Transcript
Michael H. Armacost: Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Brookings. Some months ago when we initiated this Presidential Appointee Initiative, it was born of the conviction that the process through which we identify and select and nominate and confirm officials in the executive branch of government become too time consuming, too expensive, and in some cases too much of a burden for individuals. Therefore, we sought to find practical ways of improving the process.
We know that the events of the last month have only reinforced the urgency and the relevance of this project. Already time has been lost in what was already a rather brief transitional moment. The partisanship that's evident in particularly the statements by the lawyers and spinmasters has probably aggravated the atmosphere in which this business is likely to be done. And we know the narrow margin in the Senate can also complicate the process of getting this kind of business achieved in an efficient way. So, for us, it has, as I say, underlined the urgency of the project, and has reinforced our conviction that where we can be helpful is in offering very specific and timely suggestions as to how it can be improved, right now.
And so our purpose today is precisely to unveil some conclusions that we think will help us make up some time and allow a new administration to get quickly out of the starting box, whatever the legal process finally yields, and by offering recommendations to both the executive branch people and to people in the Senate who are expediting the process now.
It's my pleasure to introduce to guide this program Paul Light, who is not only the vice President and director of our government studies activities, but he is director of our Center for Public Service, and he's been the primary source of energy behind this project, which has been a partnership with the Council for Excellence in Government. It's been funded generously by the Pew Charitable Trust. And we've been very fortunate from the outset in having the assistance of Nancy Kassebaum Baker and Frank Raines, people of exceptional stature, who are universally respected by folks in the executive branch and Congress alike because we recognize that nothing is likely to prosper unless it has the support of people on both sides of the aisle. So, we've been greatly assisted by them, and we'll be looking forward to their comments today.
Paul C. Light: I really have to stand on my tiptoes here. The world is at my command. I'm not sure this can go long enough for me. I think part of what Mike was referring to here was the survivor's guide for the presidential nominees, which is published by The Presidential Appointee Initiative and co-authored by the Council for Excellence in Government and The Presidential Appointee Initiative. If there was ever a time when nominees in the presidential appointee's process needed a survivor's guide, one imagines that this is it. This guide is available for free. It's downloadable at our website, which is located at www.appointee.brookings.org and we think that it provides invaluable assistance to people who are going into the process. What it can't provide is a process that is reasonable in terms of its time expectations, which is why we are here today.
Thanks to the Pew Charitable Trusts for their funding, and to Mike Armacost and the Brookings team. We have a project that is in full blossom right now in terms of resources for today's nominees and hopes for reform that will make the process smoother for the future. Thanks also to Ron Nessen here and his staff for helping put this event together.
Our simple concern today is that delays in the transition right now are likely to multiply into problems in an already cumbersome process. To paraphrase the Brownlow Commission from the 1930s, the President-elect needs help. Under the best of conditions, the next President would have been lucky to get the Cabinet and sub-Cabinet in place by about November 1, 2001, about nine months after inauguration. That's not a hard projection to make. In 1993, Bill Clinton did not have his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet in place until October 15th, more or less, and in 1989, after a friendly takeover, President George Bush did not have his Cabinet and sub-Cabinet in place until October 7th. So November 1st was not a difficult projection to make, assuming ordinary delays that come from increased numbers of appointees.
However, right now, given the delays, if they continue, and I don't think we're yet at the crisis point, but we will be there shortly I believe, it could be that our projection will have to change to suggest that the next President's Cabinet and sub-Cabinet won't be in place until February or March of 2002, at least a year after inauguration. There's no problem at the very top of the hierarchy where the Cabinet will be confirmed quickly, I believe, it always has, that's been the case and it's likely now.
