.
4. Another recent book by Paul C. Light, The True Size of Government (The
Brookings Institution, 1999), puts the results of downsizing into perspective. He
points out that most of the Federal employee reductions were defense-related and
were attributable primarily to the end of the Cold War. He also notes that a substantial
but unknown number of former Federal jobs migrated to a ‘‘shadow’’ Federal
workforce made up of contractors, other private sector employees, and State
and local government employees who are engaged, directly or indirectly, in carrying
out Federal mandates.
5. Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, GAO/T–GGD–
00–77 (March 9, 2000), p. 5.
6. Id. pp. 4–5.
7. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, note 1, p. 8.
8. Id. p. 10.
9. Congressional Budget Office, Budget Options (March 2000), p. 279.
10. Id. p. 1.
11. Id. p. 5.
12. These agencies are: EPA, GSA, HUD, Justice, NASA, NSF, OPM, SSA, and
USAID.
13. See Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Housing
and Urban Development, GAO/OCG–99–8 (January 1999), pp. 7–8.
14. See Statement of Susan Gaffney before the Subcommittee on Housing and
Transportation of the Senate Banking Committee on Management and Performance
Issues Facing HUD (September 26, 2000), p. 3.
15. Letter dated December 7, 1999, to Chairman Thompson from SSA IG James
G. Huse, p. 8.
16. Surge in Ideas, Turnover Swamps Patent Office, USA Today (September 11,
2000). The head of the Patent Office dismissed these concerns, stating: ‘‘We’re not
overwhelmed . . . We’re doing a great job.’’ However, the agency’s Performance Report
confirms that there is a problem. The agency fell short of its goal for cycle time
of inventions processed, and stated that achieving the goal in the future ‘‘remains
a challenge.’’ The agency pointed to the need for hiring to meet increased workloads.
Annual Program Performance Report of the Department of Commerce, FY 1999, pp.
99–100.
17. Space Shuttle: Human Capital and Safety Upgrade Challenges Require Continued
Attention, GAO/NSIAD/GGD–00–186 (August 2000).
18. Paul C. Light, The New Public Service, note 1, p. 2.
19. Id. p. 1.
20. Human Capital: Managing Human Capital in the 21st Century, note 4, p. 2.
21. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Competing for Federal Jobs: Job Search
Experiences of New Hires (February 2000), pp. vii–viii. The full report can be found
at www.mspb.gov/studies/studies.html.
22. Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG–
00–14G (September 2000), pp. 29–31.
23. See Budget of the U.S. Government for Fiscal Year 2001, p. 298.
24. OMB Circular No. A–11, Part 2, § 220.9(d) (2000).
25. Id. p. 11.
26. OPM Plan: Too Little, Too Late, Federal Times (October 30, 2000), p. 16.
27. Observations on the Office of Personnel Management’s Fiscal Year 1999 Performance
Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan, GAO/GGD–00–156 (June
2000), pp. 3–4.
28. Id., p. 4.
29. Letters dated June 21, 2000, from OPM Director Janice R. Lachance to Representatives
Steny Hoyer and Henry Waxman.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_senate_print&docid=f:67613.pdf

Who are We Selling Ourselves to?

2007-04-26T07:55:00.000-07:00

This is a rather interesting article I found today from the Long Island Press. Is this who your candidate is supporting?

http://www.longislandpress.com/?cp=40&show=article&a_id=11744YouFool

Candidates Gone Wild
Essay By Robbie Woliver, News Story By Michael M. Martino Jr. 04/26/2007 10:59 am
Essay By Robbie Woliver

