Thompson Earns "Restoring the Balance" Award from National Conference of State Legislatures
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, has been selected to receive the 2000 "Restoring the Balance Award," presented by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The award, given annually to national policymakers committed to federalism and its impact on issues involving state legislators, was presented to Thompson last night at the NCSL’s Leader to Leader Dinner in Washington.
"Fred Thompson has been a steadfast and dedicated friend of federalism," said NCSL President Jim Costa. "He has demonstrated an exemplary commitment to protecting state authority and to strengthening intergovernmental relations and program partnerships."
Thompson's dedication to the principles of federalism and sound government policy has resulted in the Committee’s advancement of the Federalism Accountability Act, and Senate passage of the Regulatory Right to Know Act, the Federal Financial Information Assistance Management Improvement Act, the Truth in Regulating Act, and revision of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act.
"Many of us who came to Washington carried a strong conviction about the wisdom of our constitutional federalism," said Thompson. "This conviction gets tested frequently, but it's worth fighting for. The diffusion of power and creative competition that spring from our federalism are fundamental to our democracy.
"Our challenge is to work together in a thoughtful and proactive way to help define the federal-state relationship in the Information Age," added Thompson. "Both Congress and the Administration have an important role in restoring the balance, and I look forward to working with them and the states to do so."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/030201_thompson_press.htm
Sunday, April 22, 2007
Statement on Antrax through the Mail
“Terrorism Through the Mail: Protecting Postal Workers and the Public”Tuesday, October 30, 2001
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Postmaster General, union representatives, and postal workers for coming today. This is a difficult time for you as you have recently lost two of your colleagues in the last two weeks and that others remain ill. It is my hope that we can use this time to explore procedures, protocols, and technology which can be used to make our postal facilities safe and secure for you and your co-workers, and the entire system safer for the general public. “This is not just a postal service problem. We’re here because those responsible chose this way this time. There is no doubt we have been behind the curve in responding to biological attacks. I find it remarkable we know so little about some of the properties of anthrax itself – how the powder reacts in an envelope, for example – or what works against it. “For several years, many organizations, including GAO, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission and others have recommended comprehensive threat and risk assessments for chemical and biological weapons attacks on our soil. As far back as 1997, GAO recommended that these assessments be conducted so that federal and state governments could properly prepare for such attacks. I understand that the FBI finally began work on a domestic threat assessment in July 1999 and it should be completed soon. Clearly, these assessments should have been completed much earlier. I do believe that completion of such threat assessments in the future could help make us more prepared when the next shoe falls.“In all fairness, though, even the experts who thought about mass casualty attacks, as far as my staff has found, never focused on the use of anthrax through the mail, even though the threat was not beyond comprehension. There have been a number of hoaxes over the years where powder was sent through the mail with letters indicating it was anthrax. One such letter was received in Knoxville, Tennessee back in 1998. “But whatever our level of preparedness has been in the past, it’s clear now that we have to do more to protect our workers and the American public. Congressional staff was briefed last Friday on new technologies and machinery being considered by the Postal Service, including ways to make collection boxes safer, to keep the air in our facilities cleaner, and even to kill potentially dangerous biological agents being sent through the mail. I’m glad to see the Postal Service is moving forward with these new technologies, Mr. Potter. “I’m glad to get labor representatives and postal representatives together to discuss this problem. Threats affect all of us at home and abroad. Danger has gotten our attention and frankly I think we’ve done a pretty good job of responding. Experts we’re hearing from aren’t used to being experts, and the phrase “steep learning curve” has taken on new meaning. In less than two months we’ve set up an Office of Homeland Security and appointed a Director. We’ve engaged the entire medical community, including the CDC, the Surgeon General, and public health officials. We’ve passed a terrorism bill. We will shortly have an airport security bill, and we’ve managed to keep to our legislative schedule. “We need to understand that in the process there will be problems, but that we’ll overcome those problems. I take a backseat to nobody in criticizing wasteful and ineffective government. But there comes a time to see the positive and the good that we can accomplish when we bring the forces of our government to bear on a problem.“I believe that this also applies to the “hot” war in Afghanistan. It is important that we do not undermine our resolve or our mental condition. I see headlines announcing that the war will go on longer than expected. I don’t know who that was news to, particularly in this town, with experts telling us of these threats for years. There are demands from our new allies that the war be shorter or that we avoid bombing during certain times. Some choose to talk only about the inevitable tragedy of military and civilian casualties. Some opinion makers decided this should be our focus, both at home and abroad. There is little doubt here and abroad as to our military strength, but there is doubt of our stamina, and we’re seeing the problems resulting from not having taken decisive action in the past.“According to Paul Light, director of the Presidential Appointee Initiative at the Brookings Institution, 164 positions were identified as involving the fight against the war on terrorism, including homeland security and bioterrorism. These include positions at the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Transportation, and at FEMA. Of those positions, 37% are vacant or have people who have only occupied positions since September 11, 27% are vacant today, and of those vacancies in positions with responsibility for biological threats, only 45 of 71 positions are filled.“Some of the positions that remain unconfirmed include the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs at DOD, the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at DOE, the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health at DOE, the Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation at DOS, the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration at DOS, the Deputy Director at FEMA, and the Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercise Directorate at FEMA. It is critical that the Administration get nominees up here and that Congress act quickly. This is a government-wide problem and the longer it takes, the higher the toll it can take on national security.“I think the American people understand this war will be long and deliberate. We are not omnipotent or mistake free, but we are on the side of right. We will look out for each other, but what we cannot do is let our misgivings, doubts, or disagreements lessen our commitment or our faith in our government. And that applies to those inevitable sideline critics that would nip at the heels of our determination in either our war abroad or our new war at home.”
http://hsgac.senate.gov/103001thompson.htm
“Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the Postmaster General, union representatives, and postal workers for coming today. This is a difficult time for you as you have recently lost two of your colleagues in the last two weeks and that others remain ill. It is my hope that we can use this time to explore procedures, protocols, and technology which can be used to make our postal facilities safe and secure for you and your co-workers, and the entire system safer for the general public. “This is not just a postal service problem. We’re here because those responsible chose this way this time. There is no doubt we have been behind the curve in responding to biological attacks. I find it remarkable we know so little about some of the properties of anthrax itself – how the powder reacts in an envelope, for example – or what works against it. “For several years, many organizations, including GAO, the Hart-Rudman Commission, the Gilmore Commission and others have recommended comprehensive threat and risk assessments for chemical and biological weapons attacks on our soil. As far back as 1997, GAO recommended that these assessments be conducted so that federal and state governments could properly prepare for such attacks. I understand that the FBI finally began work on a domestic threat assessment in July 1999 and it should be completed soon. Clearly, these assessments should have been completed much earlier. I do believe that completion of such threat assessments in the future could help make us more prepared when the next shoe falls.“In all fairness, though, even the experts who thought about mass casualty attacks, as far as my staff has found, never focused on the use of anthrax through the mail, even though the threat was not beyond comprehension. There have been a number of hoaxes over the years where powder was sent through the mail with letters indicating it was anthrax. One such letter was received in Knoxville, Tennessee back in 1998. “But whatever our level of preparedness has been in the past, it’s clear now that we have to do more to protect our workers and the American public. Congressional staff was briefed last Friday on new technologies and machinery being considered by the Postal Service, including ways to make collection boxes safer, to keep the air in our facilities cleaner, and even to kill potentially dangerous biological agents being sent through the mail. I’m glad to see the Postal Service is moving forward with these new technologies, Mr. Potter. “I’m glad to get labor representatives and postal representatives together to discuss this problem. Threats affect all of us at home and abroad. Danger has gotten our attention and frankly I think we’ve done a pretty good job of responding. Experts we’re hearing from aren’t used to being experts, and the phrase “steep learning curve” has taken on new meaning. In less than two months we’ve set up an Office of Homeland Security and appointed a Director. We’ve engaged the entire medical community, including the CDC, the Surgeon General, and public health officials. We’ve passed a terrorism bill. We will shortly have an airport security bill, and we’ve managed to keep to our legislative schedule. “We need to understand that in the process there will be problems, but that we’ll overcome those problems. I take a backseat to nobody in criticizing wasteful and ineffective government. But there comes a time to see the positive and the good that we can accomplish when we bring the forces of our government to bear on a problem.“I believe that this also applies to the “hot” war in Afghanistan. It is important that we do not undermine our resolve or our mental condition. I see headlines announcing that the war will go on longer than expected. I don’t know who that was news to, particularly in this town, with experts telling us of these threats for years. There are demands from our new allies that the war be shorter or that we avoid bombing during certain times. Some choose to talk only about the inevitable tragedy of military and civilian casualties. Some opinion makers decided this should be our focus, both at home and abroad. There is little doubt here and abroad as to our military strength, but there is doubt of our stamina, and we’re seeing the problems resulting from not having taken decisive action in the past.“According to Paul Light, director of the Presidential Appointee Initiative at the Brookings Institution, 164 positions were identified as involving the fight against the war on terrorism, including homeland security and bioterrorism. These include positions at the Departments of Defense, Treasury, Transportation, and at FEMA. Of those positions, 37% are vacant or have people who have only occupied positions since September 11, 27% are vacant today, and of those vacancies in positions with responsibility for biological threats, only 45 of 71 positions are filled.“Some of the positions that remain unconfirmed include the Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Nuclear and Chemical and Biological Defense Programs at DOD, the Director of the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management at DOE, the Assistant Secretary of Energy for Environment, Safety, and Health at DOE, the Special Representative for Nuclear Nonproliferation at DOS, the Assistant Secretary of State for Population, Refugees, and Migration at DOS, the Deputy Director at FEMA, and the Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercise Directorate at FEMA. It is critical that the Administration get nominees up here and that Congress act quickly. This is a government-wide problem and the longer it takes, the higher the toll it can take on national security.“I think the American people understand this war will be long and deliberate. We are not omnipotent or mistake free, but we are on the side of right. We will look out for each other, but what we cannot do is let our misgivings, doubts, or disagreements lessen our commitment or our faith in our government. And that applies to those inevitable sideline critics that would nip at the heels of our determination in either our war abroad or our new war at home.”
http://hsgac.senate.gov/103001thompson.htm
Companion to Management Issues Report
This is a companion piece to the already posted report Thompson gave on Management Challenges facing the new Bush Administration:
THOMPSON: MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS WILL SEVERELY TEST ADMINISTRATION’S ABILITY TO ENACT AGENDA
WASHINGTON, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today, in a speech to the Council for Excellence in Government’s Whitehead Forum, outlined a set of management problems he said will severely test the Bush Administration’s ability to execute its policy agenda unless they are addressed.
"The new Administration begins with an array of problems of unprecedented depth and breadth," Thompson said. "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," Thompson added. "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?"
Thompson outlined four overarching areas that he regards as the most pervasive and critical:C Financial management - Poor financial management wastes billions of taxpayer dollars each year. No one knows how much because the federal government makes no systematic effort to keep track of it.C 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 jeopardize the confidentiality of sensitive information on individuals the government holds.C Human capital management - As a result of demographic trends compounded by the downsizing of recent years, many agencies lack workforces with the necessary skills and experience to perform their missions.C 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.
Thompson said the tools to fix these problems exist, via management improvement laws enacted by Congress over the last decade and recommendations provided by the GAO and the various agency inspectors general. However, Thompson said 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 until the job is done," Thompson said. He added that 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.
Thompson said he "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."
Thompson said during the 107th Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee will work to encourage and support those efforts. Specifically:C The committee will continue to conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that the management improvement tools that we have enacted are used effectively to accomplish concrete improvements. The committee will give particular attention to implementation of the Government Information Security Act.C The committee will work on government’s other critical information needs, including how the federal government can move into the information age and make e-government a reality.C In the area of critical human capital needs, the committee will explore how to provide agencies with the talented and motivated employees they need, and ensure that employees are accountable for their performance.C The committee will take a fresh and comprehensive look at what the federal government does today and the structure and methods by which it does it.C In the area of budgeting, we will work to enact a biennial budget to provide time to analyze which programs are working and which ones are not.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/030901_press.htm
THOMPSON: MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS WILL SEVERELY TEST ADMINISTRATION’S ABILITY TO ENACT AGENDA
WASHINGTON, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today, in a speech to the Council for Excellence in Government’s Whitehead Forum, outlined a set of management problems he said will severely test the Bush Administration’s ability to execute its policy agenda unless they are addressed.
"The new Administration begins with an array of problems of unprecedented depth and breadth," Thompson said. "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," Thompson added. "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?"
Thompson outlined four overarching areas that he regards as the most pervasive and critical:C Financial management - Poor financial management wastes billions of taxpayer dollars each year. No one knows how much because the federal government makes no systematic effort to keep track of it.C 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 jeopardize the confidentiality of sensitive information on individuals the government holds.C Human capital management - As a result of demographic trends compounded by the downsizing of recent years, many agencies lack workforces with the necessary skills and experience to perform their missions.C 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.
Thompson said the tools to fix these problems exist, via management improvement laws enacted by Congress over the last decade and recommendations provided by the GAO and the various agency inspectors general. However, Thompson said 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 until the job is done," Thompson said. He added that 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.
Thompson said he "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."
Thompson said during the 107th Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee will work to encourage and support those efforts. Specifically:C The committee will continue to conduct vigorous oversight to ensure that the management improvement tools that we have enacted are used effectively to accomplish concrete improvements. The committee will give particular attention to implementation of the Government Information Security Act.C The committee will work on government’s other critical information needs, including how the federal government can move into the information age and make e-government a reality.C In the area of critical human capital needs, the committee will explore how to provide agencies with the talented and motivated employees they need, and ensure that employees are accountable for their performance.C The committee will take a fresh and comprehensive look at what the federal government does today and the structure and methods by which it does it.C In the area of budgeting, we will work to enact a biennial budget to provide time to analyze which programs are working and which ones are not.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/030901_press.htm
Thompson Amendment ensured to protect privacy on government websites
For all those who are worried that Big Brother is watching them online. This is one of Perico's favorites:
December 19, 2000
Thompson Applauds Final Passage of Legislation to Protect Citizens’ Privacy on Federal Web Sites
WASHINGTON, DC — Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today announced that Congress passed legislation to ensure that legislators and the public are made aware of potential privacy violations on federal agency Internet sites. The Thompson amendment in the Treasury-Postal Title (Section 646) of the Consolidated Appropriations Bill would require the Inspector General of each agency to report to Congress on how the agency collects and reviews personal information on its web site. The bill now goes to the President for his signature.
"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," Thompson continued, "But unfortunately, concerns have been raised that some federal agencies may be engaging in information-gathering practices that could only further deepen the public’s distrust of government."
In June, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was found to have contracted with an Internet ad firm to use "cookies," information gathering devices, to track users on the ONDCP web site. In response to a request from Thompson, the General Accounting Office (GAO) performed an audit of federal agencies’ use of cookies. In October, it was revealed that many federal agencies were still using cookies on their Web sites without disclosing their use. These practices violate the federal government’s privacy policy.
The Thompson privacy amendment, which gives agency Inspectors General 60 days to submit their reports, would expand on the GAO investigation by requiring the Inspectors General to report on all agency information-gathering practices, including data interception systems such as the FBI’s "Carnivore." A similar amendment, which applied exclusively to agencies funded by the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, was sponsored by Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA).# # #
http://hsgac.senate.gov/121900_press.htm
December 19, 2000
Thompson Applauds Final Passage of Legislation to Protect Citizens’ Privacy on Federal Web Sites
WASHINGTON, DC — Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today announced that Congress passed legislation to ensure that legislators and the public are made aware of potential privacy violations on federal agency Internet sites. The Thompson amendment in the Treasury-Postal Title (Section 646) of the Consolidated Appropriations Bill would require the Inspector General of each agency to report to Congress on how the agency collects and reviews personal information on its web site. The bill now goes to the President for his signature.
"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," Thompson continued, "But unfortunately, concerns have been raised that some federal agencies may be engaging in information-gathering practices that could only further deepen the public’s distrust of government."