The problem is that the second, third, fourth, and fifth vertebrae of the federal hierarchy, the deputy secretaries, the undersecretaries, the assistant secretaries, the administrators were not in a condition where we're going to have a headless government, we may be in a position where we have a neckless government. In other words, we don't have the connections between the President and the Cabinet and the career work force, and there's only so long that government can exist that way. I'm starting to believe now that the current delays in the process are favoring a type of nominee who is the least controversial nominee possible, someone who has never traveled lest he or she should have to explain the dates and purposes of their trips for the past 15 years; someone who has never married lest he or she has to remember the dates and places of birth of their mothers and fathers-in-law and cure their spouses' conflicts of interest; someone who has never moved once in their life so they can find and remember their high school classmates and have neighbors who remember them, someone who has never changed jobs so their employers will know who they are; someone who doesn't make much money so it's easy to fill out the financial disclosure; someone who never cleans their house, mows their lawn, obviously doesn't have a nanny, doesn't have a pool service, doesn't have to prove that they've never had an employee for whom they didn't pay Social Security taxes. In other words, the least offensive person known to humankind currently has the greatest chances of getting through the appointments process in reasonable time. Even this nominee in this process would face a three month delay more or less.
At any rate, we have an opportunity today with Senator Kassebaum and Director Raines to talk about a reasonable set of norms and expectations that should govern the process. Our two co-chairs of the presidential appointee initiative have signed a letter that will be mailed later today to President Clinton, Vice President Gore, Governor Bush, Senate Majority Leader Lott, and Senate Minority Leader Daschle asking them to take steps now to telescope and streamline the appointments process to reduce the odds that the next administration won't be in place until 2002.
It's with great pleasure that I'm going to ask Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker to talk a little bit about delays at the Senate end of the avenue, and then Frank Raines to talk about delays and prospects for improvement at the White House end of the avenue.
Senator Kassebaum.
Nancy Kassebaum Baker: Thanks, Paul.
Well, it does seem timely to be speaking at this particular moment about the ways to improve the confirmation process, and some of you who heard our announcement received, I think, some skepticism on the part of those who were participating about whether it could be done. That recommendations have been made before, was anything changed or improved. I think this is so important right now, and given the election and the uncertainty that followed it, this seems to be ever more important that we come up with some suggestions that I hope will be taken to heart. Are they realistic? They are from our point of view. And I, having been in the Senate, seen confirmations held up for a long, long time, sometimes to the point of the nominee just dropping out and just saying that they don't want to bother anymore.
What worries us, and certainly I believe most, is that we're not -- and hearing Paul reiterate what you have to go through in filling out these forms -- more and more are saying, don't want to bother, don't ask, won't serve. Why put family through uncertainty for months and months about what one might be doing, whether the confirmation will eventually be approved, and all the paperwork that's required, many times for positions that simply don't require going through all of those details.
So what we hope to do, of course, is help with some standardization of forms and so forth, but this is about improving and expediting the process now. I think it is realistic, but it is going to be a dramatic change. Just to say that there should be 25 to 30 nominations sent up per week in a timely fashion with the paperwork done by the time the nomination is before the Senate is, in itself, a dramatic departure from what it has been. I would hope that given the assistance that we're suggesting would be necessary to help with this process, that that could be attained.
Yes, it's true. Certainly the Senate will move in a timely way on the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the top department heads. But then you never know when some roadblock may come, and we address the question of holds being put on nominations, that it can't be held forever, that logically a hold should be honored for a reasonable period of time, I think we said two weeks, which I think is a reasonable period of time, because one knows whether they are for or against, and would have had the opportunity to hear all the pros and cons. And I am a firm believer at some point that a vote should be taken up or down.
But this is at a juncture where I think we need to work across the aisle in the Senate with a 50/50 division. It's going to be ever more important, and it's an example of what we can do, I believe, for both parties to show that they're going to bring a governance process to bear that people will feel has trust and dignity, and will preserve a certain civility of governance that I think is terribly important, and to show that we can reach back and forth across the aisle.
This may be one of the first ways that we can do this, and I think it's very important. It behooves both parties to be supportive of the best candidates for the positions that are there to be filled that we can do. So, I'm hopeful, and I know that we're prepared to do all that we can to help see this process improve, and particularly right now. The longer run is included in the book which has a lot of paper in it, in and of itself, but that we can shorten as it goes along because I think the opportunity exists to make it a far more streamlined effective process, and it seems to me we can start with it now.
So, thank you. And I'm prepared to do what I can to encourage the colleagues of mine who are in the Senate to look with some favor on being supportive of this stepped up process.
Thank you.