John McCain approves of sexy Nazi girls? John Edwards supports Satanists? Mitt Romney endorses casual sex? Well, if you’re a visitor to YouTube, that’s what these presidential candidates’ ads might be unintentionally leading you to believe.
John Edwards is all about new technology. The Democratic senator from South Carolina announced his candidacy for the presidency in a YouTube video filmed in New Orleans’ storm-ravaged Ninth Ward. He has utilized the expertise of people like Jed Alpert, CEO of Rights Group/Mobile Commons, who specialize in targeting mobile phones with text messages. (Hey, it worked when Alpert did it for Britney Spears—why not for the next president of the United States?) Edwards has also joined millions of potential 20- and 30-something voters—along with millions of teenage girls across America—by setting up his own MySpace account: johnedwards, fan of Bruce Springsteen, The Shawshank Redemption, running, reading and writing. Ew. Not 2 kewl.
And now, as part of YouTube YouChoose Spotlight ’08, Romney, McCain and Edwards offer their smiling faces, beaming right above such video titles as "Uncle Adolph and the Sexi Nazi Girls," "How to Get Laid at an Anti-Abortion Rally" and "N**gers, Nappy-Headed Hos & Booty Shaking," along with other headlines and videos touting everything from Satan worshipping to smoking crack to joining the KKK.
Any sensible person will know that Edwards and the other candidates don’t actually support—at least publicly—farting in public, anal bleaching and beating up bums for the camera. So why are these Oval Office hopefuls gracing these pages at all? How did these astute presidential candidates—who are trying to convince the American people that they have the smarts to run the country—allow this to happen? Simple: stupid campaigning.
Edwards was probably thrilled when he gave the final sign-off on the Spotlight ’08 campaign. After all, he was in good company—the GOP’s Romney was the candidate the week prior to Edwards (then imagine the gasps from the conservative Republican’s fellow Mormons who saw his banner crowning the "Polygamy and Me" preview page). Fellow candidates Rudy Giuliani, Sen. Hillary Clinton, Sen. Barack Obama, Sen. Chris Dodd, Rep. Duncan Hunter, Rep. Dennis Kucinich, Rep. Ron Paul, and Gov. Bill Richardson are all signed up to be spotlighted for one week each. McCain’s ads started appearing around 9 p.m. on Wednesday, April 25.
If the rest of the candidates go through with this, here is what we can expect: Giuliani heading the "Dedication to the Catholic Church by NAMBLA" page (NAMBLA is the North American Man-Boy Love Association); Hillary grinning atop the "Hillary Clinton vs. Monica Lewinsky Celebrity Deathmatch" page; and even Obama overseeing "Be a Man and Join the Ku Klux Klan" page. Imagine how viral those pages could get. It could—no, will—happen if they continue with the YouTube’08 campaign, unless these campaigns get their act together and pay attention to the details and understand the environment they have chosen to reach these voters.
So from his YouTube and MySpace profiles, we learn that Edwards loves classic rock, some sports and Morgan Freeman movies. He has 23,851 friends, including I’M 4-EVER HIS and Mr. Blonde (a reference to Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs). But most importantly, we learn that Edwards, Romney and the others who signed on to this youth-driven awareness campaign know very little about the contemporary media that they seem so interested in embracing.
Besides the embarrassment of the implied endorsement of the various activities captured on the YouTube videos and their glaring and oft-salacious headlines, all displayed under a proud, dominant all-American campaign banner, the reality that these guys are treading in unfamiliar waters is exposed, demonstrating their inexperience more than their genuine skills as members of the technorati. LOL.

Are Candidates Out Of Touch With Campaigning 2.0?News Story By Michael M. Martino Jr.
There is no question that the Internet will play a bigger role in the 2008 presidential election than it has in any prior election. Some of the most popular sites on the Web have jumped into the fray. On April 12, YouTube announced the kick-off of its "YouChoose’08" campaign, designed to feature every 2008 presidential candidate on virtually every page of video on the site. Maybe the candidates and the people at YouTube were a little too hasty.
An investigation by the Long Island Press has found that the links to the week’s featured candidate’s YouTube channel are visible on page after page of YouTube videos, no matter the title or subject matter of the videos uploaded to the site, making it appear to the viewer that the page is wholly sponsored by the candidate. For example, the banner ad of this week’s featured candidate John Edwards is placed about an inch above such videos as "Black Girls Gone Wild" and "Crazy Asian Porn."
Despite the implications, some candidates have decided not to pull the plug. In a case of very bad timing, Arizona Sen. John McCain, hours after announcing his official candidacy, is scheduled to be the featured YouChoose candidate, a decision McCain’s people say they are comfortable with, despite the information provided by the Press.
"YouTube is a new phenomenon," says Matt David, spokesperson for the campaign. "As such, sometimes it will be harmful and sometimes it will be helpful."
But after the campaign was made aware of the banner placements after they were actually posted, David finally responded, "We’re looking into the situation."
While many of the videos themselves are nothing more than spoofs, the titles can pack a punch.
"Rarely do presidential candidates have the chance to communicate with such a large number of voters and directly solicit their ideas and their input," said Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney in a statement announcing the YouTube initiative on April 12. "I’m looking forward to interacting with this engaged community of people about the new generation of challenges confronting our nation."
After learning of the ill-placed ads, a source with the Romney campaign, who was not familiar with the content that would run below his candidate’s banner, told the Press, "Most people will recognize that the ad is created by YouTube, and that any placement on the site is coincidental."
While no reasonable person would be expected to think these candidates endorse or intentionally choose these inappropriate pages, the potential for embarrassment is certainly there. Campaigns are very frail by nature, and one weird step—for example, Howard Dean’s overenthusiastic speech in 2004—can completely derail a presidential bid. The way the YouChoose’08 campaign is set up, Sen. Barack Obama’s photo could very well be one inch away from a video that is pro-Ku Klux Klan, as were the photos of Romney, Edwards and McCain. Why they would want to remain associated with such content is beyond some people.
"I suspect that the obvious problem for the candidate is that the opponent can publicize what most people would consider his ad on inappropriate sites," says Stanley Feldman, professor of political science at SUNY Stony Brook. "The candidate whose banner ad appeared would need to explain why their ad is there. It would be an uncomfortable issue for the candidate."
Political flacks see the benefits of the Internet, but the dangers loom large.
"As a consultant, I would advise all of my candidates to take advantage of the opportunities the Internet affords us, including MySpace and YouTube," says Anthony Manetta, a New York campaign consultant. "That increases your visibility, your profile, and also, you tap into a certain demographic, younger generations of voters."
But he understands the need for vigilance.
"I would call on the campaign to be more diligent in terms of where they are placing their advertisement," says Manetta.
In speaking with several ’08 campaign sources, it was obvious that the news of the ad placement came as a shock to most, especially the McCain campaign, which was notified by the Press minutes after the senator’s announcement speech. But despite the information, the campaign will move forward. One highly placed campaign source from another camp said, "This is not good," when informed of the situation.
After the Press informed YouTube about the problem, the banner began disappearing from some pages, and was replaced for a time by an alternate banner, including a generic YouChoose link that took the visitor to a master page with all the candidates’ YouTube channels. A YouTube spokesperson said, "No comment," when asked if the situation was being addressed.
Now that YouTube and some of the campaigns have been notified, the situation maychange quickly. But for Romney, Edwards and McCain, the damage may already have been done.