In June, the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) was found to have contracted with an Internet ad firm to use "cookies," information gathering devices, to track users on the ONDCP web site. In response to a request from Thompson, the General Accounting Office (GAO) performed an audit of federal agencies’ use of cookies. In October, it was revealed that many federal agencies were still using cookies on their Web sites without disclosing their use. These practices violate the federal government’s privacy policy.
The Thompson privacy amendment, which gives agency Inspectors General 60 days to submit their reports, would expand on the GAO investigation by requiring the Inspectors General to report on all agency information-gathering practices, including data interception systems such as the FBI’s "Carnivore." A similar amendment, which applied exclusively to agencies funded by the Treasury-Postal Appropriations bill, was sponsored by Representative Jay Inslee (D-WA).# # #
http://hsgac.senate.gov/121900_press.htm
Thompson's Freedom to Manage Package to Reform Government
Thompson Introduces Administration’s Freedom to Manage Package to Reform Government Says He Will Work to See That the President Gets the Tools He Needs To Reform Government ManagementThursday, November 1, 2001
WASHINGTON - Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) introduced legislation today referred to Congress by the Bush Administration seeking to extensively reform the management of the federal government.Senator Thompson, a leading Congressional advocate for government reform, said, “I will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and in Congress to enact this important package, because it includes comprehensive reforms that will make government work better.“The Governmental Affairs Committee has documented the problems affecting Executive Branch operations for some time, and I am impressed with the President’s attention to these issues at this critical time in our nation’s history,” Thompson added. “The President’s package of management reform proposals will allow government managers to carry out their critical responsibilities for the American public more effectively. It’s obvious the Administration understands how very important government reform is to ensuring that the government can accomplish its varied missions.” The legislation, which includes the Freedom to Manage Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act, makes it easier for Executive Branch management to increase accountability, reduce unnecessary costs, and manage for results. The Managerial Flexibility Act will help the government recruit and retain people with needed skills, increase the flexibility of federal property management, and allow agencies to budget for results. The Freedom to Manage Act would allow other reform proposals, submitted to the Congress by the Administration, to be considered expeditiously by the Congress. Transmitted to the Congress on October 15, 2001, the Freedom to Manage Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act will now be a part of Senator Thompson’s and the Governmental Affairs Committee’s efforts to reform the management of the Executive Branch.
# # #A summary of the legislation follows.Freedom to Manage Reform PackageA Summary
Freedom to Manage Act of 2001: This legislation establishes a procedure under which heads of departments and agencies can identify statutory barriers to good management. Congress, in turn, would quickly consider those obstacles and act to remove them.Managerial Flexibility Act of 2001: This legislation provides federal managers with increased flexibility in managing personnel; assigns agencies the responsibility for funding the full government share of the accruing cost of all retirement and retiree health care benefits for Federal employees; and gives agencies greater flexibility in managing property.Reform Personnel Management: This proposal gives federal agencies and managers increased discretion and flexibility in attracting, managing, and retaining a high quality workforce. It empowers federal agencies to determine when, if, and how they might offer new employee incentives, and it enhances the agencies' authority to use recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses to compete better with the private sector. The bill permits agencies to develop alternative personnel systems to attract and hire employees that best fit the position, and it will enable managers to offer early retirement packages. By enacting important changes to the Senior Executive Service, this proposal also permits high-level Federal managers to be treated more like their private sector counterparts, by results-based performance standards that hold them accountable.Budgeting and Managing for Results -- Full Funding for Federal Retiree Costs: This proposal charges federal agencies the full accruing cost of all retirement and retiree health care benefits for federal employees. This proposal is the first government-wide step in linking the full cost of resources used with the results achieved, which will make management in the Executive Branch more performance-oriented. This proposal will not change any of the benefits provided by these programs, and will not change the level of employee contributions.Reform Federal Property Management: The federal government owns or controls more than 24 million acres of land and facilities, but existing rules restrict the government's ability to consolidate or release underperforming property. In many instances, federal agencies lack the incentives and authority to renovate the property or tap its equity. This proposal facilitates a total asset management approach to Federal property issues by: improving life cycle planning and management; allowing greater flexibility to optimize asset performance; and providing incentives for better property management. Modernizing these processes enhances government-wide property management, bringing the practices federal agencies use to manage their assets into the 21st century.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/110101thompsonpress.htm
WASHINGTON - Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) introduced legislation today referred to Congress by the Bush Administration seeking to extensively reform the management of the federal government.Senator Thompson, a leading Congressional advocate for government reform, said, “I will work with my colleagues on the Governmental Affairs Committee and in Congress to enact this important package, because it includes comprehensive reforms that will make government work better.“The Governmental Affairs Committee has documented the problems affecting Executive Branch operations for some time, and I am impressed with the President’s attention to these issues at this critical time in our nation’s history,” Thompson added. “The President’s package of management reform proposals will allow government managers to carry out their critical responsibilities for the American public more effectively. It’s obvious the Administration understands how very important government reform is to ensuring that the government can accomplish its varied missions.” The legislation, which includes the Freedom to Manage Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act, makes it easier for Executive Branch management to increase accountability, reduce unnecessary costs, and manage for results. The Managerial Flexibility Act will help the government recruit and retain people with needed skills, increase the flexibility of federal property management, and allow agencies to budget for results. The Freedom to Manage Act would allow other reform proposals, submitted to the Congress by the Administration, to be considered expeditiously by the Congress. Transmitted to the Congress on October 15, 2001, the Freedom to Manage Act and the Managerial Flexibility Act will now be a part of Senator Thompson’s and the Governmental Affairs Committee’s efforts to reform the management of the Executive Branch.
# # #A summary of the legislation follows.Freedom to Manage Reform PackageA Summary
Freedom to Manage Act of 2001: This legislation establishes a procedure under which heads of departments and agencies can identify statutory barriers to good management. Congress, in turn, would quickly consider those obstacles and act to remove them.Managerial Flexibility Act of 2001: This legislation provides federal managers with increased flexibility in managing personnel; assigns agencies the responsibility for funding the full government share of the accruing cost of all retirement and retiree health care benefits for Federal employees; and gives agencies greater flexibility in managing property.Reform Personnel Management: This proposal gives federal agencies and managers increased discretion and flexibility in attracting, managing, and retaining a high quality workforce. It empowers federal agencies to determine when, if, and how they might offer new employee incentives, and it enhances the agencies' authority to use recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses to compete better with the private sector. The bill permits agencies to develop alternative personnel systems to attract and hire employees that best fit the position, and it will enable managers to offer early retirement packages. By enacting important changes to the Senior Executive Service, this proposal also permits high-level Federal managers to be treated more like their private sector counterparts, by results-based performance standards that hold them accountable.Budgeting and Managing for Results -- Full Funding for Federal Retiree Costs: This proposal charges federal agencies the full accruing cost of all retirement and retiree health care benefits for federal employees. This proposal is the first government-wide step in linking the full cost of resources used with the results achieved, which will make management in the Executive Branch more performance-oriented. This proposal will not change any of the benefits provided by these programs, and will not change the level of employee contributions.Reform Federal Property Management: The federal government owns or controls more than 24 million acres of land and facilities, but existing rules restrict the government's ability to consolidate or release underperforming property. In many instances, federal agencies lack the incentives and authority to renovate the property or tap its equity. This proposal facilitates a total asset management approach to Federal property issues by: improving life cycle planning and management; allowing greater flexibility to optimize asset performance; and providing incentives for better property management. Modernizing these processes enhances government-wide property management, bringing the practices federal agencies use to manage their assets into the 21st century.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/110101thompsonpress.htm
*Recommendations from Senator Thompson's Investigation into 1996 Clinton/Gore Campaign
These are the Recommendations from Senator Thompson's investigative report into 1996 Clinton/Gore Campaign Finance Scandal:
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on its findings, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the Senate and the Executive Branch. Some of the recommendations are for legislative action; others could be implemented by government agencies without Congressional action.
1. In this report, the Committee sets forth new grounds, which call for the appointment of an independent counsel with regard to the campaign finance scandal, and urges the Attorney General to seek the appointment of an independent counsel. Consistent with this recommendation, the Committee urges the Department of Justice to aggressively pursue the many instances of apparently illegal activity as set forth in this report.
2. Throughout this report, the Committee highlights the testimony of different witnesses, given under oath, whose truthfulness or candor are called into question, as their testimony appears to have been contradicted by other witnesses and/or documentary evidence. The Committee recommends and expects that the Attorney General will review this report with care and make determinations as to whether or not such instances constitute perjury within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 or obstruction of the Committee’s investigation prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
3. The Committee recommends that executive branch procedures for granting top-secret security clearances be changed. Persons seeking security clearances who have lived in foreign countries should receive background checks on their activities while in those foreign countries. Access to classified materials should be strictly limited to what the official needs to know as part of his or her job responsibilities. Persons performing classified briefings must know the job responsibility of the persons to whom they show classified materials. No one should be given access to classified material as a routine matter before a background check is conducted. Agencies should ensure that security clearances are terminated when employees leave the positions necessitating clearances.
These recommendations flow directly from acts to the contrary that took place with respect to John Huang during the 1990's. Huang was given top-secret security clearance while working at the Commerce Department. Although Huang had lived for many years abroad, no background check was undertaken with respect to his work in those foreign countries. No follow up was done on the “hit” on the computer database that tracks convictions with regard to Huang’s being detaining by the INS in the 1970's. Huang was not only shown top-secret documents that he had no reason to see, but also, documents related to areas of responsibility he was specifically excluded from handling. Those materials were very relevant to the interests of his former employer. Insufficient steps were taken to make sure that only persons with a need to know were knowledge of the top-secret material. This occurred because the briefers, including CIA personnel, did not know what Huang’s job responsibilities were. The problem was compounded because of the indiscriminate manner in which security clearances were given to political appointees as soon as they began employment.
Even worse, Huang held on to his security clearance after the left the Commerce
Department and worked for the DNC. There is no justification for this breach of security to occur, and it was inappropriate for any Commerce Department officials to suggest arrangements by which Huang could keep his security clearance after he left the government.
The Commerce Department has already changed some of its policies regarding security clearances, but there is a potential problem with any government department or agency. Whether legislation is enacted or not, the Committee’s investigation has demonstrated the inappropriate manner in which classified information was made available to Huang and, through him, possibly to others whose knowledge of such information was not in the interests of the United States.
4. The Committee recommends that Congress legislate guidelines for the operation of legal defense funds. Congress should also legislate guidelines for contacts between the funds and the beneficiary of the funds and the beneficiary’s staff.
In recent years, members of Congress, and now the President, have established legal defense trusts to assist in paying of the principal’s legal fees incurred in defending against civil cases, ethics complaints, and criminal charges. Although the Office of Government Ethics regulates certain executive branch legal defense trusts, legislation is needed to standardize the rules governing all such trusts. Persons interested in the operation of the government, limited in the amount of hard campaign contributions they could provide, might believe that they could obtain influence with powerful figures if they were to make large contributions to the legal defense fund established to benefit that individual. The more than $700,000 that Charlie Trie raised for the President’s legal expense trust obviously was calculated to achieve that result.
In the absence of legislation, contributions to legal defense funds may achieve that effect.
To discourage that result, Congress should pass uniform guidelines for the creation and operation of legal defense funds by executive branch and legislative branch officials. Such legislation should mandate accounting procedures, require that contributions be disclosed and limited, and that the sources of funds be according to federal election law, among other guidelines.
It is important also to establish the independence of these defense funds. In the case of the President’s legal expense trust, meetings were held between the director of the trust and large numbers of White House staff. Given the nature of the discussions held, these meetings raise serious questions about the independence of the trust from the person for whose benefit the trust was created. Congress should strictly limit contact between the trust and the beneficiary.
5. The Committee intends to revisit the Independent Counsel Act. In addition to all the specific concerns that have been raised about the statute’s operation, the Committee believes it important that the Attorney General did not invoke the statute to investigate the subject of the Committee’s investigation, when its operation was clearly called for, and whether legislation can remedy that situation in light of the discretion in seeking an appointment that the Attorney General must constitutionally possess. The Committee expects to revisit the statute in 1998 to determine whether it should be reauthorized and, if so, with what amendments.
The independent counsel statute was enacted to prevent the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when the Justice Department investigates the possibly criminal conduct of high-ranking government officials. The facts at issue in the Committee’s investigation clearly warranted the appointment of an independent counsel. Yet, as of now, none has been appointed, except as to a matter arising from the course of the Committee’s hearings themselves. The Attorney General enjoys absolute discretion under the statute to decide whether the standard of appointment has been triggered. This discretion is necessary to the statute’s constitutionality.
Nonetheless, serious questions were raised, based on credible allegations, that the
President and other covered officials may have violated federal law. These allegations should have triggered the seeking of the appointment of an independent counsel. It makes no difference that the facts were essentially established, but the issues of law were disputed. In determining whether a crime “may have been committed” by a covered person, the conflict of interest is the same whether the Attorney General is called upon to determine the facts or the law. The statute was passed to avoid this conflict.
Apart from the theoretical reasons for the need to appoint an independent counsel, confidence of the American people in the conduct of the investigation mandates the appointment in these circumstances. The Department’s investigation has not engendered public confidence.
Documents have been left unexamined, including public record documents and classified materials of great relevance. Stones have been left unturned. Moreover, the legal positions taken by the Attorney General have been inconsistent in many cases with the sources she claims support her, as well as Supreme Court decisions in some instances.
In addition, the Attorney General seems to have set the bar higher to begin the investigation of a covered person than to investigate an ordinary citizen. Any information against an ordinary citizen can lead a prosecutor to begin an investigation. Under the Attorney General’s interpretation of the current independent counsel statue, however, unless the evidence rises to a level sufficient to trigger the appointment of an independent counsel, no investigation of a covered person can occur. This turns the intent and language of the statute on its head. Under this interpretation, a covered person has more protection from investigation that he would enjoy in the absence of the statute.
This Committee is the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate for this statute. The
Committee plans to hold hearings in 1998 on the operation of the statute and to propose legislation on how the statute should be altered, assuming it should be reauthorized beyond 1999.
6. The Committee recommends that time deadlines not be imposed on investigations authorized by the Senate. Such deadlines weaken the ability of the Senate to ensure compliance with its subpoenas, to ensure cooperation, and to gather the facts necessary to fulfill the charge to the Senate to conduct a complete investigation.
The Committee opposed imposing a deadline on its investigation. Deadlines have been deplored by Senators of both parties over the years because they impinge on the ability of an investigating committee to perform the tasks assigned to it. In the case of the Committee’s investigation, such concerns were more than theoretical. They greatly affected the ability of the Committee to ensure compliance with its subpoenas, to receive timely information, and to gain cooperation and develop the necessary facts.
Because of the deadline, many potential witnesses and possessors of documents relevant to the investigation were unwilling to cooperate. Such non-cooperation was likely to be successful because the deadline rendered enforcement of subpoenas problematic and contempt proceedings academic.
The Committee encountered stalling from the White House, from the DNC, and from a number of nonprofit entities, most notably the AFL-CIO. The deadline placed on the Committee emboldened non-cooperation in light of the Committee’s available procedures for enforcement of subpoenas. Under these procedures, months would be necessary to gain court enforcement. By the time the case would ever go to court, the Committee’s deadline would have expired, and with that, the Committee’s power to enforce.
* * *
The remaining recommendations deal with the issue of campaign finance reform. Since the Committee does not have legislative jurisdiction over the subject, the options for reform presented to the Committee during its hearings are referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration for its consideration. Among the suggestions for reform made to the Committee were the following.
7. The Committee recommends that those ineligible to vote be precluded from making contributions to candidates for federal office.
Given the extensive evidence and testimony reviewed by the Committee’s investigation related to federal candidate contributions originating from foreign sources, the current prohibition on foreign contributions needs to be strengthened. At the present time, some individuals who are not legally eligible to vote are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. There is also substantial evidence that minors are being used by their parents, or others, to circumvent the limits imposed on contributors. Candidate committees could confirm through a simple question in all solicitations, and disclose as part of the currently required contributor identification material filed with the FEC, that each contributor is an American citizen of voting age.