Franklin D. Raines: Well, I have been delighted to have been able to work with Nancy and with Paul on this project. And let me reiterate what they've both said, which is our interest predated the current national tie that we seem to have in our presidential election. But the national tie has exacerbated some of the problems inherent in our appointments process that we've pointed to before. And let me just give you a couple of examples, and that is that there are a number of offices that will not be talked about as being vital first appointments in the appointment process that are vital if you're to fill out an administration in a timely way. The White House Personnel Office, and the transition personnel office that pre-dates it is the vital arm of the President-elect in gathering their potential nominees, but most importantly beginning the process of gathering information that's needed to support these complete nominations going to the hill. Having that office up and running and staffed early is very important, and it's important for the President-elect to move diligently there.
Similarly the counsel's office, which is important in the review of each of these nominees to ensure compliance with the law and to ensure that you've reduced the opportunity for embarrassment to the President-elect, needs to be appointed early. As well another one. This is not just totally parochial, but the new President will have to propose a new budget, and unlike in prior years where the outgoing President might have had a complete budget that they have proposed, and you simply can make changes, the new director of the Office of Management and Budget is going to be facing essentially a base line budget without the completely fleshed out policy program and there will be a need to have an up and running budget office immediately so that the new President will be able to move forward with their program.
There are certain offices that will need to operate much more effectively than they have, and they may need to make some important judgments about how to proceed in a foreshortened time period. The FBI in their full field investigation have a complicated, detailed form that asks questions that most of us can't answer unless you've kept ever one of your passports, and even then incompleteness is usually the better course since almost no one remembers ever person they met with and every hotel that they stayed in on every trip that they have made abroad, and reminding people that Canada and Mexico are abroad for these purposes.
So there may be judgment required in what is a full field investigation, not simply because of the exigencies of this circumstance, but because fundamentally it's unclear whether these questions are vital, and this might be an excellent opportunity for judgment to be applied.
Similarly with the Office of Government Ethics, whom I'm sure most of you have not had the opportunity to meet, and I'm not sure I would suggest it, but they have a vital role in reviewing all of these ethics forums. Again, this is one of these examples where the instruction pages far exceed the length of the form. There would be an excellent opportunity to exercise some judgment as to whether or not it is an important matter that an asset is between $500 and $1,000, or $1,000 and $1,500. It may be more important simply to have people list all their assets that have their value over $500. It certainly would be faster for the applicant, and I'm not sure we'd lose much from the ethics standpoint not knowing exactly which category it falls in.
So exercise of judgment, I believe, can go a long way during this period. Let me just say one word on the legislative side, and that is, as the Senate organizes itself in whatever way it ends up organizing itself, it will be very important to have clear responsibility for the handling of appointments designated within the committees. Whether there's a majority, or whether there's an equal split in power is far less important than that there is some staff person empowered by the committee to take on this work. And this may, again, be one of those things that can easily fall through the cracks. And we'll see the result not in the first few days, but we'll see the results in an administration that is not fully staffed for an extended period of time.
So, focus on these issues is very important. It is as important as whether or not the new President has a particular phrase in their first address to Congress, or whether or not the third level person appointed in the White House staff for handling an issue of domestic policy is dealt with. Any President needs to have in place the key people needed to manage the permanent government. And a process to make that a more effective -- it's no more needed at any time in our history than it is today. This can be the opportunity to turn around this process of continually lengthening the period of appointment that's been going on without fail over the last 20 or 30 years. Maybe this time, with these current circumstances, we can rally all of these disparate players to do it just a little faster and a little better.
Paul Light: What we're going to do is open this up for questions. You have a copy of the letter from our two co-chairs here in your packets. Let's see what's on your minds in terms of questions. I have some questions for the panelists if you don't weigh in. So let's see, and please let us know who you are as you speak.
Thank you.
Q: -- freelancer from Bethesda. I haven't seen your report but I have two very basic questions. One is, FBI full field investigation, that could be somewhat modified and geared to this particular purpose?
And second is concerning form, they have to spend lots of money even to get the form filled, and could there be just a common form for them to do because each form there's also lots of redundancy, so then each office just goes there and takes whatever they think is necessary for them?
Thank you.
F. D. Raines: The full field investigations, their history goes back to the Cold War where there was a concern that you really needed to track the history of individuals back practically to birth to ensure that there hadn't been an early infiltration of a potential spy that you needed to follow. And also, you know, it goes back some even to the McCarthy days as really wanting to track ideological purity back to earliest stages.