This is quite interesting. I, for one, had noticed what was appearing there, but hadn't given much thought to it. Is that because we are so dumbed down that we it just appears as an afterthought after the days of Mtv's Rock the Vote alongside that of Sir Mixalot?

War-Funding Puzzlement

2007-04-25T21:26:00.000-07:00

War-Funding Puzzlement
By Fred Thompson

The House’s emergency war-funding bill contains several conditions on how the
war should be run. They’ll never become law but they “send signals” they say.
They’re big on sending signals in Washington. But what I was really surprised to
find in the bill was what looked like $25 billion in pure pork. Since a lot
of the people who voted for the bill campaigned against pork, I was
puzzled.
I’m puzzled there’s $283 million for dairy farmers in an emergency
war-funding bill. But there’s also $74 million for peanut farmers so, I figured
our soldiers are eating a lot of peanut-butter sandwiches; they need more milk
to wash them down with.Hey, I’m trying to keep an open mind, here, okay?But I
also wondered why the bill gives $25 million to spinach producers. Our troops
should certainly eat their vegetables, but unless it turns out that there’s a
scientific basis for that Popeye spinach thing, I don’t get it.I’m also trying
to figure out what $400 million for rural schools has to do with the war —
unless that money produces students smart enough to explain why this bill
includes over $300,000 for the widows of two ex-House members, and $80
million for low-income rent subsidies.There’s a lot in the bill I don’t
understand, but this sort of makes sense. There’s $50 million for repairs to the
plant that supplies electrical power to the Capitol — where Congress works. To
fund and win the war, Congress does need electricity at least to do its job.Ah,
I get it. This bill isn’t just about funding the war for democracy and freedom
in Iraq. It’s a political statement. And it’s about buying enough votes with
pork in order to make that statement. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad thing, if
Congress did have its power cut off every once in a while.

Fred Thompson is an actor and former United States senator from Tennessee.© PAUL HARVEY SHOW, ABC RADIO NETWORKS

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTdjZTZjY2MxZTA3ZGU1OGE5Njg3NTlhM2EwNzYxMWQ