8. The Committee recommends that Congress enact protections for union workers so that their dues are not used for political purposes with which they disagree. No person should be compelled to contribute to a federal campaign without his or her consent.
9. The Committee recommends that publicly funded presidential candidates, on behalf of their authorized campaign committee, be required to certify to the Federal Election Commission, within a certain time frame, that they have not inappropriately coordinated their activity with outside entities to overcome contribution and expenditure limits placed upon those activities by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Such certification would not be required for incidental contacts between candidates and outside entities, nor for attendance at widely attended fundraisers conducted by outside entities.
The Committee’s investigation established that the Clinton/Gore ‘96 Campaign Committee not only coordinated its activities with the Democratic National Committee in order to circumvent the contribution and expenditure limits imposed upon presidential candidates accepting public funding, but that the Clinton/Gore Campaign actually directed and controlled the soft money fundraising, television advertisement development, and placement undertaken by the DNC.
Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that Presidential candidates have shared their plans, projects and strategies with outside third-party entities in order for those entities to make what constitute in-kind contributions on behalf of the candidates. Such third party expenditures make a mockery of the current campaign finance system.
10. The Committee recommends that legislation increase the penalties for knowingly and willfully accepting illegal campaign contributions.
The Committee’s investigation revealed that between 1994 and 1996 the DNC completely dismantled a previously established vetting procedure for large and questionable contributions.
As a result, a variety of contributions were accepted in direct violation of the FECA. Penalties for accepting illegal contributions, which are criminal if the campaign entity knowingly accepted such contributions, should be increased. Since the Committee believes the goal should be to prevent acceptance of such contributions in the first place, evidence that a campaign entity established stringent vetting procedures should be admissible to establish a lack of the knowledge of illegality that could lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions.
11. The Committee recommends enactment of legislation mandating electronic filing with the Federal Election Commission for all federal candidates and political committees, and providing for appropriate verification procedures for electronic filing to avoid fraud.
Easier and more rapid access to campaign finance information requires that the campaign finance laws be modernized to account for advancements in computer technology. Currently, the FEC is not even allowed to accept facsimiles, or any form of electronic filings as official because these documents cannot reflect an original signature of the filer, as called for in the current law.
Available computer technology now allows almost instantaneous disclosure of political contributions and expenditures. In computer format, such data is much easier to review, compare and contrast. A recent FEC survey revealed that 85 percent of all committees or campaign operations have access to computers, that three-fourths of the computerized committees have access to the modems, and two-thirds can reach the Internet. While the FEC currently provides for voluntary electronic filing, with hard copy backup, there is no incentive for reporting entities to participate. Exercising the option for electronic filing now imposes extra work on committees beyond the required hard copy filing. No entity wants to expose itself to speedier and more easily accessible computer disclosure if its opponents are not subjected to the same level of review.
While smaller start-up participants in the federal election process may not have the resources to acquire computer technology, they could be exempted from the mandatory electronic filing legislation by providing for a relatively high financial activity threshold before such reporting would be necessary. To ensure accurate and secure reporting, legislation should also require the FEC to develop report filing verification procedures. To speed dissemination of campaign filings it would be much easier to require the FEC to place electronically filed reports on the Internet. Such universal access could be provided at the current FEC website within 24 hours of receipt.
To complement these advancements, legislation should mandate that the FEC compile, publish, regularly update and post on the Internet a complete and detailed index of enforcement actions and advisory opinions. Currently there is no one repository for such information that is easily and quickly available to the public.
12. The Committee recommends legislation to require expedited reporting of all contribution activity during the 90 days immediately before an election.
With the advancement of electronic filing and broadcast technology, the Committee discovered that campaign activity has become accelerated at the end of the election cycle. The current paper filing system allows for manipulation of the disclosure process because facilitating paper filings makes necessary a cut-off date prior to the election. That would no longer be the case under an electronic filing system. Last minute surprise infusions of cash or expenditures would be disclosed in advance of the election. This would allow interested parties to evaluate the nature of a candidate’s or entity’s support in making an informed decision when going to the polls.
13. The Committee recommends simultaneous filing with the FEC of any required state-level state and local committee filings.
At this time, no centralized electoral finance filing system exists, even for federal candidates. Because national party committee transfers to state party committees remain unlimited, there is no way to ensure such transfers are not in turn made to facilitate expenditures by the state party committees for the benefit of federal candidates. The same is true for expenditures that might be coordinated as a result of transfers from national unions and non-profit organizations to local affiliated organizations. Federal election campaign expenditures are often intertwined with state and local election activity. The courts and the FEC have acknowledged this fact through promulgation of their allocation regulations. To understand the impact of these expenditures, and the allocations required by the FEC, a central repository of all available election materials is necessary.
14. The Committee recommends establishment of a “traffic ticket approach” of scheduled fines for minor FEC reporting violations.
The current structure of the FCA requires an elaborate due process mechanism for all alleged violations of the Act, regardless of severity. Thus, late, miscalculated and non-filed report violations are subjected to several votes of the Commission, and full briefing of the surrounding facts before the Commission can seek a civil penalty. This process takes time and resources away from more involved and egregious violations, a category including corporate reimbursement schemes and illegal coordinated soft money issue advertisement campaigns. The Committee recommends a bifurcated process under which clear filing violations are enforced via a pre-established system of non-negotiable civil penalties, while serious allegations of wrong-doing are processed with careful consideration of due process rights (S. 1516).
15. The Committee recommends legislation be enacted reforming the structure and enforcement procedures of the Federal Election Commission. Currently there are no limits on the number of times an FEC Commissioner may be reappointed, Commissioners whose terms expire hold over indefinitely, enforcement matters are not handled in a timely manner, and there is no mechanism for resolving 3-3 split Commission votes.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/33.pdf
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on its findings, the Committee makes the following recommendations to the Senate and the Executive Branch. Some of the recommendations are for legislative action; others could be implemented by government agencies without Congressional action.
1. In this report, the Committee sets forth new grounds, which call for the appointment of an independent counsel with regard to the campaign finance scandal, and urges the Attorney General to seek the appointment of an independent counsel. Consistent with this recommendation, the Committee urges the Department of Justice to aggressively pursue the many instances of apparently illegal activity as set forth in this report.
2. Throughout this report, the Committee highlights the testimony of different witnesses, given under oath, whose truthfulness or candor are called into question, as their testimony appears to have been contradicted by other witnesses and/or documentary evidence. The Committee recommends and expects that the Attorney General will review this report with care and make determinations as to whether or not such instances constitute perjury within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1621 or obstruction of the Committee’s investigation prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1505.
3. The Committee recommends that executive branch procedures for granting top-secret security clearances be changed. Persons seeking security clearances who have lived in foreign countries should receive background checks on their activities while in those foreign countries. Access to classified materials should be strictly limited to what the official needs to know as part of his or her job responsibilities. Persons performing classified briefings must know the job responsibility of the persons to whom they show classified materials. No one should be given access to classified material as a routine matter before a background check is conducted. Agencies should ensure that security clearances are terminated when employees leave the positions necessitating clearances.
These recommendations flow directly from acts to the contrary that took place with respect to John Huang during the 1990's. Huang was given top-secret security clearance while working at the Commerce Department. Although Huang had lived for many years abroad, no background check was undertaken with respect to his work in those foreign countries. No follow up was done on the “hit” on the computer database that tracks convictions with regard to Huang’s being detaining by the INS in the 1970's. Huang was not only shown top-secret documents that he had no reason to see, but also, documents related to areas of responsibility he was specifically excluded from handling. Those materials were very relevant to the interests of his former employer. Insufficient steps were taken to make sure that only persons with a need to know were knowledge of the top-secret material. This occurred because the briefers, including CIA personnel, did not know what Huang’s job responsibilities were. The problem was compounded because of the indiscriminate manner in which security clearances were given to political appointees as soon as they began employment.
Even worse, Huang held on to his security clearance after the left the Commerce
Department and worked for the DNC. There is no justification for this breach of security to occur, and it was inappropriate for any Commerce Department officials to suggest arrangements by which Huang could keep his security clearance after he left the government.
The Commerce Department has already changed some of its policies regarding security clearances, but there is a potential problem with any government department or agency. Whether legislation is enacted or not, the Committee’s investigation has demonstrated the inappropriate manner in which classified information was made available to Huang and, through him, possibly to others whose knowledge of such information was not in the interests of the United States.
4. The Committee recommends that Congress legislate guidelines for the operation of legal defense funds. Congress should also legislate guidelines for contacts between the funds and the beneficiary of the funds and the beneficiary’s staff.
In recent years, members of Congress, and now the President, have established legal defense trusts to assist in paying of the principal’s legal fees incurred in defending against civil cases, ethics complaints, and criminal charges. Although the Office of Government Ethics regulates certain executive branch legal defense trusts, legislation is needed to standardize the rules governing all such trusts. Persons interested in the operation of the government, limited in the amount of hard campaign contributions they could provide, might believe that they could obtain influence with powerful figures if they were to make large contributions to the legal defense fund established to benefit that individual. The more than $700,000 that Charlie Trie raised for the President’s legal expense trust obviously was calculated to achieve that result.
In the absence of legislation, contributions to legal defense funds may achieve that effect.
To discourage that result, Congress should pass uniform guidelines for the creation and operation of legal defense funds by executive branch and legislative branch officials. Such legislation should mandate accounting procedures, require that contributions be disclosed and limited, and that the sources of funds be according to federal election law, among other guidelines.
It is important also to establish the independence of these defense funds. In the case of the President’s legal expense trust, meetings were held between the director of the trust and large numbers of White House staff. Given the nature of the discussions held, these meetings raise serious questions about the independence of the trust from the person for whose benefit the trust was created. Congress should strictly limit contact between the trust and the beneficiary.
5. The Committee intends to revisit the Independent Counsel Act. In addition to all the specific concerns that have been raised about the statute’s operation, the Committee believes it important that the Attorney General did not invoke the statute to investigate the subject of the Committee’s investigation, when its operation was clearly called for, and whether legislation can remedy that situation in light of the discretion in seeking an appointment that the Attorney General must constitutionally possess. The Committee expects to revisit the statute in 1998 to determine whether it should be reauthorized and, if so, with what amendments.
The independent counsel statute was enacted to prevent the inherent conflict of interest that occurs when the Justice Department investigates the possibly criminal conduct of high-ranking government officials. The facts at issue in the Committee’s investigation clearly warranted the appointment of an independent counsel. Yet, as of now, none has been appointed, except as to a matter arising from the course of the Committee’s hearings themselves. The Attorney General enjoys absolute discretion under the statute to decide whether the standard of appointment has been triggered. This discretion is necessary to the statute’s constitutionality.
Nonetheless, serious questions were raised, based on credible allegations, that the
President and other covered officials may have violated federal law. These allegations should have triggered the seeking of the appointment of an independent counsel. It makes no difference that the facts were essentially established, but the issues of law were disputed. In determining whether a crime “may have been committed” by a covered person, the conflict of interest is the same whether the Attorney General is called upon to determine the facts or the law. The statute was passed to avoid this conflict.
Apart from the theoretical reasons for the need to appoint an independent counsel, confidence of the American people in the conduct of the investigation mandates the appointment in these circumstances. The Department’s investigation has not engendered public confidence.
Documents have been left unexamined, including public record documents and classified materials of great relevance. Stones have been left unturned. Moreover, the legal positions taken by the Attorney General have been inconsistent in many cases with the sources she claims support her, as well as Supreme Court decisions in some instances.
In addition, the Attorney General seems to have set the bar higher to begin the investigation of a covered person than to investigate an ordinary citizen. Any information against an ordinary citizen can lead a prosecutor to begin an investigation. Under the Attorney General’s interpretation of the current independent counsel statue, however, unless the evidence rises to a level sufficient to trigger the appointment of an independent counsel, no investigation of a covered person can occur. This turns the intent and language of the statute on its head. Under this interpretation, a covered person has more protection from investigation that he would enjoy in the absence of the statute.
This Committee is the committee of jurisdiction in the Senate for this statute. The
Committee plans to hold hearings in 1998 on the operation of the statute and to propose legislation on how the statute should be altered, assuming it should be reauthorized beyond 1999.
6. The Committee recommends that time deadlines not be imposed on investigations authorized by the Senate. Such deadlines weaken the ability of the Senate to ensure compliance with its subpoenas, to ensure cooperation, and to gather the facts necessary to fulfill the charge to the Senate to conduct a complete investigation.
The Committee opposed imposing a deadline on its investigation. Deadlines have been deplored by Senators of both parties over the years because they impinge on the ability of an investigating committee to perform the tasks assigned to it. In the case of the Committee’s investigation, such concerns were more than theoretical. They greatly affected the ability of the Committee to ensure compliance with its subpoenas, to receive timely information, and to gain cooperation and develop the necessary facts.
Because of the deadline, many potential witnesses and possessors of documents relevant to the investigation were unwilling to cooperate. Such non-cooperation was likely to be successful because the deadline rendered enforcement of subpoenas problematic and contempt proceedings academic.
The Committee encountered stalling from the White House, from the DNC, and from a number of nonprofit entities, most notably the AFL-CIO. The deadline placed on the Committee emboldened non-cooperation in light of the Committee’s available procedures for enforcement of subpoenas. Under these procedures, months would be necessary to gain court enforcement. By the time the case would ever go to court, the Committee’s deadline would have expired, and with that, the Committee’s power to enforce.
* * *
The remaining recommendations deal with the issue of campaign finance reform. Since the Committee does not have legislative jurisdiction over the subject, the options for reform presented to the Committee during its hearings are referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration for its consideration. Among the suggestions for reform made to the Committee were the following.
7. The Committee recommends that those ineligible to vote be precluded from making contributions to candidates for federal office.
Given the extensive evidence and testimony reviewed by the Committee’s investigation related to federal candidate contributions originating from foreign sources, the current prohibition on foreign contributions needs to be strengthened. At the present time, some individuals who are not legally eligible to vote are allowed to contribute to political campaigns. There is also substantial evidence that minors are being used by their parents, or others, to circumvent the limits imposed on contributors. Candidate committees could confirm through a simple question in all solicitations, and disclose as part of the currently required contributor identification material filed with the FEC, that each contributor is an American citizen of voting age.
8. The Committee recommends that Congress enact protections for union workers so that their dues are not used for political purposes with which they disagree. No person should be compelled to contribute to a federal campaign without his or her consent.
9. The Committee recommends that publicly funded presidential candidates, on behalf of their authorized campaign committee, be required to certify to the Federal Election Commission, within a certain time frame, that they have not inappropriately coordinated their activity with outside entities to overcome contribution and expenditure limits placed upon those activities by the Federal Election Campaign Act. Such certification would not be required for incidental contacts between candidates and outside entities, nor for attendance at widely attended fundraisers conducted by outside entities.
The Committee’s investigation established that the Clinton/Gore ‘96 Campaign Committee not only coordinated its activities with the Democratic National Committee in order to circumvent the contribution and expenditure limits imposed upon presidential candidates accepting public funding, but that the Clinton/Gore Campaign actually directed and controlled the soft money fundraising, television advertisement development, and placement undertaken by the DNC.
Furthermore, there is evidence to indicate that Presidential candidates have shared their plans, projects and strategies with outside third-party entities in order for those entities to make what constitute in-kind contributions on behalf of the candidates. Such third party expenditures make a mockery of the current campaign finance system.
10. The Committee recommends that legislation increase the penalties for knowingly and willfully accepting illegal campaign contributions.
The Committee’s investigation revealed that between 1994 and 1996 the DNC completely dismantled a previously established vetting procedure for large and questionable contributions.