I think our threats are a little different now, and I think that the FBI could usefully review the form and decide what really is the important information that gives them the important clues that they need to really follow up on the background of someone for qualifications for the highest security clearances. Maybe people believe this has been needed for quite some time. This could be one of those occasions when they could simply do it rather than studying it for a long time.
On the forms issue, we've previously said this would be an outstanding improvement because everyone has their own form. For the nominees it's a nightmare, the greatest nightmare would be if you made a slightly different entry on one form than another form because then you would have a long investigation as to why your birth date had changed, or the value of an asset was different, even though it may be that they asked you for the value for different dates. But long and evolved discussions go on after these forms have gone in reconciling the forms, as always is the case. So it would be useful, and maybe, again, this is one of these occasions when someone, particularly maybe in the Senate, they could say, well, we're going to waive our form this time, we're going to use another form. Maybe the White House counsel could simply use the same forms that the White House Personnel Office is using. But sometimes occasions like this call for improvisation, and those improvisations sometimes are better than the original encrusted process.
N. Kassebaum Baker: If I may just add on Frank's comments on the full field investigation of the FBI, and an example of someone I know who was asked to serve on an advisory committee, it was not a paid position, regarding the air services, the airlines, I forget exactly what the committee or commission was. And the FBI, it was calling on all of his neighbors. It went clear back to college and high school days. It was not a paid position; it was only an advisory board. And I think it's using judgment -- I like that word -- that what is important for a full field investigation, what may be just some small investigation, but this concept of a full security clearance for the most minor positions held: I think it was these points where it has gone beyond the reasonable question. And that's just one illustration, and there are many.
Paul Light: Let me offer just two quick factoids on this. Number one, Congress did pass and President Clinton did sign the Presidential Transition Act of 2000 last October, which asked the Office of Government Ethics to do a streamlining of the financial disclosure forms. That has to be reported back to Congress within six months of passage, and we'll get a proposal then that will possibly lead to legislation.
Number two, some of the questions on the FBI full field investigation are extended in time, not by the FBI but by the White House Counsel. The White House counsel could say, look, you only have to go back seven years on travel now. Under the current process, the White House counsel asks the FBI to go back 15 years on travel, eight years more than the FBI would require for a normal security clearance, and that's something that could be done.
I had this very interesting conversation with a senior ethics officer in a department of government who said that he actually saw some value in the confusion on the forms because you could actually find a nominee who might be making a mistake over here, and then you could cross check it against this slightly different question over there. And that's just really no reason to continue and perpetuate the system, but I think you're nodding that it's not an unfamiliar sense on your part.
Yes, sir.
Q: Bill Lambrecist, St. Louis Post Dispatch.
I address this to you, Mr. Light, and then invite any other illumination. Would the problems you outlined today be more pronounced for Governor Bush, considering this is his administration, would be out of power coming into the White House. And as part of that, when is that crisis that you said in your initial remarks that we could be nearing?
Paul Light: I think in both 1989, and 1993 we had controlling cases where it doesn't necessarily matter whether you're in a friendly takeover facing a hostile Senate, or an unfriendly takeover facing a party in control in the Senate. Clinton had the second condition, he had an unfriendly takeover, but he had a Democratic majority, and he was two weeks later than Bush. Bush had a friendly takeover and a hostile Senate, and he couldn't his Cabinet in place until October. I'm not sure it really matters here, especially with the 50/50 split. They both will have tremendous pressure to get their Cabinet and sub-Cabinet in place within the coming calendar year.
I think that crisis point is reached mid-week next. You can announce your Cabinet now or next week, but this is a concrete pipe that we're facing here, it's not a pliable process, and it works best when you're putting nominees into it in an orderly fashion, 25 to 30 a week, you're shoving them in at one end of the pipe, and you're just pushing and ramming them through, and they eventually pop out. I hate to make the analogy, but that's really how the process works, and so order and thought and scheduling make a big difference here.
Nancy, and Frank?