Fred Talks Federalism

2007-04-25T20:41:00.001-07:00

This man has had a lot on his mind the last few days. He posted this one two days ago. This article outlines his ideas on how the federal government can overstep it's boundaries:

http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=395162&SPID=15663

April 23, 2007
Talking About Federalism

"My friend, Ramesh Ponnuru, over at National Review and I had a little disagreement over the issue of Federalism (you can read the original article here). It might seem a little like "Inside Baseball" but, actually, it deals with something that is of importance to everyone who is concerned about the expanding power of government. Our government, under our Constitution, was established upon the principles of Federalism -- that the federal government would have limited enumerated powers and the rest would be left to the states. It not only prevented tyranny, it just made good sense. States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws. One state might try one welfare reform approach, for example. Another state might try another approach. One would work and the other would not. The federal welfare reform law resulted from just this process.
Federalism also allows for the diversity that exists among the country's people. Citizens of our various states have different views as to how traditional state responsibilities should be handled. This way, states compete with each other to attract people and businesses -- and that is a good thing.
Everyone in Washington embraces Federalism until it comes to someone's pet project designed to appeal to the voters. Then, oftentimes, even the most ardent Federalist throws in with the "Washington solution" crowd. I fought this for eight years in the Senate. I remember one vote (I believe it was 99 to one) when mine was the only vote cast for Federalism. The bill would have created a federal good Samaritan law.
Now I can assure you that I have nothing against good Samaritans. If a person stops to help someone in distress on the highway and something bad happens, generally, the good Samaritan should not be sued by some overly ambitious trial lawyer. But states are, and have been for years, perfectly capable of handling this burning issue -- as well as all of the sub-issues that are raised, such as who should be protected as a good Samaritan. What if he was intoxicated and made a slight misstep while applying medical relief? What if he was not impaired, but made a gross error and turns a minor problem into a significant one? You get the idea. This is traditionally state law stuff. Is this really something the federal government should involve itself in?
I thought not, but even some of my conservative colleagues (as well as writers) get caught up in the desire to federalize an issue if they could help a "good guy" or stick it to a "bad guy." This may be a desirable goal in the abstract but I don't think our Founding Fathers had this in mind. Adhering to basic principles that have served our country well is much too important. That's why I suggested to Mr. Ponnuru that if conservatives use Federalism as a tool with which to reward our friends and strike our enemies, instead of treating it as a valued principle, we are doing a disservice to our country -- as well as to the cause of conservatism."

For the record, Mr. Ponnuru supports a Thompson candidacy.

Press Statement: Thompson Releases Report About Government Problems

2007-04-23T14:34:00.000-07:00

June 5, 2001
Thompson Releases Report on Urgent Federal Government Management Problems Facing the Bush Administration
Tells OMB Director Daniels Government is "at the Brink" of Major Program Failure

Washington - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, today released a comprehensive report documenting the daunting management problems facing the federal government. Thompson presented the recently compiled report, which includes his recommendations for addressing those problems, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr. at a press conference in Washington.
"For some time now, our government has been mismanaged to an extent that the average American would find shocking," Senator Thompson said. "The federal government’s core management problems have persisted for years, and, in fact, have grown worse."
Thompson’s report includes an analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government:
Workforce Management
Financial Management
Information Technology Management
Overlap and Duplication
"We commend Sen. Thompson and his Committee for pushing the Federal government to be more efficient and effective. Improving government performance is a top priority of President Bush, so the problems and suggestions outlined in this report will be a great resource and road map as we implement our management reform agenda. It will take the unremitting attention of both executive and legislative leadership to make headway against old habits and low expectations," said OMB Director Daniels.
In addition to a description of these problems and examples of how they affect the government’s ability to serve the American people, the report includes an agency-by-agency appendix that catalogues the most recent examples of waste, fraud, and abuse throughout the federal government.
The report also highlights the "Top Ten" worst examples of mismanagement in the federal government (page four). Some of the items on the list include: Boston’s Big Dig, a federal infrastructure project so mismanaged that its cost has ballooned from over $2 billion to over $13 billion; the Department of Interior’s total inability to account for monies it held in trust for Native Americans; and NASA’s numerous mission failures.
"These management problems exact a terrible toll on public trust and confidence in the federal government," Thompson said. "A degree of public skepticism toward our government is a healthy thing. Rampant cynicism is not."

http://hsgac.senate.gov/060501_press.htm

Thomspon urges attack of High-Risk Problems

2007-04-23T14:31:00.000-07:00

THOMPSON AND VOINOVICH URGE ADMINISTRATION TO ATTACK HIGH-RISK PROBLEMS
Leadership needed to spur action