As a result, a variety of contributions were accepted in direct violation of the FECA. Penalties for accepting illegal contributions, which are criminal if the campaign entity knowingly accepted such contributions, should be increased. Since the Committee believes the goal should be to prevent acceptance of such contributions in the first place, evidence that a campaign entity established stringent vetting procedures should be admissible to establish a lack of the knowledge of illegality that could lead to the imposition of criminal sanctions.
11. The Committee recommends enactment of legislation mandating electronic filing with the Federal Election Commission for all federal candidates and political committees, and providing for appropriate verification procedures for electronic filing to avoid fraud.
Easier and more rapid access to campaign finance information requires that the campaign finance laws be modernized to account for advancements in computer technology. Currently, the FEC is not even allowed to accept facsimiles, or any form of electronic filings as official because these documents cannot reflect an original signature of the filer, as called for in the current law.
Available computer technology now allows almost instantaneous disclosure of political contributions and expenditures. In computer format, such data is much easier to review, compare and contrast. A recent FEC survey revealed that 85 percent of all committees or campaign operations have access to computers, that three-fourths of the computerized committees have access to the modems, and two-thirds can reach the Internet. While the FEC currently provides for voluntary electronic filing, with hard copy backup, there is no incentive for reporting entities to participate. Exercising the option for electronic filing now imposes extra work on committees beyond the required hard copy filing. No entity wants to expose itself to speedier and more easily accessible computer disclosure if its opponents are not subjected to the same level of review.
While smaller start-up participants in the federal election process may not have the resources to acquire computer technology, they could be exempted from the mandatory electronic filing legislation by providing for a relatively high financial activity threshold before such reporting would be necessary. To ensure accurate and secure reporting, legislation should also require the FEC to develop report filing verification procedures. To speed dissemination of campaign filings it would be much easier to require the FEC to place electronically filed reports on the Internet. Such universal access could be provided at the current FEC website within 24 hours of receipt.
To complement these advancements, legislation should mandate that the FEC compile, publish, regularly update and post on the Internet a complete and detailed index of enforcement actions and advisory opinions. Currently there is no one repository for such information that is easily and quickly available to the public.
12. The Committee recommends legislation to require expedited reporting of all contribution activity during the 90 days immediately before an election.
With the advancement of electronic filing and broadcast technology, the Committee discovered that campaign activity has become accelerated at the end of the election cycle. The current paper filing system allows for manipulation of the disclosure process because facilitating paper filings makes necessary a cut-off date prior to the election. That would no longer be the case under an electronic filing system. Last minute surprise infusions of cash or expenditures would be disclosed in advance of the election. This would allow interested parties to evaluate the nature of a candidate’s or entity’s support in making an informed decision when going to the polls.
13. The Committee recommends simultaneous filing with the FEC of any required state-level state and local committee filings.
At this time, no centralized electoral finance filing system exists, even for federal candidates. Because national party committee transfers to state party committees remain unlimited, there is no way to ensure such transfers are not in turn made to facilitate expenditures by the state party committees for the benefit of federal candidates. The same is true for expenditures that might be coordinated as a result of transfers from national unions and non-profit organizations to local affiliated organizations. Federal election campaign expenditures are often intertwined with state and local election activity. The courts and the FEC have acknowledged this fact through promulgation of their allocation regulations. To understand the impact of these expenditures, and the allocations required by the FEC, a central repository of all available election materials is necessary.
14. The Committee recommends establishment of a “traffic ticket approach” of scheduled fines for minor FEC reporting violations.
The current structure of the FCA requires an elaborate due process mechanism for all alleged violations of the Act, regardless of severity. Thus, late, miscalculated and non-filed report violations are subjected to several votes of the Commission, and full briefing of the surrounding facts before the Commission can seek a civil penalty. This process takes time and resources away from more involved and egregious violations, a category including corporate reimbursement schemes and illegal coordinated soft money issue advertisement campaigns. The Committee recommends a bifurcated process under which clear filing violations are enforced via a pre-established system of non-negotiable civil penalties, while serious allegations of wrong-doing are processed with careful consideration of due process rights (S. 1516).
15. The Committee recommends legislation be enacted reforming the structure and enforcement procedures of the Federal Election Commission. Currently there are no limits on the number of times an FEC Commissioner may be reappointed, Commissioners whose terms expire hold over indefinitely, enforcement matters are not handled in a timely manner, and there is no mechanism for resolving 3-3 split Commission votes.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/33.pdf
*Preface from Thompson's Report into Financial Campaigns of Clinton in 1996
The Preface from Senator Thompson's Investigative Report into the 1996 Clinton/Gore Campaign Finance Scandal:
PREFACE
In mid-1995, the President and his strategists decided that they needed to raise and spend many millions of dollars over and above the permissible limits of the Presidential campaign funding law if the President was going to be reelected. They devised a legal theory to support their needs and proceeded to raise and spend $44 million in excess of the Presidential campaign spending limits.
The lengths to which the Clinton/Gore campaign and the White House-controlled
Democratic National Committee were willing to go in order to raise this amount of money is essentially the story of the 1996 Presidential campaign scandal. The President and his aides demeaned the offices of the President and Vice President, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign sources. When these abuses were discovered, the result was numerous Fifth Amendment claims, flights from the country, and stonewalling from the White
House and the DNC.
Over a brief period of three months of hearings, the Committee was able to fulfill its responsibility in laying out the available facts to the American people. A much clearer picture of what happened during the 1996 Presidential campaign has been developed and presented.
However, many questions remain unanswered. It is now the responsibility of the Attorney
General or, more appropriately, an independent counsel to take these facts and aggressively pursue any and all indications of criminal wrong-doing. Indeed, the three most important legal developments to come out of the 1996 campaign finance scandal are all attributable to the investigation conducted by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. First, Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, an associate of the President, has been indicted for, among other things, obstruction of the Committee’s investigation. Second, Maria Hsia, a prominent Democratic fundraiser, has been indicted for laundering campaign contributions that were a focus of the Committee’s inquiry.
Finally, the Attorney General has requested appointment of an independent counsel to determine whether Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt lied to the Committee.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/1.pdf
PREFACE
In mid-1995, the President and his strategists decided that they needed to raise and spend many millions of dollars over and above the permissible limits of the Presidential campaign funding law if the President was going to be reelected. They devised a legal theory to support their needs and proceeded to raise and spend $44 million in excess of the Presidential campaign spending limits.
The lengths to which the Clinton/Gore campaign and the White House-controlled
Democratic National Committee were willing to go in order to raise this amount of money is essentially the story of the 1996 Presidential campaign scandal. The President and his aides demeaned the offices of the President and Vice President, took advantage of minority groups, pulled down all the barriers that would normally be in place to keep out illegal contributions, pressured policy makers, and left themselves open to strong suspicion that they were selling not only access to high-ranking officials, but policy as well. Millions of dollars were raised in illegal contributions, much of it from foreign sources. When these abuses were discovered, the result was numerous Fifth Amendment claims, flights from the country, and stonewalling from the White
House and the DNC.
Over a brief period of three months of hearings, the Committee was able to fulfill its responsibility in laying out the available facts to the American people. A much clearer picture of what happened during the 1996 Presidential campaign has been developed and presented.
However, many questions remain unanswered. It is now the responsibility of the Attorney
General or, more appropriately, an independent counsel to take these facts and aggressively pursue any and all indications of criminal wrong-doing. Indeed, the three most important legal developments to come out of the 1996 campaign finance scandal are all attributable to the investigation conducted by the Committee on Governmental Affairs. First, Yah Lin “Charlie” Trie, an associate of the President, has been indicted for, among other things, obstruction of the Committee’s investigation. Second, Maria Hsia, a prominent Democratic fundraiser, has been indicted for laundering campaign contributions that were a focus of the Committee’s inquiry.
Finally, the Attorney General has requested appointment of an independent counsel to determine whether Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt lied to the Committee.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/1.pdf
National Security Workforce Legislation
Thompson, Akaka and Durbin Introduce Legislation toStrengthen America’s National Security Workforce
Homeland Security Workforce Bill Provides Powerful Incentives for Federal WorkersDecember 5, 2001
Washington, DC - Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) joined Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) today in introducing two bills detailing a comprehensive strategy to deal with both short and long-term deficiencies in the natural security workforce. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act and the Homeland Security Education Act seek to address specific problems in the federal government’s ability to recruit and retain national security professionals.
"We have to make sure federal agencies have the talent on hand to do the thousand daily tasks that don’t make the news but make us safer each and every day," said Senator Thompson. "These bills help the federal government get – and keep – that talent."
The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act requires a strategic plan that assesses the status of the federal government's national security workforce and requires the integration of performance plans for the national security workforce into plans required by the Government Performance and Results Act. In addition, the bill provides loan forgiveness, fellowships and employee exchange programs in support of the federal national security workforce. The Homeland Security Education Act strengthens federal support of educational programs -- especially in math, science, and certain languages -- deemed important to the national security workforce.
The bills are the product of many of the recommendations made by the Hart / Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century released earlier this year. The Commission said in its most recent report, "The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet future challenges.
Senator Thompson added, "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."
Experts have warned that the federal government faces immense challenges with its workforce, specifically citing the length of the hiring process, inability to retain employees, and an unprecedented increase in the percentage of retirements.
Summaries of the two bills are attached.
###
"Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act"
Title I: Expands the loan forgiveness program for federal employees in areas of national security. Allows Departments of Defense, State, Energy, and Justice as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Security Agency to repay up to $10,000 per year (up to a lifetime limit of $80,000) for individuals who have educational debt. In exchange, they enter into employment agreements for at least 3 years.
Title II: Creates fellowships for graduate students to enter federal service at national security-type agencies. The same agencies outlined in Title I above could offer fellowships to graduate students of mathematics, science, engineering, or a foreign language; in return for this assistance, recipients would agree to work for the sponsoring agency for a period of at least 3 years. There is a twenty percent set-aside of these fellowships for current federal employees.
Title III: Establishes the National Security Service Corps, which allows federal national security agencies to conduct exchange programs for mid-level employees. The Corps is envisioned to be a professionally rewarding opportunity that also has clear benefits for parent agencies. The National Security Service Board, consisting of representatives of the member agencies as well as the Office of Personnel Management, will outline the specifics of the Corps.
Title IV: Requires agencies to address human capital needs, particularly those that relate to national security, in their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports.
"Homeland Security Education Act"
Title I: Subsidizes loan interest for persons who obtain undergraduate degrees in mathematics, science, or a foreign language. As long as they remain in repayment status and not in default, the Federal Government assumes the interest payments on their educational loans.
Title II: Directs the National Science Foundation to provide grants to elementary and secondary schools to build or expand their math and science curricula and to study the coordination of such efforts with those of the Department of Education. The Title also encourages private sector involvement through the donation of technology tools and establishment of internship and mentoring opportunities for math and science students.
Title III: Promotes foreign language education by developing grant programs for all educational levels (elementary school through university). University level programs include math and science studies that are taught in conjunction with, or are conducted entirely in, a foreign language. The bill also authorizes a National Flagship Language Initiative, which awards grants to universities producing graduates in critical language areas.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/120501press.htm
Homeland Security Workforce Bill Provides Powerful Incentives for Federal WorkersDecember 5, 2001
Washington, DC - Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) joined Senators Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Richard Durbin (D-IL) today in introducing two bills detailing a comprehensive strategy to deal with both short and long-term deficiencies in the natural security workforce. The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act and the Homeland Security Education Act seek to address specific problems in the federal government’s ability to recruit and retain national security professionals.
"We have to make sure federal agencies have the talent on hand to do the thousand daily tasks that don’t make the news but make us safer each and every day," said Senator Thompson. "These bills help the federal government get – and keep – that talent."
The Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act requires a strategic plan that assesses the status of the federal government's national security workforce and requires the integration of performance plans for the national security workforce into plans required by the Government Performance and Results Act. In addition, the bill provides loan forgiveness, fellowships and employee exchange programs in support of the federal national security workforce. The Homeland Security Education Act strengthens federal support of educational programs -- especially in math, science, and certain languages -- deemed important to the national security workforce.
The bills are the product of many of the recommendations made by the Hart / Rudman Commission on National Security in the 21st Century released earlier this year. The Commission said in its most recent report, "The maintenance of American power in the world depends on the quality of U.S. government personnel, civil and military, at all levels. We must take immediate action in the personnel area to ensure that the United States can meet future challenges.
Senator Thompson added, "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."
Experts have warned that the federal government faces immense challenges with its workforce, specifically citing the length of the hiring process, inability to retain employees, and an unprecedented increase in the percentage of retirements.
Summaries of the two bills are attached.
###
"Homeland Security Federal Workforce Act"
Title I: Expands the loan forgiveness program for federal employees in areas of national security. Allows Departments of Defense, State, Energy, and Justice as well as the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the National Security Agency to repay up to $10,000 per year (up to a lifetime limit of $80,000) for individuals who have educational debt. In exchange, they enter into employment agreements for at least 3 years.
Title II: Creates fellowships for graduate students to enter federal service at national security-type agencies. The same agencies outlined in Title I above could offer fellowships to graduate students of mathematics, science, engineering, or a foreign language; in return for this assistance, recipients would agree to work for the sponsoring agency for a period of at least 3 years. There is a twenty percent set-aside of these fellowships for current federal employees.
Title III: Establishes the National Security Service Corps, which allows federal national security agencies to conduct exchange programs for mid-level employees. The Corps is envisioned to be a professionally rewarding opportunity that also has clear benefits for parent agencies. The National Security Service Board, consisting of representatives of the member agencies as well as the Office of Personnel Management, will outline the specifics of the Corps.
Title IV: Requires agencies to address human capital needs, particularly those that relate to national security, in their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports.
"Homeland Security Education Act"
Title I: Subsidizes loan interest for persons who obtain undergraduate degrees in mathematics, science, or a foreign language. As long as they remain in repayment status and not in default, the Federal Government assumes the interest payments on their educational loans.
Title II: Directs the National Science Foundation to provide grants to elementary and secondary schools to build or expand their math and science curricula and to study the coordination of such efforts with those of the Department of Education. The Title also encourages private sector involvement through the donation of technology tools and establishment of internship and mentoring opportunities for math and science students.
Title III: Promotes foreign language education by developing grant programs for all educational levels (elementary school through university). University level programs include math and science studies that are taught in conjunction with, or are conducted entirely in, a foreign language. The bill also authorizes a National Flagship Language Initiative, which awards grants to universities producing graduates in critical language areas.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/120501press.htm
Thompson Applauds Mineta Airport Security Plan
Thompson Applauds Administration for BringingPerformance Management to Airport Security Operations Says Secretary Mineta’s Plan will Improve SecurityWednesday, October 31, 2001
WASHINGTON - Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) today applauded the Administration’s plan to use performance management as a tool to improve airport security.“Secretary Mineta has outlined an aggressive approach to securing our nation’s airports,” said Senator Thompson. “He is bringing performance management to airport security operations and holding airlines accountable where it counts. The current environment requires nothing less and I commend the Administration for insisting on improved performance in this area.” The Department of Transportation yesterday outlined new stricter security standards for aviation security and insisted that “airlines’ ability to move planes will be more strictly tied to their ability to maximize security.” The performance management strategy announced by Secretary Mineta will hold airlines, airports, and other organizations accountable for meeting these stricter security standards.An amendment offered by Senator Thompson to make performance management a permanent part of airport security management was included in the Aviation Security Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 100 - 0.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/103101pressthompson.htm
WASHINGTON - Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) today applauded the Administration’s plan to use performance management as a tool to improve airport security.“Secretary Mineta has outlined an aggressive approach to securing our nation’s airports,” said Senator Thompson. “He is bringing performance management to airport security operations and holding airlines accountable where it counts. The current environment requires nothing less and I commend the Administration for insisting on improved performance in this area.” The Department of Transportation yesterday outlined new stricter security standards for aviation security and insisted that “airlines’ ability to move planes will be more strictly tied to their ability to maximize security.” The performance management strategy announced by Secretary Mineta will hold airlines, airports, and other organizations accountable for meeting these stricter security standards.An amendment offered by Senator Thompson to make performance management a permanent part of airport security management was included in the Aviation Security Act, which passed the Senate by a vote of 100 - 0.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/103101pressthompson.htm
Thompson Provision On Public Regulation Passes
SENATE AGAIN PASSES THOMPSON PROVISION PROMOTINGPUBLIC’S RIGHT TO KNOW COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REGULATION
Thompson Will Continue Push To Make Requirement Permanent
Washington, D.C. -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) announced that the Senate has again extended his reporting requirement for the federal government to disclose the costs and benefits of its regulations. His provision was first passed by Congress as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill last year. Senator Thompson has introduced legislation, S. 59, to make this requirement permanent.