N. Kassebaum Baker: I don't think it's going to be easy. And a lot will really depend on leadership in the Senate, and between the legislative and executive branch, as well, in willingness to show that as a matter of fact, as I said, they can work across party lines, realizing this is important. It's important above party, but it's not going to be easy, and there are going to be some strong feelings on all sides. I think it can be done, but I think the key will be the leadership that exists in the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
F. D. Raines: I think the real issue, and this is something we're having to improvise over is we have a tie. And we're trying to resolve a tie, but our system is not set up for either resolving that tie, or for the governmental mechanism to await the resolution. So I think it equally affects both of the candidates and the earlier that they can have a meaningful transition process in this area I think the better. And so my encouragement to them is not so much on how to resolve the tie, but think about these things that will not likely rise to the high level, particularly if you're still surrounded by all of your campaign advisors.
We don't normally think about the White House office of personnel as being something vital to the functioning of what they do, but both candidates are still surrounded by their campaign personnel, and they're not thinking about how am I going to get my nominees through, who is going to be in the Congressional liaison office and who is going to be assigned to the Senate to move the nominees through. When they name the staff directors of these Senate committees, and we've had a little bit of turnover here, so there are going to be a number of new staff directors, who is going to go up an tell them, your number one thing that you ought to be focused on in the first couple of months is to get the nominations through in your area.
There are a lot of people who are required to make this work. And there is a lot of distractions at this time, a lot of distractions that will argue for the process not working well. And that's why a focus is most important. It can't be a byproduct. If it's a byproduct we know what happens. It's just we're going to set a new record for the length of time. With some focus we can have in place an administration that can be held accountable by a Congress. I think the worst of all circumstances is an administration that says, we're not responsible because we haven't gotten our people in place, and Congress saying, you're a lousy administration. And they haven't gotten their people in place because they're all sitting up on the Hill, got there late, and they're being processed slow. I mean, that I think is the worst situation for both people. I don't think it's a political gain for anybody. And it certainly is not good for the country.
N. Kassebaum Baker: I think it might be useful to have Senator Lott and Senator Daschle both appoint somebody to work just with helping the process through, and the designated committee person for that, and the White House. I think that's such a good point that you make about the personnel office at the White House. But, there are ways that I think that liaison could certainly be improved that would be important to a good implementation.
Paul Light: One thing about the personnel office is that there's not a single career person in it. It has to be built from scratch. So from the top of the office to the person that answers the telephone, these jobs are considered so sensitive that they're all political appointees, and that has to be built from scratch, as Frank said.
Let me follow up just with a question about Attorney General Reno's offer to have the FBI start vetting nominees from both campaigns. Earlier Frank and I were talking, and I'll ask the question here, you know, do you think that nominees will come forward and enter that process in droves, or does that buy us much time, or is that really not going to be possible?
F. D. Raines: I think it's very unlikely that very many senior people are going to be speculative candidates for Cabinet positions. Just given that most of them are probably in a position of responsibility today, and for them to indicate that they're thinking of leaving, but maybe not, and I'll let you know soon, but not too soon. And the FBI isn't going around the whole country asking everybody who knows you about -- I think that's going to be very tough.
I think some people will do it, depending on what their professions are, but if you're the President of a large university, if you're running a company, if you're running a union, if you're running any major institution and your people hear that you're thinking of leaving, that has a certain impact, and you don't want that impact there if you're not really going to leave. And indeed, for some people, they may find that they may be urged to leave, just because it shows a lack of commitment to the institution that they've been selected to lead. So I think it's getting the FBI ready, getting the forms prepared, and having them staff it sufficiently is far more important than trying to do dual approaches, because I think the cases in which you're going to really have dual ones is going to be very small.
Paul Light: Can I put you on the spot, Nancy? Senator Lott has committed to holding hearings starting January fourth. Does he hold to that commitment regardless of who comes out of the fog?
N. Kassebaum Baker: I think so. I say that of course not knowing whatsoever, but I do think so. I think -- I really do. And yet it's going to be Senator Daschle and Senator Lott that are both going to have to come to agreement on some of these things. And I think that it's going to require recognition of it being a unique and unusual time, and rise above sort of the passions of the moment, and that isn't going to be easy. But, I think the confirmation process may be the one venue that would allow us to show that that can be done. It's an opportunity that exists maybe right off.
Q: Tom Mann of Brookings.