WASHINGTON – Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN)
and Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee Chairman George Voinovich (R-OH) Thursday asked the Administration to take concrete steps to solve the twenty-two problems on the General Accounting Office’s current High-Risk List. These problems constitute the worst examples of fraud, waste, and mismanagement in the federal government, and waste billions of taxpayer dollars every year, impeding service to the public, and undermining confidence in government.
In a joint letter to Office of Management and Budget Director Mitchell Daniels, the Senators urged OMB to establish specific performance goals and target deadlines to solve each of the twenty-two problems, and to include those goals in the annual government-wide performance plans required by the Government Performance and Results Act.
"Unfortunately, the prior Administration refused to develop goals to solve the high-risk problems," the Senators wrote. "As a result, we have made little progress. We think the Bush Administration must take this task on."
Although the GAO has published its High-Risk List for years, the Clinton Administration chose to issue their own list of "Priority Management Objectives" that acknowledged only some of the challenges on the High-Risk List.
"The Clinton Administration not only failed to establish and accomplish their own tangible goals," Senator Thompson said, "but they also failed to address the outstanding management challenges consistently appearing on the High-Risk List. I’m encouraged by the interest the Bush team has already shown in taking on these problems," Thompson added. "I hope that making the specific commitments we’re asking for will further demonstrate their leadership resolve and sound a powerful signal throughout the government."
"Attacking these high-risk problems will be no easy task," said Voinovich. "Fortunately, the President has chosen a team with proven management skills. They are clearly up to the challenge, and Senator Thompson and I will do all we can to help."

http://hsgac.senate.gov/040201_press.htm

Thompson Introduces Federal Accountability Act

2007-04-23T11:25:00.000-07:00

THOMPSON INTRODUCES FEDERALISM ACCOUNTABILITY ACT
Bill Will Protect Authority of State and Local Governments

Washington, DC -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) introduced legislation late yesterday to protect state and local governments from unchecked federal intrusion. The “Federalism Accountability Act” would impose accountability on Congress and the Executive Branch before they could override state and local law.
“The Founding Fathers divided power between the federal government and the states. The constitutional principle of federalism -- embodied in the Tenth Amendment -- raises two fundamental questions that policy makers should answer: What should government be doing? And what level of government should do it? Everything else flows from them. That’s why federalism is at the heart of our democracy,” said Senator Thompson.
“Our governmental structure is based on an optimistic belief in the power of people and their communities,” added Thompson. “I share that view.”
A recent General Accounting Office report shows that there has been gross noncompliance with a 1987 executive order directing federal agencies to prepare federalism assessments for actions that would preempt state and local laws. In a review of over 11,000 issued over a 3-year period, GAO found that the agencies had prepared only five federalism assessments under the executive order.
“Congress and the Administration should not take lightly the preemption of state and local laws,” Thompson said. “We need to face the fact that Congress too often has acted as if it has a general police power to engage in any issue, no matter how local. Both Congress and the Executive Branch have neglected to consider prudential and constitutional limits on their powers.”
The Federalism Accountability Act would:
require Congress and agencies to issue an explicit statement of congressional or agency intent when they preempt state or local law, and if so, an explanation of the reasons for such preemption;
require each agency head to designate a federalism officer to implement the requirements of this legislation and to serve as a liaison to state and local officials;
require agencies early on to notify, consult with, and provide an opportunity for meaningful participation by state and local public officials that could potentially be affected by a rule;
require agencies to provide a federalism assessment for rules that have federalism impacts;
require the Congressional Budget Office to compile a report on preemptions by federal rules, court decisions, and legislation;
amend the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 to clarify that performance measures for state-administered grant programs are to be determined in cooperation with public officials;
and amend the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 to clarify that major new requirements imposed on states under entitlement authority are to be scored by CBO as unfunded mandates. It also would require that when Congress caps the federal share of an entitlement program, the Committee report and the accompanying CBO report must analyze whether the legislation includes new flexibility or whether there is existing flexibility to offset additional costs.
This legislation was developed with representatives of the “Big 7" organizations representing State and local government, including the National Governors' Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Council of State Governments, the National League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the International City/County Management Association.
Cosponsors include Senators Carl Levin (D-MI), George Voinovich (R-OH), Chuck Robb (D-VA), Thad Cochran (R-MS), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Bill Roth (R-DE), John Breaux (D-LA), Mike Enzi (R-WY) and Evan Bayh (D-IN).

http://hsgac.senate.gov/061199_press.htm

Passage of Thompson Regulatory Right-to-Know Legislation

2007-04-23T11:20:00.000-07:00

Senators Thompson, Stevens, and Breaux Announce Final Passage of Regulatory Right-to-Know Legislation