“The public has a right to know the benefits and costs of government regulations,” Thompson said. “That’s why I sponsored this regulatory accounting legislation last year, and I’m pleased that the requirement was retained this year. It will shed light on the benefits and burdens of federal regulations, and it will hold federal regulators more accountable to make smarter, cost-effective decisions that get real results. I will continue to press to make this a permanent requirement.”
According to Thompson, the federal government has largely ignored the “off-budget” costs of government -- the economic burdens that federal regulations place on families, businesses, and state and local governments.
Thompson said he was pleased that last year his regulatory accounting amendment received broad bipartisan support and passed the Senate unanimously. This year, the Thompson provision again passed without objection.
“We represent diverse political viewpoints, but we all agree that we need to improve our regulatory system and make it more open and accountable,” Thompson said. “I’m pleased that both Republicans and Democrats can come together to make our government more efficient and effective.”
The Thompson language builds on and strengthens the regulatory accounting provision passed by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) in 1996. It requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide Congress with an accounting statement of the total annual benefits and costs of federal regulatory programs in February 2001, along with a summary of public comments and suggestions for doing things better. It requires the OMB to analyze the impacts of federal rules on state and local government, as well as small business. The language also requires OMB to issue guidelines to the agencies and requires independent peer review of the report to improve the quality of these reports.
“This legislation will help hold federal regulators accountable and reduce needless waste and red tape,” Thompson said. “It will improve efforts to protect public health, safety and the environment, and to promote the economic security and well-being of our families and communities.”
The cost of federal regulatory programs has been estimated at $700 billion a year. The goal of this legislation is to help assess and improve the performance of those programs.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/070299_press.htm
Thompson Will Continue Push To Make Requirement Permanent
Washington, D.C. -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) announced that the Senate has again extended his reporting requirement for the federal government to disclose the costs and benefits of its regulations. His provision was first passed by Congress as part of the Omnibus Appropriations Bill last year. Senator Thompson has introduced legislation, S. 59, to make this requirement permanent.
“The public has a right to know the benefits and costs of government regulations,” Thompson said. “That’s why I sponsored this regulatory accounting legislation last year, and I’m pleased that the requirement was retained this year. It will shed light on the benefits and burdens of federal regulations, and it will hold federal regulators more accountable to make smarter, cost-effective decisions that get real results. I will continue to press to make this a permanent requirement.”
According to Thompson, the federal government has largely ignored the “off-budget” costs of government -- the economic burdens that federal regulations place on families, businesses, and state and local governments.
Thompson said he was pleased that last year his regulatory accounting amendment received broad bipartisan support and passed the Senate unanimously. This year, the Thompson provision again passed without objection.
“We represent diverse political viewpoints, but we all agree that we need to improve our regulatory system and make it more open and accountable,” Thompson said. “I’m pleased that both Republicans and Democrats can come together to make our government more efficient and effective.”
The Thompson language builds on and strengthens the regulatory accounting provision passed by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) in 1996. It requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide Congress with an accounting statement of the total annual benefits and costs of federal regulatory programs in February 2001, along with a summary of public comments and suggestions for doing things better. It requires the OMB to analyze the impacts of federal rules on state and local government, as well as small business. The language also requires OMB to issue guidelines to the agencies and requires independent peer review of the report to improve the quality of these reports.
“This legislation will help hold federal regulators accountable and reduce needless waste and red tape,” Thompson said. “It will improve efforts to protect public health, safety and the environment, and to promote the economic security and well-being of our families and communities.”
The cost of federal regulatory programs has been estimated at $700 billion a year. The goal of this legislation is to help assess and improve the performance of those programs.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/070299_press.htm
Thompson-Warner Bill to Allow Homeland Security Agencies to Purchase Tools they Need to Fight Terror
Thompson and Warner Introduce Bill to Allow Homeland SecurityAgencies to Purchase Tools they Need to Fight Terrorism Agencies will now be able to purchase the high-tech tools they need more quickly and efficientlyThursday, December 6, 2001
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Armed Services Ranking Member John Warner (R-VA) today introduced legislation at the request of the President, the Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act, that will grant the Executive Branch expanded authority to purchase goods and services under expedited procedures in its fight against terrorism.
"In ordinary times, because of recent prtrained contracting officers," said Senator Thompson. "However," he continued, "these are not ordinary times."
ocurement policy reforms, we believe that a federal agency can buy most anything it needs quickly and efficiently under current law if it has good management practices in place and smart, well-The bill is intended to give federal agencies the flexibility they need to purchase the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks. It builds on emergency contracting authority already in place for the Department of Defense and other agencies and goes further by providing additional contracting flexibilities.
"It is our responsibility to ensure that Federal agencies with a role in homeland security can purchase – quickly and efficiently – the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks," said Senator Thompson.
The bill:
• Streamlines procurement procedures for contingency operations or peacekeeping and humanitarian operations;
• Permits agencies to use more "commercial-style" contracting contracting procedures for technologies or products which are cutting-edge;
• Allows agencies to use approaches other than contracts to buy research and development for new technologies to fight against terrorism; and• Requires agencies to do ongoing market research to identify new companies with new capabilities, including small businesses, to help agencies in the fight against terrorism.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/120601Thompsonpress.htm
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) and Armed Services Ranking Member John Warner (R-VA) today introduced legislation at the request of the President, the Federal Emergency Procurement Flexibility Act, that will grant the Executive Branch expanded authority to purchase goods and services under expedited procedures in its fight against terrorism.
"In ordinary times, because of recent prtrained contracting officers," said Senator Thompson. "However," he continued, "these are not ordinary times."
ocurement policy reforms, we believe that a federal agency can buy most anything it needs quickly and efficiently under current law if it has good management practices in place and smart, well-The bill is intended to give federal agencies the flexibility they need to purchase the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks. It builds on emergency contracting authority already in place for the Department of Defense and other agencies and goes further by providing additional contracting flexibilities.
"It is our responsibility to ensure that Federal agencies with a role in homeland security can purchase – quickly and efficiently – the most high-tech and sophisticated products and services to support antiterrorism efforts and to defend against biological, chemical, nuclear, radiological or technological attacks," said Senator Thompson.
The bill:
• Streamlines procurement procedures for contingency operations or peacekeeping and humanitarian operations;
• Permits agencies to use more "commercial-style" contracting contracting procedures for technologies or products which are cutting-edge;
• Allows agencies to use approaches other than contracts to buy research and development for new technologies to fight against terrorism; and• Requires agencies to do ongoing market research to identify new companies with new capabilities, including small businesses, to help agencies in the fight against terrorism.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/120601Thompsonpress.htm
Congress Passes Thompson Legislation Promoting Public Rights To Know Costs and Benefits of Regulation
CONGRESS PASSES THOMPSON LEGISLATION PROMOTING
PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REGULATION
Washington, D.C. -- Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) announced that the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, passed by the House yesterday and the Senate today, includes language Thompson introduced that will require the government to disclose the benefits and the costs of federal regulatory programs to the American people.
"It's time that we acknowledge the public's right to know the benefits and costs of government regulations," Thompson said. "That's why I sponsored this regulatory accounting legislation. It will shed light on the benefits and burdens of federal regulations, and it will hold federal regulators more accountable to make smart, cost-effective decisions that get real results."
The federal government has largely ignored the "off-budget" costs of government -- the economic burdens that federal regulations place on families, businesses, and state and local governments.
Thompson said he was pleased that Majority Leader Trent Lott, along with Senators John Breaux (D-LA), Charles Robb (D-VA) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), cosponsored an early version of the language, which passed the Senate unanimously in July as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill, S.2312.
"We represent diverse political viewpoints, but we all agree that we need to improve our regulatory system and make it more open and accountable," Thompson said. "I'm pleased that both Republicans and Democrats can come together to make our government more efficient and effective."
The Thompson Amendment builds on and strengthens the regulatory accounting provision passed by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) in 1996. The Thompson language requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide Congress with an accounting statement of the total annual benefits and costs of federal regulatory programs in February 2000, along with a summary of public comments and suggestions for doing things better. It also requires the OMB to analyze the impacts of federal rules on state and local government, as well as small business. The amendment also requires OMB guidelines to the agencies and independent peer review of the report to improve the quality of these reports.
"This legislation will help hold federal regulators accountable and reduce needless waste and red tape," Thompson said. "It will improve efforts to protect public health, safety and the environment, and to promote the economic security and well-being of our families and communities."
The cost of federal regulatory programs is estimated at $700 billion a year. The goal of this legislation is to help assess and improve the performance of those programs.
Attached are Thompson's October 9 floor remarks.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/102198press.htm
PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO KNOW COSTS AND BENEFITS OF REGULATION
Washington, D.C. -- Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) announced that the FY 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, passed by the House yesterday and the Senate today, includes language Thompson introduced that will require the government to disclose the benefits and the costs of federal regulatory programs to the American people.
"It's time that we acknowledge the public's right to know the benefits and costs of government regulations," Thompson said. "That's why I sponsored this regulatory accounting legislation. It will shed light on the benefits and burdens of federal regulations, and it will hold federal regulators more accountable to make smart, cost-effective decisions that get real results."
The federal government has largely ignored the "off-budget" costs of government -- the economic burdens that federal regulations place on families, businesses, and state and local governments.
Thompson said he was pleased that Majority Leader Trent Lott, along with Senators John Breaux (D-LA), Charles Robb (D-VA) and Richard Shelby (R-AL), cosponsored an early version of the language, which passed the Senate unanimously in July as an amendment to the Treasury-Postal Appropriations Bill, S.2312.
"We represent diverse political viewpoints, but we all agree that we need to improve our regulatory system and make it more open and accountable," Thompson said. "I'm pleased that both Republicans and Democrats can come together to make our government more efficient and effective."
The Thompson Amendment builds on and strengthens the regulatory accounting provision passed by Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) in 1996. The Thompson language requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to provide Congress with an accounting statement of the total annual benefits and costs of federal regulatory programs in February 2000, along with a summary of public comments and suggestions for doing things better. It also requires the OMB to analyze the impacts of federal rules on state and local government, as well as small business. The amendment also requires OMB guidelines to the agencies and independent peer review of the report to improve the quality of these reports.
"This legislation will help hold federal regulators accountable and reduce needless waste and red tape," Thompson said. "It will improve efforts to protect public health, safety and the environment, and to promote the economic security and well-being of our families and communities."
The cost of federal regulatory programs is estimated at $700 billion a year. The goal of this legislation is to help assess and improve the performance of those programs.
Attached are Thompson's October 9 floor remarks.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/102198press.htm
1998- Thompson Calls for Arms and Dual-Use Export Investigation
August 26, 1998
THOMPSON CALLS FOR ARMS AND DUAL-USE EXPORT INVESTIGATION
Washington, D.C. -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today directed the Inspectors General of six government agencies to conduct an interagency investigation of the licensing process for dual-use items and munitions. The review is a follow up to hearings the Committee held in June, where Dr. Peter Leitner, a Defense Department licensing analyst, provided a troubling assessment of how critical technologies are often exported over the opposition of government analysts trying to protect national security.
"Our June hearing indicated that the current review process appears to be rigged in favor of commercial interests rather than our national security interests, " said Senator Thompson. "It is time to take an independent, in-depth look at the situation."
In some instances, as Dr. Leitner explained, critical technologies, including precision machine tools and high performance computers, have been transferred to Russia and China, over the strong objections of Department of Defense analysts. These devices have ended up in foreign facilities that design and build cruise missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons. In at least one case, Leitner said, his recommendation to deny an export license was changed without his knowledge in the official decisional database.
"Tampering with official databases is a very serious problem. And I am concerned that the licensing process is plagued by other problems as well. At a time when terrorism and nuclear proliferation remind us of how dangerous a place the world is, it is crucial to ensure that the licensing process for exporting sensitive technologies works properly," remarked Thompson.
The Committee's request is similar to a 1993 interagency investigation conducted by several Inspectors General. The 1993 study found significant problems in the arms export licensing process, and there appears to have been little follow up to address the IG's concerns.
"From what we are hearing, the licensing process may indeed have gotten worse, not better since 1993," Thompson said. "We need to do what it takes to restore the balance between maintaining national security and promoting commerce."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/082698press.htm
THOMPSON CALLS FOR ARMS AND DUAL-USE EXPORT INVESTIGATION
Washington, D.C. -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today directed the Inspectors General of six government agencies to conduct an interagency investigation of the licensing process for dual-use items and munitions. The review is a follow up to hearings the Committee held in June, where Dr. Peter Leitner, a Defense Department licensing analyst, provided a troubling assessment of how critical technologies are often exported over the opposition of government analysts trying to protect national security.
"Our June hearing indicated that the current review process appears to be rigged in favor of commercial interests rather than our national security interests, " said Senator Thompson. "It is time to take an independent, in-depth look at the situation."
In some instances, as Dr. Leitner explained, critical technologies, including precision machine tools and high performance computers, have been transferred to Russia and China, over the strong objections of Department of Defense analysts. These devices have ended up in foreign facilities that design and build cruise missiles, intercontinental ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons. In at least one case, Leitner said, his recommendation to deny an export license was changed without his knowledge in the official decisional database.
"Tampering with official databases is a very serious problem. And I am concerned that the licensing process is plagued by other problems as well. At a time when terrorism and nuclear proliferation remind us of how dangerous a place the world is, it is crucial to ensure that the licensing process for exporting sensitive technologies works properly," remarked Thompson.
The Committee's request is similar to a 1993 interagency investigation conducted by several Inspectors General. The 1993 study found significant problems in the arms export licensing process, and there appears to have been little follow up to address the IG's concerns.
"From what we are hearing, the licensing process may indeed have gotten worse, not better since 1993," Thompson said. "We need to do what it takes to restore the balance between maintaining national security and promoting commerce."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/082698press.htm
Levin-Thompson Regulatory Improvement Act
SCIENTISTS COUNCIL BACKS SUBSTANCE OF LEVIN-THOMPSON BILL
Washington, DC--In a letter to Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), said the group strongly agreed with the key cost/benefit and risk assessment provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981).
"To ask the Federal government," Whelan said, "to make use of better, modern decision-making tools such as cost-benefit and risk-analysis safeguards is plain common sense, good public policy and good science."
With respect to concerns that the measure's cost-benefit and risk-assessment provisions might not protect against hazards such as tainted meat, toxic wastes and polluted water, Whelan said "these fears represent a basic misunderstanding of cost-benefit and risk assessment because such tests would be the strongest evidence that regulation is indeed necessary."
Thompson said, "I am very pleased that this respected group of prominent scientists and physicians would support the key elements of the Regulatory Improvement Act. The Levin-Thompson bill requires the federal government to make better use of modern decision-making tools such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, which are currently under-utilized. Right now, these tools are simply options--options which are not used as often or as well as they should be. Our legislation will help the government focus money and other resources on the most serious problems."
The American Council on Science and Health is a non-profit, consumer-education consortium of more than 250 leading scientists and physicians. The association publishes numerous materials on important health topics, which are available on their web page at www.acsh.org.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/032498.htm
Washington, DC--In a letter to Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, President of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH), said the group strongly agreed with the key cost/benefit and risk assessment provisions of the Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981).
"To ask the Federal government," Whelan said, "to make use of better, modern decision-making tools such as cost-benefit and risk-analysis safeguards is plain common sense, good public policy and good science."