Your proposal to fast track the Senate confirmation process is very attractive to a lot of us, a 45 day period seems reasonable. My guess is the major source of opposition will come from the party that fails to win the White House. So that if George Bush becomes the President it will become the Democrats in the Senate who are less enthusiastic about this process. And given the partisan acrimony in the counting process it's not surprising. Do you think this proposal might have a better chance if it became an element in a broader set of negotiations between the parties in the Senate over power sharing, so that the Democrats could agree to a fast track on the confirmations if the Republicans made certain other concessions having to do with party balance on committees, having to do with agenda setting, having to do with how often Majority Leader Lott fills the amendment tree, things like that?
N. Kassebaum Baker: Yes, it might be helpful, but that's going to require a lot of negotiation. I guess I would like to see us, as I say, maybe this is a first step, and I don't know that if it gets caught up with all the rest of it -- I just don't know. I think they're will be the agenda setting and so forth is all going to be very important, and that will come pretty soon, actually. Whether this should be part of those negotiations is something that certainly maybe we should pursue, or see if there is any interest in that sort of endeavor. I just don't know.
Paul Light: Given that Tom Mann and Norm Ornstein are direction the Transition of Governing Project, a joint collaboration between Brookings and AEI, funded by Pew, that you might want to do this negotiating, Tom. It seems a little bit too broad.
Other questions? Let me reach here to Brad and then we'll come over.
Q: -- Brookings alumnus.
I have a question for Ms. Kassebaum. I'm going to reveal my ignorance, but why are holds so sacrosanct to the Senate? It seems to me in these conditions now your proposal to limit holds to two weeks sounds like you're asking a general to hold his troops for two weeks on the battlefield, or FEMA to hold off disaster assistance for two weeks after the earthquake. Why are holds so enshrined in Senate rules?
N. Kassebaum Baker: Well, they've had various roles to play. Let me just say the House has its Rules Committee, which of course regulates what comes to the Floor. The Senate has had holds as something that, it's not a rule, it can be -- it is any majority leader, for instance, can bring the legislation to the floor, even though a hold has been placed on it, and of course it can be filibustered. But, you can break a hold if you so desire. Now, there have become more and more holds that are honored, because they honor it because of their party responsibility and far too long, in my mind, many times.
But, it was initially done to protect someone who was interested in legislation that might come to the floor and they did not realized it was going to be introduced, it gives someone time to answer the questions regarding that legislation if they didn't support it, or if it was a nominee that there was vigorous opposition on the part of some a hold would be put in place while they further mobilized their views and their supporters to speak against that nominee, for instance. But honoring it forever is a destructive part of the process in my mind, but it's not a rule.
Paul Light: Nancy, do you think they talked about holds in freshman orientation today?
N. Kassebaum Baker: I don't know. I doubt it.
Paul Light: Maybe they could just skip that section.
N. Kassebaum Baker: Well, they're probably more interested in the challenges to some of the leadership posts, I would guess.
Paul Light: Over here, I think.
Q: Mine was a question about the holds and why the Senate cannot seem to reform this. Lott promised two years ago to have a try, either making the holds open or putting a time limit on them, and nothing seems to have happened, and Helms held up Peter Burley's nomination until he quit.
Paul Light: Remember that the majority leader is generally not the strongest advocate of the holds process. The majority leader has all the ability to put a hold on by himself, so he doesn't need any help on any issue that he doesn't want to move. The holds are normally put on by members who majority leader needs to keep supporting him to be the majority leader.
N. Kassebaum Baker: So he doesn't want to break the holds.
Paul Light: Right. So the majority leader would get rid of all holds tomorrow if he could do that and not be blamed by the membership of the Senate, particularly of their own conference. So this is one of these things that will happen not because the majority leader wants it to happen, but because some event throws the institution into disrepute, and therefore there's a feeling we've got to give something up in order to get back into repute with the public, because it's a very strong power. It's now, as I think Nancy was saying, I think it's really gone over the hill in many ways, because it now has very often, and maybe even most often, holds have nothing to do with the candidate involved. When I was nominated I was held once for a dairy marketing dispute in New England, and another one I can't even remember what the issue was.