WASHINGTON - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN), Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, (R-AK), and Senator John Breaux (D-LA) announced that the Senate yesterday approved the Thompson-Stevens-Breaux Regulatory Right-to-Know Act. The Act will require the White House’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to disclose to the public the costs and benefits of regulatory programs in a report to be included each year in the Federal Budget. The legislation is contained in Section 624 of the Treasury-Postal Appropriations conference report, which now goes to the President for his signature.
"The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act is based on a simple but important idea," Chairman Thompson said. "People have a right to know the costs and benefits of important regulatory decisions. This will help the Congress, the President, and the public better understand whether regulations are sensible and fair."
Senator Stevens, chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said, "This is an important tool for decision-makers. It will give Congress the ability to perform its oversight function in a more efficient and effective manner. In order to make sound decisions, Congress must have access to how and why agencies make decisions, and what the consequences of those decisions would be."
"Government has an obligation to carefully consider mandates that impose costs on people and limit their freedom," Senator Breaux said. "Now we members of Congress and the American people will know, each year, the real value of proposed Federal regulations."
The Thompson-Stevens-Breaux legislation, which has been included in the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill as a one-year reporting requirement for the last two years, strengthens and makes permanent the original regulatory accounting provision secured by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) in 1996. The Regulatory Right-to-Know Act requires the OMB director to provide Congress with a report on the total annual benefits and costs of Federal regulatory programs, as well as an analysis of the impacts of federal regulation on State, local, and tribal government, small business, wages, and economic growth. It also requires OMB to issue agency guidelines and to solicit public comment and expert peer review to continually improve the quality of the reports.
"This is about good government," Thompson said. "This legislation will help hold Federal agencies accountable for the cost and effectiveness of their regulations and reduce needless waste and red tape. It will promote responsible efforts to protect public health, safety and the environment, and it will promote the economic security and well-being of our families and communities. I am pleased that the costs and benefits of regulation can now receive the attention of the Executive Branch and Congress when we debate the Federal Budget each year."

http://hsgac.senate.gov/101300c_press.htm

Thompson Measure Increases Govt Access to Commercial Markets

2007-04-23T11:16:00.000-07:00

THOMPSON MEASURE INCREASES GOVERNMENT ACCESSTO COMMERCIAL MARKETS

(Washington, DC) -- Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson yesterday introduced legislation to revise accounting standards used for Federal government contracts (S. 1151). In addition, Senator Thompson was successful in getting the bill language included as an amendment to the Fiscal Year 2000 National Defense Authorization Act approved last night by the Senate.
Senator Thompson said, "Industry sellers and government buyers continue to identify the government’s Cost Accounting Standards as a remaining barrier to the integration of commercial items into the government marketplace. This bill carefully balances the government’s need for greater access to commercial items, particularly those of nontraditional suppliers, with the need for strong accounting standards to protect taxpayer dollars."
Joining Senator Thompson in this effort are Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), and the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Armed Services Committee, Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Carl Levin (D-MI).
In recent years, Congress has enacted two major acquisition reform statutes which changed the trend in government contracting toward simplifying the government’s acquisition process and eliminating many government-unique requirements. In keeping with this trend toward commercial market practices, this bill further streamlines the federal procurement system to save taxpayer dollars.
Senator Thompson’s bill would:
· raise the threshold for coverage under the Cost Accounting Standards from $25 million to $50 million;
· exempt contractors from coverage if they do not have a contract in excess of $5 million;
· exclude coverage based on firm, fixed price contracts awarded on the basis of adequate price competition without the submission of certified cost or pricing data; and
· provide for waivers by agencies under certain situations.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/052899_press.htm

Signs of Intelligence?

2007-04-23T11:07:00.000-07:00

From The Fred Thompson Report:

April 19, 2007
Signs of Intelligence?