With respect to concerns that the measure's cost-benefit and risk-assessment provisions might not protect against hazards such as tainted meat, toxic wastes and polluted water, Whelan said "these fears represent a basic misunderstanding of cost-benefit and risk assessment because such tests would be the strongest evidence that regulation is indeed necessary."
Thompson said, "I am very pleased that this respected group of prominent scientists and physicians would support the key elements of the Regulatory Improvement Act. The Levin-Thompson bill requires the federal government to make better use of modern decision-making tools such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, which are currently under-utilized. Right now, these tools are simply options--options which are not used as often or as well as they should be. Our legislation will help the government focus money and other resources on the most serious problems."
The American Council on Science and Health is a non-profit, consumer-education consortium of more than 250 leading scientists and physicians. The association publishes numerous materials on important health topics, which are available on their web page at www.acsh.org.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/032498.htm
Thompson on IRS Accountability to Public
COMMITTEE HEARING ON IRS MANAGEMENT, PERSONNEL PRACTICES LOOKS AT IMPROVING IRS, CIVIL SERVICE ACCOUNTABILITY TO PUBLIC
Washington, DC--At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs today Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) said that lessons learned in reviewing the management practices and flexibilities at the Internal Revenue Service should be examined to determine their applicability across the broad spectrum of Civil Service.
"We are here today to take a close look at the management practices employed by the Internal Revenue Service," Thompson said, "and at how we might best restructure and improve the operations of this frontline agency which every day affects the quality of life of American taxpayers. It is important for us to learn what management and personnel practices should be used to increase accountability by the IRS to the American people.
"If these management tools and practices help the IRS become more customer friendly and responsive to its customers, then we need to consider whether they might be applicable as well to other federal agencies.
"Each agency has its own unique mandate, goals and mission, and we clearly need to be careful that we don't create a complex maze of personnel systems which conflict with one another or run counter to our goal of making government more and more accountable to the people it serves.
"But we also need to find out what works best. We must determine if federal departments and agencies should be provided wide-ranging flexibility in their management and personnel plans, or whether there should be a substantial federal overlay which stretches across all agencies and missions. These are not easy questions to answer, and they deserve our best effort to find appropriate management solutions."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/031298.htm
Washington, DC--At a hearing of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs today Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) said that lessons learned in reviewing the management practices and flexibilities at the Internal Revenue Service should be examined to determine their applicability across the broad spectrum of Civil Service.
"We are here today to take a close look at the management practices employed by the Internal Revenue Service," Thompson said, "and at how we might best restructure and improve the operations of this frontline agency which every day affects the quality of life of American taxpayers. It is important for us to learn what management and personnel practices should be used to increase accountability by the IRS to the American people.
"If these management tools and practices help the IRS become more customer friendly and responsive to its customers, then we need to consider whether they might be applicable as well to other federal agencies.
"Each agency has its own unique mandate, goals and mission, and we clearly need to be careful that we don't create a complex maze of personnel systems which conflict with one another or run counter to our goal of making government more and more accountable to the people it serves.
"But we also need to find out what works best. We must determine if federal departments and agencies should be provided wide-ranging flexibility in their management and personnel plans, or whether there should be a substantial federal overlay which stretches across all agencies and missions. These are not easy questions to answer, and they deserve our best effort to find appropriate management solutions."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/031298.htm
Thompson Federal Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998
THOMPSON ANNOUNCES GAO REPORT RESULTS: UNFUNDED MANDATES ACT HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON FEDERAL RULEMAKING, SHOWS NEED FOR REGULATORY IMPROVEMENT ACT
Washington, DC-Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today announced that in response to his study request, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a report showing that the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 has had little effect on the way federal agencies make rules. Thompson is sponsoring legislation to make regulation more effective and efficient.
"When I became Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee last year, I asked the General Accounting Office to investigate whether the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was improving regulations, which was one of its goals," Thompson said. "Unfortunately, the answer is no."
"These findings show the need for reform legislation to shine some light on the rulemaking process, to improve the quality of agency decisions, and to make the federal government more accountable to the people it serves. The federal government should be more sensitive to how unfunded mandates and red tape can burden communities and interfere with state priorities.
"I view the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998 as really phase two of the unfunded mandates reform effort, because it will make federal regulators-not just Congress-more sensitive to local needs."
Thompson, along with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), this week made public their bipartisan Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998, which they believe will result in smarter, more effective and more efficient regulations by improving the way agencies make regulatory decisions.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was designed to keep the federal government from imposing expensive mandates on states and local governments without paying for them. In part, it requires federal agencies to prepare a written analysis of any especially costly mandates handed down to State, local or tribal governments.
However, the recent GAO report entitled, Unfunded Mandates: Reform Act Has Had Little Effect on Agencies' Rulemaking Actions, finds that the legislation has failed to improve the way federal agencies make rulemaking decisions.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/020698.htm
Washington, DC-Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today announced that in response to his study request, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) has issued a report showing that the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 has had little effect on the way federal agencies make rules. Thompson is sponsoring legislation to make regulation more effective and efficient.
"When I became Chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee last year, I asked the General Accounting Office to investigate whether the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was improving regulations, which was one of its goals," Thompson said. "Unfortunately, the answer is no."
"These findings show the need for reform legislation to shine some light on the rulemaking process, to improve the quality of agency decisions, and to make the federal government more accountable to the people it serves. The federal government should be more sensitive to how unfunded mandates and red tape can burden communities and interfere with state priorities.
"I view the Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998 as really phase two of the unfunded mandates reform effort, because it will make federal regulators-not just Congress-more sensitive to local needs."
Thompson, along with Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), this week made public their bipartisan Regulatory Improvement Act of 1998, which they believe will result in smarter, more effective and more efficient regulations by improving the way agencies make regulatory decisions.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 was designed to keep the federal government from imposing expensive mandates on states and local governments without paying for them. In part, it requires federal agencies to prepare a written analysis of any especially costly mandates handed down to State, local or tribal governments.
However, the recent GAO report entitled, Unfunded Mandates: Reform Act Has Had Little Effect on Agencies' Rulemaking Actions, finds that the legislation has failed to improve the way federal agencies make rulemaking decisions.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/020698.htm
Thompson Legislation to Protect Federal Information Systems
Thompson Introduces Legislation to Protect Federal Computer and Information Systems
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) has introduced legislation to prevent the lapse of the Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA), an important law which protects federal information systems from vulnerability to computer attacks by international and domestic terrorists, crime rings, and hackers.
"According to a recent survey, a majority of information technology professionals believe a major attack against the government is likely in the next year, and even more recognize the gap between the threat of an attack and the government’s preparedness. This is very telling. We are fighting a new war in a new age on unconventional fronts. We can not afford to overlook our nation’s technology infrastructure as we secure our homeland," said Thompson.
After numerous Governmental Affairs Committee hearings and General Accounting Office reports identifying systematic failures of government information systems, Congress enacted the Government Information Security Reform Act, which requires federal agencies to develop and implement security policies. The law also provides the Office of Management and Budget with the authority to demand from agencies better plans for improving computer security. However, this law includes a sunset provision and is set to expire November 29, 2002. Senator Thompson’s legislation,
S. 3067, repeals the sunset and makes permanent the Government Information Security Reform Act.
"We must ensure that Federal agencies continue to protect their assets and prevent hackers and cyberterrorists from wreaking havoc with citizens’ sensitive information. Americans trust that their personal information, such as taxpayer data, veterans’ medical records, and social security portfolios, will be kept safe. Information security is too important to let this bill expire."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/100902press.htm
Wednesday, October 9, 2002
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) has introduced legislation to prevent the lapse of the Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA), an important law which protects federal information systems from vulnerability to computer attacks by international and domestic terrorists, crime rings, and hackers.
"According to a recent survey, a majority of information technology professionals believe a major attack against the government is likely in the next year, and even more recognize the gap between the threat of an attack and the government’s preparedness. This is very telling. We are fighting a new war in a new age on unconventional fronts. We can not afford to overlook our nation’s technology infrastructure as we secure our homeland," said Thompson.
After numerous Governmental Affairs Committee hearings and General Accounting Office reports identifying systematic failures of government information systems, Congress enacted the Government Information Security Reform Act, which requires federal agencies to develop and implement security policies. The law also provides the Office of Management and Budget with the authority to demand from agencies better plans for improving computer security. However, this law includes a sunset provision and is set to expire November 29, 2002. Senator Thompson’s legislation,
S. 3067, repeals the sunset and makes permanent the Government Information Security Reform Act.
"We must ensure that Federal agencies continue to protect their assets and prevent hackers and cyberterrorists from wreaking havoc with citizens’ sensitive information. Americans trust that their personal information, such as taxpayer data, veterans’ medical records, and social security portfolios, will be kept safe. Information security is too important to let this bill expire."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/100902press.htm
House Adopts Thompson Aviation Security Amendment
HOUSE/SENATE CONFEREES ADOPT THOMPSON AMENDMENT REQUIRING STRICT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR AVIATION SECURITYMeasure Provides Accountability to Aviation Security BillFriday, November 16, 2001
WASHINGTON - The House/Senate Conference on the Aviation Security Bill today adopted an amendment by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) to the Aviation Security Act requiring the federal government to enforce strict standards for airport security personnel. The Thompson measure requires 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 mindset with regard to measuring airport security performance," Thompson said, noting that in the past government performance standards have focused on measuring things such as time spent training and hours worked between breaks."The primary concern of the American people is the bottom line - whether or not dangerous objects are getting past screeners and whether or not unauthorized individuals are gaining access to secure areas in our airports. That's what people care about, that's what we're going to measure from now on, and that's how employee performance will be judged," Thompson said. "This is the kind of thing that will restore confidence in air travel."At a Wednesday, November 14 Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on aviation security, Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead testified that in order to improve aviation security, we must "require passenger and baggage screeners to have uniform, more rigorous . . . performance standards nationwide." He applauded the Thompson amendment to the Aviation Security Act, calling the requirement to set measurable goals and objectives for aviation security "particularly noteworthy. It is important that performance standards be established for screeners, whether they are federal or contract employees," Mead stated.Thompson's amendment requires the new head of aviation security to implement results-based management in airport security operations by establishing an annual staff performance management system that includes requiring managers and employees to meet individual, group, and organizational performance goals consistent with an annual performance plan.The Thompson amendment also requires the new head of aviation security to establish specific performance standards and establish a long-term process for reporting performance results to Congress annually.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/111601thompsonpress.htm
WASHINGTON - The House/Senate Conference on the Aviation Security Bill today adopted an amendment by Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) to the Aviation Security Act requiring the federal government to enforce strict standards for airport security personnel. The Thompson measure requires 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 mindset with regard to measuring airport security performance," Thompson said, noting that in the past government performance standards have focused on measuring things such as time spent training and hours worked between breaks."The primary concern of the American people is the bottom line - whether or not dangerous objects are getting past screeners and whether or not unauthorized individuals are gaining access to secure areas in our airports. That's what people care about, that's what we're going to measure from now on, and that's how employee performance will be judged," Thompson said. "This is the kind of thing that will restore confidence in air travel."At a Wednesday, November 14 Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on aviation security, Department of Transportation Inspector General Kenneth Mead testified that in order to improve aviation security, we must "require passenger and baggage screeners to have uniform, more rigorous . . . performance standards nationwide." He applauded the Thompson amendment to the Aviation Security Act, calling the requirement to set measurable goals and objectives for aviation security "particularly noteworthy. It is important that performance standards be established for screeners, whether they are federal or contract employees," Mead stated.Thompson's amendment requires the new head of aviation security to implement results-based management in airport security operations by establishing an annual staff performance management system that includes requiring managers and employees to meet individual, group, and organizational performance goals consistent with an annual performance plan.The Thompson amendment also requires the new head of aviation security to establish specific performance standards and establish a long-term process for reporting performance results to Congress annually.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/111601thompsonpress.htm
Thompson's 2001 Assessment of Federal Agencies
June 19, 2001
Thompson Assesses Performance of Federal Agencies"If we can’t do better than this, we might as well hang it up and consign the Results Act to the scrap heap of failed management ‘reforms.’"
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) testified today before the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency regarding the status of performance management in the federal government. Thompson categorized performance reports’ shortcomings in four different areas: the inability to assess an agency’s performance; the inability to compare programs across government; poor or inadequate data on performance; and an unwillingness among agencies to set goals to resolve long-standing problems in federal programs.
Senator Thompson told the Subcommittee, "While the FY 2000 reports submitted this year show modest improvement over the FY 1999 versions, I think both rounds of performance reports suffer from major shortcomings that prevent them from being nearly as informative and useful as they need to be." He continued, "Obviously, the Results Act hasn’t come close to reaching its potential as a tool to improve government performance."
Thompson discussed some specific details about the 2000 Performance Reports, drawing comparisons between good and bad reports, and highlighting several agencies that showed marked improvement. HHS, for instance, reported that FDA made significant progress in getting the public prompt access to safe and effective drugs. Although GAO found performance data was unavailable for most of FDA's goals last year, this year’s report shows that FDA met or exceeded most of its performance targets. Thompson also singled out the Labor Department for praise, pointing out that this year's report shows significant progress in transitioning individuals from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency,.
However, Thompson also gave numerous examples of poor, and even deceptive, reporting. Thompson criticized reporting by the Energy Department, especially in cases where the reported performance did not match actual performance. For example, although Energy reported meeting a measure to complete cleanup at two sites, it noted that additional work remained to be done at one of those sites. Thompson also criticized the Defense Department, which reported performance that "did not always hold up to scrutiny." For instance, in its report, Defense states that it met its target cycle time for average major defense acquisition programs. Unfortunately, DOD’s cycle time was actually 2 months longer in 2000 than it was in the previous year.
Thompson ended his testimony before the House Subcommittee on an optimistic note: "I’m very encouraged that our leaders in the Executive Branch are committed to turning things around. OMB Director Mitch Daniels reaffirmed recently that making real use of the Results Act is a top priority for the Administration. I will continue to do everything I can to make this a reality. I challenge my colleagues to do likewise."
Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (Public Law 103-62), agencies are required to report to Congress and the American people each year on the extent to which they are achieving their annual goals. The stated purpose for the Results Act was "to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results." Results are to be reported to Congress by March 31st of each year.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/061901_press.htm
Thompson Assesses Performance of Federal Agencies"If we can’t do better than this, we might as well hang it up and consign the Results Act to the scrap heap of failed management ‘reforms.’"
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) testified today before the House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency regarding the status of performance management in the federal government. Thompson categorized performance reports’ shortcomings in four different areas: the inability to assess an agency’s performance; the inability to compare programs across government; poor or inadequate data on performance; and an unwillingness among agencies to set goals to resolve long-standing problems in federal programs.
Senator Thompson told the Subcommittee, "While the FY 2000 reports submitted this year show modest improvement over the FY 1999 versions, I think both rounds of performance reports suffer from major shortcomings that prevent them from being nearly as informative and useful as they need to be." He continued, "Obviously, the Results Act hasn’t come close to reaching its potential as a tool to improve government performance."
Thompson discussed some specific details about the 2000 Performance Reports, drawing comparisons between good and bad reports, and highlighting several agencies that showed marked improvement. HHS, for instance, reported that FDA made significant progress in getting the public prompt access to safe and effective drugs. Although GAO found performance data was unavailable for most of FDA's goals last year, this year’s report shows that FDA met or exceeded most of its performance targets. Thompson also singled out the Labor Department for praise, pointing out that this year's report shows significant progress in transitioning individuals from welfare dependency to self-sufficiency,.
However, Thompson also gave numerous examples of poor, and even deceptive, reporting. Thompson criticized reporting by the Energy Department, especially in cases where the reported performance did not match actual performance. For example, although Energy reported meeting a measure to complete cleanup at two sites, it noted that additional work remained to be done at one of those sites. Thompson also criticized the Defense Department, which reported performance that "did not always hold up to scrutiny." For instance, in its report, Defense states that it met its target cycle time for average major defense acquisition programs. Unfortunately, DOD’s cycle time was actually 2 months longer in 2000 than it was in the previous year.