N. Kassebaum Baker: That could be a significant dispute, too.
F. D. Raines: Right. So holds are more often a form of hostage taking, and you grab somebody, and you try to find someone that the President cares about, and you negotiate on releasing the hold to get something else that you want. And that's why I think we've really become more aggravated about holds. It isn't -- if it was really about the person that was involved you could understand that. But so often now the holds have to do with a negotiating strategy that's elsewhere, and that's why it's become far more problematic.
P. Light: Back in the room.
Q: -- Washington Independent Writers.
Generally speaking, I was curious if you see items that have disqualified recent Presidential nominees as basically fair or unfair, and to get more specific, I don't know how familiar you are with some of the charges that Gary Aldrich made, who was involved in the FBI process in the early days of the Clinton administration, at least from his point of view it seemed like there was a laxity and a breakdown in what he considered the proper order of things. I'm sure there were cultural differences there, but it seems to me a particular concern with both of these candidates right now, many I think see them as less than forthright about their own abuse of substances. With the case of George W. Bush his use or abuse of alcohol in the past, and something perhaps use of cocaine, and with Al Gore the extent or degree of his marijuana use. Is this something you think that is a legitimate concern, something that the public may be concerned about, even if those in government may not take it that seriously?
F. D. Raines: Let me take a crack at that. Presidential nominees are being nominated to help the President carry out a public purpose. It is not a nomination for sainthood, and we need to keep that in mind. We have to separate ethical problems from voyeurism. I mean, there are a lot of things that we might be curious to know about someone, but they aren't ethical problems. And I for one, for example, urged unsuccessfully, this is before I was in the administration, the President should have declared and amnesty for everybody on paying Social Security as of a date, because everybody is okay from that date backwards. Going forward, everybody now knows clearly what all these rules are, because it did not identify a fundamental ethical question. I don't think the average American believes it to be a fundamental ethical question as it relates to doing the jobs that people were being nominated for.
Similarly, I believe that the impact of most drugs has probably worn off most nominees by the time they have been nominated. So seven years, eight years, ten years, fifteen years earlier drug use, in my judgment, probably is not as relevant anymore. Again, from a voyeuristic standpoint, sure, we're thrilled to know, which drugs, when did you do it, where'd you get them, all these things, but what has it got to do with being a nominee. And, indeed, depending on who the FBI agent is who is interviewing you, you can have a very different interview depending on who they are. I mean, I had one FBI agent who said, now, before you answer this question about drug use, let me tell you the kind of answers that people have given us. Now, he obviously wanted to make sure that I didn't give him an answer that was going to cause this to stop, but other people might have FBI agents who ask the question differently. The real question is, is it relevant going forward. And I don't know as someone who runs a business, we don't believe that a lot of these things that we find voyeuristically interesting in the public sector are very relevant to the doing of the job. And I think we've got to make that distinction.
The last one, and this is my pet one, you guys are tired of hearing me say this, and I mentioned it a little bit in my earlier statement. A financial conflict of interest kicks in at some level, at some level we believe that your interest in something is sufficient that it might affect your judgment. And some people might say it kicks in at $500, some people might say it kicks in at $10,000. Some might say it kicks in at $50,000. Whatever the number is that you believe the financial conflict of interest kicks in, we can easily just state all assets above that amount list on this form. The average person can fill in that, even people with very complicated financials can fill in that form in a couple of hours.
If you want to know what the value was on a particular day in the middle of the month, and whether it was between this number, that number, that number, and that number, that is a lot of work, and totally irrelevant to whether there's a conflict of interest. And particularly when they've added this new category of, is it worth $1 million to $2 million, $2 million to $5 million, now surely the conflict of interest kicked in well before we got to the million mark. But we now have a form that's been extended to that level. I submit to you, that's about voyeurism. That's about trying to determine how much the Secretary of State or the Secretary of the Treasury is worth. Now, I don't think that's terribly relevant to getting them through, but it causes this clogging of the whole process as everybody tries to go through this whole process. But I think it's indicative of a confusion we have, and that confusion is killing this whole appointment process. We've got to be very clear about which things are relevant to the job, which things are relevant to ethical concerns, and which things are just nice, one-time stories that people get to write, and then they don't pay attention to them anymore.
N. Kassebaum Baker: Well,