One of the things that's got to be going through a lot of peoples' minds now is how one man with two handguns, that he had to reload time and time again, could go from classroom to classroom on the Virginia Tech campus without being stopped. Much of the answer can be found in policies put in place by the university itself.
Virginia, like 39 other states, allows citizens with training and legal permits to carry concealed weapons. That means that Virginians regularly sit in movie theaters and eat in restaurants among armed citizens. They walk, joke and rub shoulders everyday with people who responsibly carry firearms -- and are far safer than they would be in San Francisco, Oakland, Detroit, Chicago, New York City, or Washington, D.C., where such permits are difficult or impossible to obtain.
The statistics are clear. Communities that recognize and grant Second Amendment rights to responsible adults have a significantly lower incidence of violent crime than those that do not. More to the point, incarcerated criminals tell criminologists that they consider local gun laws when they decide what sort of crime they will commit, and where they will do so.
Still, there are a lot of people who are just offended by the notion that people can carry guns around. They view everybody, or at least many of us, as potential murderers prevented only by the lack of a convenient weapon. Virginia Tech administrators overrode Virginia state law and threatened to expel or fire anybody who brings a weapon onto campus.
successfully prevented a number of attempted mass murders. Evidence from Israel, where many teachers have weapons and have stopped serious terror attacks, has been documented. Supporting, though contrary, evidence from Great Britain, where strict gun controls have led to violent crime rates far higher than ours, is also common knowledge.
So Virginians asked their legislators to change the university's "concealed carry" policy to exempt people 21 years of age or older who have passed background checks and taken training classes. The university, however, lobbied against that bill, and a top administrator subsequently praised the legislature for blocking the measure.
The logic behind this attitude baffles me, but I suspect it has to do with a basic difference in worldviews. Some people think that power should exist only at the top, and everybody else should rely on "the authorities" for protection.
Despite such attitudes, average Americans have always made up the front line against crime. Through programs like Neighborhood Watch and Amber Alert, we are stopping and catching criminals daily. Normal people tackled "shoe bomber" Richard Reid as he was trying to blow up an airliner. It was a truck driver who found the D.C. snipers. Statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that civilians use firearms to prevent at least a half million crimes annually.
When people capable of performing acts of heroism are discouraged or denied the opportunity, our society is all the poorer. And from the selfless examples of the passengers on Flight 93 on 9/11 to Virginia Tech professor Liviu Librescu, a Holocaust survivor who sacrificed himself to save his students earlier this week, we know what extraordinary acts of heroism ordinary citizens are capable of.
Many other universities have been swayed by an anti-gun, anti-self defense ideology. I respect their right to hold those views, but I challenge their decision to deny Americans the right to protect themselves on their campuses -- and then proudly advertise that fact to any and all.
Whenever I've seen one of those "Gun-free Zone" signs, especially outside of a school filled with our youngest and most vulnerable citizens, I've always wondered exactly who these signs are directed at. Obviously, they don't mean much to the sort of man who murdered 32 people just a few days ago.

From: The Fred Thompson Report
http://abcradio.com/article.asp?id=389928&SPID=15663

Thompson "Truth In Regulatory Act"

2007-04-23T09:46:00.000-07:00

THOMPSON INTRODUCES “TRUTH IN REGULATING” ACT
Bill Encourages Better Rulemaking at Federal Agencies

Washington, DC -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) has introduced legislation to give Congress access to key data on which major regulations are based before the regulations go into effect.
“This information will support Congressional oversight to ensure regulations are efficient, effective, and fair,” Thompson said. “It will also help Congress make sure that regulations follow congressional intent.”
Joining Thompson in introducing this bipartisan legislation are: Senators Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), George Voinovich (R-OH), Bob Kerrey (D-NE), John Breaux (D-LA) and Mary Landrieu (D-LA).
“This legislation will help Congress participate in federal agency rulemaking before the horse gets out of the barn,” Thompson said. “So in a real sense, this legislation not only gives people the right to know; it gives them the right to see -- to see how the government works, or doesn’t.”
The legislation is designed to make the regulatory process more transparent, more accountable, and more democratic. Under the three-year pilot project established by the “Truth in Regulating Act of 1999,” a Committee of either house of Congress may ask the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review an economically significant rule as it is being developed. The GAO must submit a report within 180 days, allowing Congress ample time to decide whether it wants to disapprove the rule under the Congressional Review Act. This Act enables Congress to reject regulations under expedited procedures.
“I hope this legislation will encourage federal agencies to make better use of modern decision-making tools, such as risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis,” said Thompson. “Currently, these important tools often are viewed simply as options -- options that aren’t used as much or as well as they should be.”
The Comptroller General’s independent analysis of the rule would have to include:
An analysis of the potential benefits of the rule;
The potential costs of the rule;
Any alternative approaches that could achieve the goal in a more cost-effective manner or that could produce greater net benefits;
The extent to which the rule would affect state or local governments; and
A summary of how the results of the analysis of the Comptroller General differ, if at all, from the results of agency analyses.