Thompson ended his testimony before the House Subcommittee on an optimistic note: "I’m very encouraged that our leaders in the Executive Branch are committed to turning things around. OMB Director Mitch Daniels reaffirmed recently that making real use of the Results Act is a top priority for the Administration. I will continue to do everything I can to make this a reality. I challenge my colleagues to do likewise."
Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act (Public Law 103-62), agencies are required to report to Congress and the American people each year on the extent to which they are achieving their annual goals. The stated purpose for the Results Act was "to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of Federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results." Results are to be reported to Congress by March 31st of each year.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/061901_press.htm
Thompson Amendment for Airline Security
THOMPSON AMENDMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR BAGGAGE SCREENERSMeasure Will Provide Accountability to Aviation Security BillThursday, October 4, 2001
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) has introduced an amendment to the Aviation Security Act that will require the federal government to set and enforce strict standards to keep the flying public safe. The measure requires that those responsible for airport security be held accountable for meeting performance goals, from the head of the FAA to airport screeners.“We have to send a strong message that no longer will it be business as usual when it comes to screening luggage at our airports. We need make sure that the screening workforce and their managers will be held accountable,” Thompson said. “One of the ways we can restore confidence in airline travel is by letting the American people know that strict screening standards are in place, and are being met.”Thompson noted the General Accounting Office has reported that average detection rates at airports throughout the country have decreased from about 95% in 1993 to 85% in 1999.“Clearly, airport security operations have not been held accountable for their performance in the past,” he said. “There has been no carrot, and no stick. Now there will be. Those who perform well will be rewarded, those who don’t will be replaced. In addition, those in charge of overseeing this effort will be required to report to Congress so we can monitor the results.”Thompson’s amendment requires the new head of aviation security to:C Implement results-based management in airport security operations, and;C Undertake certain human capital changes designed to reinforce such management by holding employees - whether public or private - accountable for meeting performance standards.To encourage this results-based management, Thompson’s amendment also does the following:C Establishes a term limit (three to five years) for the head of aviation security, who may be reappointed if performance is satisfactory;C Require annual performance agreements for head of aviation security and each senior manager setting out organizational and individual goals. Bonuses can be given for achievement of such goals.C Establish an annual staff performance management system that includes setting individual, group, and organizational performance goals consistent with an annual performance plan.The Thompson amendment also requires the new head of aviation security to establish specific performance standards and provide Congress with an action plan within 60 days to meet those levels; and to establish a long-term process for reporting performance results to Congress annually.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/100401thompsonpress.htm
WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) has introduced an amendment to the Aviation Security Act that will require the federal government to set and enforce strict standards to keep the flying public safe. The measure requires that those responsible for airport security be held accountable for meeting performance goals, from the head of the FAA to airport screeners.“We have to send a strong message that no longer will it be business as usual when it comes to screening luggage at our airports. We need make sure that the screening workforce and their managers will be held accountable,” Thompson said. “One of the ways we can restore confidence in airline travel is by letting the American people know that strict screening standards are in place, and are being met.”Thompson noted the General Accounting Office has reported that average detection rates at airports throughout the country have decreased from about 95% in 1993 to 85% in 1999.“Clearly, airport security operations have not been held accountable for their performance in the past,” he said. “There has been no carrot, and no stick. Now there will be. Those who perform well will be rewarded, those who don’t will be replaced. In addition, those in charge of overseeing this effort will be required to report to Congress so we can monitor the results.”Thompson’s amendment requires the new head of aviation security to:C Implement results-based management in airport security operations, and;C Undertake certain human capital changes designed to reinforce such management by holding employees - whether public or private - accountable for meeting performance standards.To encourage this results-based management, Thompson’s amendment also does the following:C Establishes a term limit (three to five years) for the head of aviation security, who may be reappointed if performance is satisfactory;C Require annual performance agreements for head of aviation security and each senior manager setting out organizational and individual goals. Bonuses can be given for achievement of such goals.C Establish an annual staff performance management system that includes setting individual, group, and organizational performance goals consistent with an annual performance plan.The Thompson amendment also requires the new head of aviation security to establish specific performance standards and provide Congress with an action plan within 60 days to meet those levels; and to establish a long-term process for reporting performance results to Congress annually.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/100401thompsonpress.htm
Senator Thompson; Federal Management Reform and the War on Terror
THOMPSON SAYS FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REFORM VITALFOR SUCCESSFUL BATTLE AGAINST TERRORISMMonday, December 3, 2001
WASHINGTON - Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) Friday stressed the need for the federal government to fix persistent management problems plaguing federal agencies that threaten national preparedness and response in the war against terrorism. Thompson’s remarks came during a panel discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the American Enterprise Institute’s "Winning the War Against Terrorism - Next Steps" conference.
"We’ve had years of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, and a government that can’t balance it’s books is a government that’s clearly unprepared to meet the challenges that are here and on the horizon," said Thompson, who has been pleased with the Bush Administration’s early efforts to address management reform. "We’ve got to look across the board and see what we’re really going to have to have in terms of financial management, critical infrastructure, public health systems, and private partnerships in order to get the job done."
Thompson said federal management needs have been sidelined for other national priorities for too long and that government reform is now of critical importance. He pointed out the national security dimension of the human capital crisis, as agencies and departments struggle to recruit and retain people for positions throughout the federal government. "We need to rearrange our domestic priorities," he said. "Clearly, we must do more militarily, increase spending as we’ve been told by the Congressional Budget Office to do, modernize, realign, and work more with the intelligence community."
Despite early successes in the war against terrorism, Thompson said sustaining American will in this war will be an ongoing effort. He urged the United States to prove its willingness to use the military, technological, and intelligence might it has, but has been reluctant to use in previous engagements for fear of destabilizing international coalitions.
"There’s a cost to alliances, as we’ve seen with our troops returning from Desert Storm without finishing up the job decisively," Thompson said. "We must not compromise what’s in our interest for the sake of a coalition. I’ve been afraid that our enemies looking at our history, in Beruit, Somalia, and Haiti for example, would think we have the technological power necessary, but not the will. I think that idea is being dispelled, but we have to really prove that we have the will to use what we have at our disposal."
He continued, "We were not prepared for what happened on September 11, but we should have been. We had plenty of warnings and we knew that international terrorists were becoming bolder and more aggressive. But we were unwilling to confront those supporting terrorist networks. We cannot afford to avoid this problem any longer."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/120301press.htm
WASHINGTON - Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN) Friday stressed the need for the federal government to fix persistent management problems plaguing federal agencies that threaten national preparedness and response in the war against terrorism. Thompson’s remarks came during a panel discussion with former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the American Enterprise Institute’s "Winning the War Against Terrorism - Next Steps" conference.
"We’ve had years of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government, and a government that can’t balance it’s books is a government that’s clearly unprepared to meet the challenges that are here and on the horizon," said Thompson, who has been pleased with the Bush Administration’s early efforts to address management reform. "We’ve got to look across the board and see what we’re really going to have to have in terms of financial management, critical infrastructure, public health systems, and private partnerships in order to get the job done."
Thompson said federal management needs have been sidelined for other national priorities for too long and that government reform is now of critical importance. He pointed out the national security dimension of the human capital crisis, as agencies and departments struggle to recruit and retain people for positions throughout the federal government. "We need to rearrange our domestic priorities," he said. "Clearly, we must do more militarily, increase spending as we’ve been told by the Congressional Budget Office to do, modernize, realign, and work more with the intelligence community."
Despite early successes in the war against terrorism, Thompson said sustaining American will in this war will be an ongoing effort. He urged the United States to prove its willingness to use the military, technological, and intelligence might it has, but has been reluctant to use in previous engagements for fear of destabilizing international coalitions.
"There’s a cost to alliances, as we’ve seen with our troops returning from Desert Storm without finishing up the job decisively," Thompson said. "We must not compromise what’s in our interest for the sake of a coalition. I’ve been afraid that our enemies looking at our history, in Beruit, Somalia, and Haiti for example, would think we have the technological power necessary, but not the will. I think that idea is being dispelled, but we have to really prove that we have the will to use what we have at our disposal."
He continued, "We were not prepared for what happened on September 11, but we should have been. We had plenty of warnings and we knew that international terrorists were becoming bolder and more aggressive. But we were unwilling to confront those supporting terrorist networks. We cannot afford to avoid this problem any longer."
http://hsgac.senate.gov/120301press.htm
Thompson advocates increased flexibility for Homeland Security
THOMPSON ADVOCATES FOR INCREASED FLEXIBILITY IN HOMELAND SECURITY LEGISLATION
Tuesday, September 4, 2002
Washington, DC – Senator Fred Thompson, Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, opened debate today on S. 2452, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act, by outlining his concerns with the lack of management, personnel, and budget flexibility in the proposed legislation. Thompson also reiterated his opposition to the bill’s creation of a Directorate of Intelligence, which separates the Department’s information analysis functions from the critical infrastructure protection.
“Few need to be reminded why we are here. While September 11 was not the opening salvo, it was the event that forced us to confront the scope of the threats to our country and to recognize the need to do something significant and meaningful to address those threats,” said Thompson. “According to the legislation before us today, the mission of the new Department is to ‘promote homeland security,’ ‘prevent terrorist attacks,’ and ‘reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.’ I question how this new Department will possibly be able to fulfill its mission if it is bogged down by the same persistent management problems that face the rest of our government.”
Thompson argued that the current management paradigms are out-of-date for the modern, technological workforce needed by the federal government to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and that the current management structure puts no premium on accountability. Managers find it difficult to reward good performers, and even more difficult to sanction poor performers, according to Thompson.
“I fear that we are setting ourselves up for failure if we do not provide the new Secretary with the flexibility to manage the Department properly. We simply must give this new Department and this new Secretary the management tools with which to carry out this new massive and vitally important job,” Thompson said.
The creation of a Department of Homeland Security will consolidate 22 federal agencies composed of almost 70,000 employees, 17 different unions, 77 existing collective bargaining agreements, 7 payroll systems, and 80 different personnel management systems.
“Others argue that the Secretary does not need additional managerial tools or flexibility to take on this monumental task. And I agree with them that flexibility is not needed to set up another federal bureaucracy that resembles the rest of our federal government, or to replicate the problems that pervade our government in terms of federal workforce management, financial management, information technology management, and program overlap and duplication,” Thompson said. “Our goal in this new Department must not be to replicate failures, but rather to make improvements. If we can not improve our well known operational shortcomings now, that our nation’s security is at issue, when in the world will we ever be able to do so?”
Authority to exercise limited discretion over the Department’s budget is another managerial authority that Thompson believes is essential for the new Department. Similar to personnel flexibility, budget flexibility is not revolutionary. Congress often recognizes that, at times, there may be legitimate reasons to provide funding flexibility to agencies, as circumstances might occur that were not anticipated when an agency submitted its budget over a year or more ago.
“By maintaining the status quo, we are prohibiting the Secretary from accessing a single cent of the unexpended funds from agencies that are transferred to the new Department to assist in the transition. Instead, the Secretary must appeal to Congress to enact enabling legislation each and every time the new Department needs some flexibility to reorganize or to get the Department up and running successfully,” said Thompson.
On a separate issue, Thompson reiterated his opposition to the proposal’s creation of a Directorate of Intelligence. S. 2452 would separate the Department’s information analysis functions from the critical infrastructure protection by creating a separate directorate for each. The purpose of such a division was to create a new national-level information fusion center.
The President proposed that the new Department contain a component to assess the Nation’s vulnerabilities to terrorism, analyze information regarding threats to our homeland, and match the threat assessments to the nation’s vulnerabilities to help prioritize our homeland security efforts.
“While a number of agencies conduct a variety of threat assessments, and a few agencies conduct narrowly focused vulnerability assessments, no one in the federal government married the threats with the vulnerabilities to develop national policy,” said Thompson. “The Committee substitute differs from the President’s proposal by splitting the intelligence analysis component of the new Department from the infrastructure protection component and creating two distinct organizations within the new Department. I support the establishment of an intelligence capability in the new Department, but I believe the President’s proposal is more sound than the Committee’s approach.”
Thompson intends to offer several amendments during the Senate’s deliberations of legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security, many of which will focus on how the Department will be run.
“We clearly need innovation and flexibility. We need to look at things differently. We should do what is best for the American people,” concluded Thompson.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/090402press2.htm
Tuesday, September 4, 2002
Washington, DC – Senator Fred Thompson, Ranking Member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, opened debate today on S. 2452, the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act, by outlining his concerns with the lack of management, personnel, and budget flexibility in the proposed legislation. Thompson also reiterated his opposition to the bill’s creation of a Directorate of Intelligence, which separates the Department’s information analysis functions from the critical infrastructure protection.
“Few need to be reminded why we are here. While September 11 was not the opening salvo, it was the event that forced us to confront the scope of the threats to our country and to recognize the need to do something significant and meaningful to address those threats,” said Thompson. “According to the legislation before us today, the mission of the new Department is to ‘promote homeland security,’ ‘prevent terrorist attacks,’ and ‘reduce the vulnerability of the United States to terrorism.’ I question how this new Department will possibly be able to fulfill its mission if it is bogged down by the same persistent management problems that face the rest of our government.”
Thompson argued that the current management paradigms are out-of-date for the modern, technological workforce needed by the federal government to meet the challenges of the 21st century, and that the current management structure puts no premium on accountability. Managers find it difficult to reward good performers, and even more difficult to sanction poor performers, according to Thompson.
“I fear that we are setting ourselves up for failure if we do not provide the new Secretary with the flexibility to manage the Department properly. We simply must give this new Department and this new Secretary the management tools with which to carry out this new massive and vitally important job,” Thompson said.
The creation of a Department of Homeland Security will consolidate 22 federal agencies composed of almost 70,000 employees, 17 different unions, 77 existing collective bargaining agreements, 7 payroll systems, and 80 different personnel management systems.
“Others argue that the Secretary does not need additional managerial tools or flexibility to take on this monumental task. And I agree with them that flexibility is not needed to set up another federal bureaucracy that resembles the rest of our federal government, or to replicate the problems that pervade our government in terms of federal workforce management, financial management, information technology management, and program overlap and duplication,” Thompson said. “Our goal in this new Department must not be to replicate failures, but rather to make improvements. If we can not improve our well known operational shortcomings now, that our nation’s security is at issue, when in the world will we ever be able to do so?”
Authority to exercise limited discretion over the Department’s budget is another managerial authority that Thompson believes is essential for the new Department. Similar to personnel flexibility, budget flexibility is not revolutionary. Congress often recognizes that, at times, there may be legitimate reasons to provide funding flexibility to agencies, as circumstances might occur that were not anticipated when an agency submitted its budget over a year or more ago.
“By maintaining the status quo, we are prohibiting the Secretary from accessing a single cent of the unexpended funds from agencies that are transferred to the new Department to assist in the transition. Instead, the Secretary must appeal to Congress to enact enabling legislation each and every time the new Department needs some flexibility to reorganize or to get the Department up and running successfully,” said Thompson.
On a separate issue, Thompson reiterated his opposition to the proposal’s creation of a Directorate of Intelligence. S. 2452 would separate the Department’s information analysis functions from the critical infrastructure protection by creating a separate directorate for each. The purpose of such a division was to create a new national-level information fusion center.
The President proposed that the new Department contain a component to assess the Nation’s vulnerabilities to terrorism, analyze information regarding threats to our homeland, and match the threat assessments to the nation’s vulnerabilities to help prioritize our homeland security efforts.
“While a number of agencies conduct a variety of threat assessments, and a few agencies conduct narrowly focused vulnerability assessments, no one in the federal government married the threats with the vulnerabilities to develop national policy,” said Thompson. “The Committee substitute differs from the President’s proposal by splitting the intelligence analysis component of the new Department from the infrastructure protection component and creating two distinct organizations within the new Department. I support the establishment of an intelligence capability in the new Department, but I believe the President’s proposal is more sound than the Committee’s approach.”
Thompson intends to offer several amendments during the Senate’s deliberations of legislation to create a Department of Homeland Security, many of which will focus on how the Department will be run.
“We clearly need innovation and flexibility. We need to look at things differently. We should do what is best for the American people,” concluded Thompson.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/090402press2.htm
More on Thompson Homeland Security Amendment and Immigration
Here's some more on Thompson's Amendment to the Homeland Security Bill and his position on illegal immigration:
Thompson Hails Passage of Homeland Security Amendment
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Washington, DC - Today Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) hailed the passage of an amendment creating the new Department of Homeland Security, which the Senate adopted by a vote of 73 to 26. Final passage of the legislation, H.R. 5005, is expected later today.
The Thompson substitute amendment is identical to H.R. 5710, which was passed by the House of Representatives on November 13. With Senate passage of this bipartisan agreement, the legislation will be sent to President Bush to be signed into law.
"Today we have taken a giant step toward reorganizing our homeland security establishment to protect American citizens from the threat of terrorism. The threats our nation faces are still very real, and will likely exist for decades to come. But as we move forward, we must be realistic. It’s going to be a long and complex road to create a fully effective agency to enhance homeland security, but this is a mission that is vital to the security of this nation, and the most important responsibility of this government," said Thompson, who led the debate on the bill for Senate Republicans.
The homeland security legislation allows for certain flexibilities in the new Department’s human resources management system, while requiring the Secretary to notify Congress of changes and providing federal employees a method of appeal. The bill also gives the Secretary certain reorganization flexibilities for the Department, to implement changes in a timely and efficient manner.
The Thompson amendment also includes much needed reforms for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promote stronger border security and immigration services. To address U.S. vulnerability to cyber attacks, the legislation includes language requiring federal agencies to utilize information security best practices to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of federal information systems.
"At a time when uncertainty threatens confidence in our nation's preparedness, the Federal government must make information security a priority. We are fighting a new war in a new age on unconventional fronts. We can not afford to overlook our nation’s technology infrastructure as we secure our homeland," said Thompson.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/111902press2.htm
Thompson Hails Passage of Homeland Security Amendment
Tuesday, November 19, 2002
Washington, DC - Today Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) hailed the passage of an amendment creating the new Department of Homeland Security, which the Senate adopted by a vote of 73 to 26. Final passage of the legislation, H.R. 5005, is expected later today.
The Thompson substitute amendment is identical to H.R. 5710, which was passed by the House of Representatives on November 13. With Senate passage of this bipartisan agreement, the legislation will be sent to President Bush to be signed into law.
"Today we have taken a giant step toward reorganizing our homeland security establishment to protect American citizens from the threat of terrorism. The threats our nation faces are still very real, and will likely exist for decades to come. But as we move forward, we must be realistic. It’s going to be a long and complex road to create a fully effective agency to enhance homeland security, but this is a mission that is vital to the security of this nation, and the most important responsibility of this government," said Thompson, who led the debate on the bill for Senate Republicans.
The homeland security legislation allows for certain flexibilities in the new Department’s human resources management system, while requiring the Secretary to notify Congress of changes and providing federal employees a method of appeal. The bill also gives the Secretary certain reorganization flexibilities for the Department, to implement changes in a timely and efficient manner.
The Thompson amendment also includes much needed reforms for the Immigration and Naturalization Service to promote stronger border security and immigration services. To address U.S. vulnerability to cyber attacks, the legislation includes language requiring federal agencies to utilize information security best practices to ensure the integrity, confidentiality, and availability of federal information systems.
"At a time when uncertainty threatens confidence in our nation's preparedness, the Federal government must make information security a priority. We are fighting a new war in a new age on unconventional fronts. We can not afford to overlook our nation’s technology infrastructure as we secure our homeland," said Thompson.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/111902press2.htm
Thompson Fights to Eradicate Tax Penalty on Public Servants
Thompson Fights to Eradicate Tax Penalty on Public Servants
Thursday, July 11, 2002
Washington , DC - The Senate Finance Committee today approved an amendment, sponsored by Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), that reduces a financial burden many presidential appointees face when they are required to divest their stock options as a condition of taking public office. The Thompson provision, which was included in the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Act, removes the tax penalty on public servants by expanding the current certificate of divestiture program to include stock options under Investment Stock Option plans (ISO) and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPP). Appointees can already be granted certificates when they sell shares of traditional stock.
"It is unfair to penalize willing public servants for complying with the law," Thompson said. "Especially now as we continue to fight a war on terrorism, we must work to ensure that the best and brightest of the nation’s leaders continue to be attracted to public service, instead of constructing blockades to discourage them from serving their country."
Conflict of interest statutes and ethics laws prohibit high-ranking government officials from holding a stake in companies that may be affected by their decisions. Therefore, many public servants are required to sell significant stock holdings before they can enter public office, regardless of their personal investment plans. Unfortunately, this can place a heavy tax burden on them simply for obeying the law.
To mitigate this penalty, Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. This law contains a provision which allows ethics officials to grant a certificate of divestiture to appointees who are required to sell stock when they enter office. This allows the appointee to use the proceeds from the stock sale to purchase an approved investment without the immediate penalty of capital gains tax. The tax is deferred until the appointee decides to sell the approved investment holdings.
However, the certificate of divestiture program does not currently address ISO and ESPP stock options, which have become a common part of many corporate compensation packages. When appointees are required to divest their ISO or ESPP stock options without meeting the holding period requirements to obtain capital gains treatment, the gain on the sale is taxed as ordinary income, and not capital gains. The provision sponsored by Senator Thompson would expand the certificate of divestiture program to include all ISO and ESPP stock options.
"This amendment will end an unfair financial penalty on presidential appointees. While these top officials should always be held to the highest ethical standard, they shouldn’t have to pay heavily to get their jobs. We already have enough problems filling government’s top posts; we can do without this one. Today’s vote is a step in the right direction toward fixing the broken presidential appointments process," concluded Thompson.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/071102press.htm
Thursday, July 11, 2002
Washington , DC - The Senate Finance Committee today approved an amendment, sponsored by Senator Fred Thompson (R-TN), that reduces a financial burden many presidential appointees face when they are required to divest their stock options as a condition of taking public office. The Thompson provision, which was included in the National Employee Savings and Trust Equity Act, removes the tax penalty on public servants by expanding the current certificate of divestiture program to include stock options under Investment Stock Option plans (ISO) and Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPP). Appointees can already be granted certificates when they sell shares of traditional stock.
"It is unfair to penalize willing public servants for complying with the law," Thompson said. "Especially now as we continue to fight a war on terrorism, we must work to ensure that the best and brightest of the nation’s leaders continue to be attracted to public service, instead of constructing blockades to discourage them from serving their country."
Conflict of interest statutes and ethics laws prohibit high-ranking government officials from holding a stake in companies that may be affected by their decisions. Therefore, many public servants are required to sell significant stock holdings before they can enter public office, regardless of their personal investment plans. Unfortunately, this can place a heavy tax burden on them simply for obeying the law.
To mitigate this penalty, Congress passed the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. This law contains a provision which allows ethics officials to grant a certificate of divestiture to appointees who are required to sell stock when they enter office. This allows the appointee to use the proceeds from the stock sale to purchase an approved investment without the immediate penalty of capital gains tax. The tax is deferred until the appointee decides to sell the approved investment holdings.
However, the certificate of divestiture program does not currently address ISO and ESPP stock options, which have become a common part of many corporate compensation packages. When appointees are required to divest their ISO or ESPP stock options without meeting the holding period requirements to obtain capital gains treatment, the gain on the sale is taxed as ordinary income, and not capital gains. The provision sponsored by Senator Thompson would expand the certificate of divestiture program to include all ISO and ESPP stock options.
"This amendment will end an unfair financial penalty on presidential appointees. While these top officials should always be held to the highest ethical standard, they shouldn’t have to pay heavily to get their jobs. We already have enough problems filling government’s top posts; we can do without this one. Today’s vote is a step in the right direction toward fixing the broken presidential appointments process," concluded Thompson.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/071102press.htm
Thompson Bill to grant Attorney General Discretion to Appoint Counsel
Release Date: July 23, 1999
THOMPSON PLAN TO GIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY TO APPOINT SPECIAL COUNSEL INTRODUCED BY MAJORITY LEADER
WASHINGTON -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today announced that his legislation to give the attorney general the discretion to appoint a special counsel was granted expedited consideration by the Senate. Under a procedure employed by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) last evening, the legislation, S. 1427, has been placed directly on the Senate calendar without requiring it to go through committee.
“Repeated attempts to refine the Independent Counsel Act have failed,” Senator Thompson said. “The responsibility and the accountability for appointing special counsels to investigate wrongdoing at the highest levels of government belong with the attorney general. This legislation will do just that and help to restore public confidence in the process.”
The Thompson bill would impose more accountability on the attorney general, the Senator noted. “The current attorney general has demonstrated that under the recently expired Independent Counsel statute, it is possible to rely on legal technicalities to escape the statute’s intent. My bill would place a greater burden on the attorney general to act responsibly or be held politically accountable and subject to congressional oversight,” Senator Thompson said.
Under Thompson’s proposal, the special counsel would answer to the attorney general, who would determine the jurisdiction for the special counsel’s investigation. A person subject to the special counsel’s investigation would be unable to challenge that jurisdiction in court.
Thompson said the operation of the special counsel, including the standard for his or her removal, regular reporting requirements to the attorney general, and other administrative matters, would be established through regulations that the attorney general would promulgate within 60 days of the bill’s passage. The regulations would not take effect unless Congress enacted a law to approve them within 60 days after submission. If Congress did not approve them, the attorney general would be required to submit new ones to the Congress. The regulations adopted could not be changed without Congress passing a new law confirming them.
Thompson noted that while the attorney general has already promulgated regulations regarding the appointment of special counsels, they fall short in two general areas. First, the regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only when a two-part test has been satisfied -- the investigation “must present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances,” and such an appointment “must be in the public interest.” Thompson said that under this test, the regulations could become a barrier to the appointment of a special counsel.
Secondly, under the promulgated regulations the special counsel is afforded less independence than prior special counsel have been afforded. For instance, the special counsel is to answer to the attorney general for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and the attorney general may direct that such a step not be pursued. Indictments sought by the special counsel could be stopped, as could enforcement of subpoenas. And appeals of adverse decisions would, for the first time, require the approval of the solicitor general, a political appointee in the department.
SUMMARY OF SENATOR THOMPSON’S“SPECIAL COUNSEL ACT OF 1999"
- Under the legislation, S. 1427, the attorney general would be granted complete discretion to appoint a special counsel when she determines that such appointment is in “the public interest.”
- The only restriction on such an appointment provided in the amendment is that such special counsel cannot be an employee of the federal government at the time of their selection. The individual would be appointed by the attorney general. (This represents a departure from the Independent Counsel Act, where a three judge panel selected the person to serve as an independent counsel.)
- The legislation is silent with regard to reasonable grounds for an investigation, time frame to make a decision regarding appointment, and default requirements if no decision is made.
- There is no list of covered persons; the attorney general may select a special counsel to investigate anyone, so long as she deems it to be in the public interest.
- The bill requires the attorney general, within 60 days of passage of the legislation, to promulgate regulations relating to the operation and removal of a special counsel. Such regulations would not take effect unless approved by Congress within 60 days after submission, followed by presidential signature. The bill includes provisions for expedited Congressional consideration of the proposed regulations, including a provision that such regulations would not be subject to amendment. If disapproved by either House, the attorney general would be required to submit new regulations for approval.
- The attorney general, however, would have authority to promulgate regulations without the need for Congressional approval regarding the appointment of a particular independent counsel and the investigative or prosecutorial jurisdiction of a special counsel.
- The legislation repeals any regulations governing special counsel investigations that were issued by the attorney general following the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act. Upon enactment of the legislation, the attorney general would be precluded from issuing new regulations governing special counsel except pursuant to the Special Counsel Act.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/072399_press.htm
THOMPSON PLAN TO GIVE ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY TO APPOINT SPECIAL COUNSEL INTRODUCED BY MAJORITY LEADER
WASHINGTON -- Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson (R-TN) today announced that his legislation to give the attorney general the discretion to appoint a special counsel was granted expedited consideration by the Senate. Under a procedure employed by Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-MS) last evening, the legislation, S. 1427, has been placed directly on the Senate calendar without requiring it to go through committee.
“Repeated attempts to refine the Independent Counsel Act have failed,” Senator Thompson said. “The responsibility and the accountability for appointing special counsels to investigate wrongdoing at the highest levels of government belong with the attorney general. This legislation will do just that and help to restore public confidence in the process.”
The Thompson bill would impose more accountability on the attorney general, the Senator noted. “The current attorney general has demonstrated that under the recently expired Independent Counsel statute, it is possible to rely on legal technicalities to escape the statute’s intent. My bill would place a greater burden on the attorney general to act responsibly or be held politically accountable and subject to congressional oversight,” Senator Thompson said.
Under Thompson’s proposal, the special counsel would answer to the attorney general, who would determine the jurisdiction for the special counsel’s investigation. A person subject to the special counsel’s investigation would be unable to challenge that jurisdiction in court.
Thompson said the operation of the special counsel, including the standard for his or her removal, regular reporting requirements to the attorney general, and other administrative matters, would be established through regulations that the attorney general would promulgate within 60 days of the bill’s passage. The regulations would not take effect unless Congress enacted a law to approve them within 60 days after submission. If Congress did not approve them, the attorney general would be required to submit new ones to the Congress. The regulations adopted could not be changed without Congress passing a new law confirming them.
Thompson noted that while the attorney general has already promulgated regulations regarding the appointment of special counsels, they fall short in two general areas. First, the regulations permit appointment of a special counsel only when a two-part test has been satisfied -- the investigation “must present a conflict of interest for the Department or other extraordinary circumstances,” and such an appointment “must be in the public interest.” Thompson said that under this test, the regulations could become a barrier to the appointment of a special counsel.
Secondly, under the promulgated regulations the special counsel is afforded less independence than prior special counsel have been afforded. For instance, the special counsel is to answer to the attorney general for any investigative or prosecutorial step, and the attorney general may direct that such a step not be pursued. Indictments sought by the special counsel could be stopped, as could enforcement of subpoenas. And appeals of adverse decisions would, for the first time, require the approval of the solicitor general, a political appointee in the department.
SUMMARY OF SENATOR THOMPSON’S“SPECIAL COUNSEL ACT OF 1999"
- Under the legislation, S. 1427, the attorney general would be granted complete discretion to appoint a special counsel when she determines that such appointment is in “the public interest.”
- The only restriction on such an appointment provided in the amendment is that such special counsel cannot be an employee of the federal government at the time of their selection. The individual would be appointed by the attorney general. (This represents a departure from the Independent Counsel Act, where a three judge panel selected the person to serve as an independent counsel.)
- The legislation is silent with regard to reasonable grounds for an investigation, time frame to make a decision regarding appointment, and default requirements if no decision is made.
- There is no list of covered persons; the attorney general may select a special counsel to investigate anyone, so long as she deems it to be in the public interest.
- The bill requires the attorney general, within 60 days of passage of the legislation, to promulgate regulations relating to the operation and removal of a special counsel. Such regulations would not take effect unless approved by Congress within 60 days after submission, followed by presidential signature. The bill includes provisions for expedited Congressional consideration of the proposed regulations, including a provision that such regulations would not be subject to amendment. If disapproved by either House, the attorney general would be required to submit new regulations for approval.
- The attorney general, however, would have authority to promulgate regulations without the need for Congressional approval regarding the appointment of a particular independent counsel and the investigative or prosecutorial jurisdiction of a special counsel.
- The legislation repeals any regulations governing special counsel investigations that were issued by the attorney general following the expiration of the Independent Counsel Act. Upon enactment of the legislation, the attorney general would be precluded from issuing new regulations governing special counsel except pursuant to the Special Counsel Act.
http://hsgac.senate.gov/072399_press.htm
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Fred Thompson
Former U.S. Senator (R-TN)