http://hsgac.senate.gov/062299_press.htm

Citizens Group Award

2007-04-23T08:03:00.000-07:00

For Immediate Release May 7, 2003For Further Information, Contact:Maureen Tell, Peter J. Sepp, (703) 683-5700
Citizen Group Salutes "Taxpayers' Friends" in Congress
Just 36 Lawmakers Receive Awards for Scores on NTU's 2002 Rating
(Washington, DC) – Many Members of Congress talked about strengthening America’s economic security last year, but far fewer consistently backed up their words with votes. Today a Capitol Hill ceremony sponsored by the 335,000-member National Taxpayers Union (NTU) presented “Taxpayers’ Friend Awards” to an elite group of 36 lawmakers who earned top scores on the group’s comprehensive and widely-respected Rating of Congress in 2002.
“Not all Members of Congress fought day in and day out during 2002 for the principle of limited government that is the cornerstone of our country’s greatness,” said NTU President John Berthoud. “Fortunately, at least 36 allies in Congress demonstrated an unwavering commitment to taxpayers. We are proud to honor this fiscal ‘coalition of the willing.’”
NTU officials furnished a special certificate to “Taxpayers’ Friend Award” winners during the ceremony that recognized each recipient’s efforts to “further the cause of vitally needed fiscal integrity.”
The Rating, which since 1978 has been based on every roll call vote affecting fiscal policy, assigns a “Taxpayer Score” to each Member of Congress that indicates his or her support for reducing or controlling federal spending, taxes, debt, and regulation. In the year 2002, a total of 139 House and 115 Senate roll call votes were selected. The average Taxpayer Score was 41 percent in the House – roughly equal to 2001’s mark. However, averages slumped significantly in the Senate, to 40 percent in 2002 versus 46 percent the year before.
Lawmakers who received the Taxpayers’ Friend Award for the year 2002 had to achieve a score of at least 64 percent in the House or 70 percent in the Senate. The highest scorers in the House and Senate, respectively, were Ron Paul (R-TX) with 88 percent and Jon Kyl (R-AZ) with 82 percent.
NTU is a non-profit, non-partisan citizen organization founded in 1969 to work for lower taxes, less wasteful spending, and accountable government at all levels. Note: The 2002 Rating, which reports Taxpayer Scores for all lawmakers, is available via fax or online at www.ntu.org. Staff members are available for comment on particular scores. Recipients of the 2002 Taxpayers’ Friend Award follow:

U.S. House of Representatives
Todd Akin (MO)
Virgil Goode (VA)
Joe Pitts (PA)
Bob Barr (GA)
Gil Gutknecht (MN)
Dana Rohrabacher (CA)
Chris Cannon (UT)
Joel Hefley (CO)
Ed Royce (CA)
Steve Chabot (OH)
John Hostettler (IN)
Jim Sensenbrenner (WI)
Christopher Cox (CA)
Brian Kerns (IN)
John Shadegg (AZ)
Mac Collins (GA)
Donald Manzullo (IL)
Nick Smith (MI)
Phil Crane (IL)
Gary Miller (CA)
Cliff Stearns (FL)
John Duncan (TN)
Jeff Miller (FL)
Tom Tancredo (CO)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Ron Paul (TX)
Pat Toomey (PA)

U.S. Senate
John Ensign (NV)
Jon Kyl (AZ)
Rick Santorum (PA)
Mike Enzi (WY)
Richard Lugar (IN)
Craig Thomas (WY)
Phil Gramm (TX)
Don Nickles (OK)
Fred Thompson (TN)

http://www.ntu.org/main/press_release_printable.php?PressID=113&org_name=NTU

CAGW Praises Thompson Report On Federal Mismanagement

2007-04-23T07:58:00.000-07:00

CAGW PRAISES THOMPSON REPORT ON FEDERAL MISMANAGEMENT

Washington, D.C. - Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) today commended U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.), the outgoing chairman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, for a report released today documenting the federal government's staggering levels of waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Thompson presented the report, which includes his recommendations for addressing those problems, to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Mitch Daniels at a press conference in Washington.
"Once again, Chairman Thompson deserves great credit for exposing the pervasive problems in the federal government," CAGW President Tom Schatz said. "As CAGW has documented repeatedly, many federal agencies and programs are duplicative, unaccountable, nontransparent, get poor results, lose money, are mismanaged, and outdated. These problems have persisted for decades, and as this report indicates, are growing worse and require rapid action."
Thompson's report includes analysis of the four biggest challenges facing the federal government: workforce management, financial management, information technology management, and overlap and duplication. In addition, the report includes an agency-by-agency appendix citing examples of waste, fraud, and abuse. The report also contains a list of the "Top Ten" worst examples of mismanagement in the government.
"As CAGW has documented for 17 years, every year the federal government literally flushes hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars down the drain," Schatz added. "It is a disgrace and would be intolerable in any sphere outside government. Hopefully, the new Democrat majority in the Senate will follow Thompson's lead to root out waste and work with President Bush for reform."
"OMB Director Daniels deserves thanks from taxpayers for remaining focused on a common-sense waste-cutting agenda, and this report will help him target some of the worst bloat for elimination," Schatz concluded. "CAGW continues to recommend the White House empanel a nonpartisan waste commission for a stem to stern audit of the government. This is the surest way to achieve fundamental and lasting reform."
CAGW is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, dedicated to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in government.

http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_06052001b