Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, October 28. I further ask unanimous consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Durbin, or designee, 9:30 to 10 a.m.; Senator Thomas, or designee, 10 to 10:30 a.m.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I especially thank the Senator from Wyoming for coming to the floor this morning to discuss with all of us some very important issues and building a perspective that I do not think the American people hear or have an opportunity to read or understand as it relates to the politics inside the beltway and what is good or not so good for the American people. We just heard the chairman of a key appropriations subcommittee who spent the last 6 months crafting an appropriations bill to run a major portion of our Government while the President was out traveling around the world and traveling around this country not engaged and not focused on the budget. When the appropriations bill to fund these key areas of Government finally arrived at his desk, the President vetoed it and said: I didn't get my way. I am always frustrated by an executive branch of Government that does not come to the Hill and sit down with us and work out our differences in the proper forum but chooses to set the stage of politics over the key issues that are substantive when it comes to law enforcement and safe streets and safe communities for our families and our country. I have struggled with this President over the last several months, especially when he decided to allow terrorists out of prison. That is exactly what happened. I do not know of any other way to say it. This President personally decided that he was going to offer clemency to convicted terrorists. What were they convicted of? Violation of Federal firearms laws. That is law enforcement. Those are Federal laws violated by people who killed others and violated Federal explosive and firearms laws. And this President says he is for law enforcement by putting more cops on the street, then he totally demoralizes or destroys the very foundation of law enforcement by saying: Arrest them and put them in prison and I will let them out because it is ``politically correct'' to do so. Shame on you, Mr. President; shame on you and your politics at this moment because somehow you cannot have it both ways, at least I hope you cannot, but you are trying. You are also trying to make the use of a firearm a major political issue. Yet you offer clemency to those who violate the very laws you ought to be enforcing. Shame on you, again, Mr. President. The Senate worked its will and did an excellent job with those appropriations bills. I do not deny the executive branch the right to participate. They have a legitimate role to play in the shaping of the budget. But in the final analysis, it is the Constitution that says it is the right and the appropriate role of the Congress to appropriate moneys, and it is the responsibility of the Executive to administer those moneys within the policy and the framework established for the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, I am pleased you are finally going to lay off Social Security. Remember what our President said 2 years ago? Save Social Security; don't spend a dime of the surplus. Then this year in his state of the budget message he says: Well, gee, there is so much money there, why don't we spend a little of it. We will save 60 percent and we will spend the rest over the next 15 years and, oh, by the way, I also want to raise taxes during a time of unprecedented surpluses in our country because I have so many great ideas that I want for people, and I want to spend all this money and I want to raise your taxes to do it and I also want to spend some of the Social Security money to do so. Thank goodness the Congress, the Republican Congress, stood up and said: No, Mr. President. The House passed a provision to provide a lockbox so that Social Security surpluses would be dedicated to Social Security and would pay down the liabilities of Social Security and strengthen the ability of that great system to support its obligations in the outyears. We tried to pass it in the Senate, and guess who opposed it. The Democrats. They filibustered it and would not allow a vote and constantly said: We are all for Social Security. Why would they not guarantee that its moneys would be assured a lockbox provision? The American people said they wanted it. The seniors of America, recognizing the importance of Social Security to their very existence, said that is the right thing to do, but the President said: No, I want to spend about 30 percent or 40 percent of the Social Security surplus over the next 15 years. Just in the last month, it is fair and important to say the President has finally agreed that he will leave Social Security surpluses alone and, thank goodness, Mr. President, you have agreed with us because that would have been a phenomenal fight because we were committed and dedicated, even though it was filibustered in the Senate by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, we are going to protect the Social Security surplus. Period. End of statement. Let's talk about the rest of the budget we are battling. A couple of weeks ago, I was amazed to see the President kind of quietly come out and then not so quietly say: We need more money to spend besides the record surpluses we have. I have served Congress and the people of Idaho longer than I want to admit--19 years. I am amazed that only last year did I begin to see a slight surplus and this year a substantial surplus. Never at a time of surplus have I ever heard of a President asking for a tax increase. But this President did because of all these great new social ideas, that somehow is going to help people by taking more money away from them and then giving it back to them in politically correct ways. I am not sure that ever helps the American family to take money away from them and then try in some form to decide what is the right way to give it back. We said: No, Mr. President. Finally, just this last week, after having tried for well over 6 months, the President is slowly backing away from the tax idea, although yesterday he came through the backdoor again and said: Well, let's adjust some fees and let's see if we can come up with a little more revenue. Shame on you, Mr. President. America's taxpayers are being taxed at an all-time rate--high rate. While you are saying it is only a tobacco tax, a tax is a tax is a tax. And, of course, while I do not smoke, and I wish that others would not--there are many who do who should not--yet we are going to tax them. Well, we are not going to tax them because I don't think this Congress will stand for it. I have always understood the politics of surplus is more difficult than the politics of deficit spending. When I first came to Congress in 1980, we had deficits, and they grew very rapidly over fights on budget priorities. But it was not until 1994, when the American people said: Enough of deficits. I'm sorry; a Democrat-controlled Congress is out of control, with a President who wants to spend more money, and we're going to change those dynamics, and they elected a more conservative Congress, a Republican Congress. We said we were going to balance the budget by the year 2002 and we would shape a process that would take us there. Thank goodness for a strong economy and for a fiscally responsible Congress and a monetary supply that stayed in sync. We are now at a balanced budget. We had it last year. We now have a balanced budget and surpluses this year. And I see more wrangling over budgets and spending priorities than I have ever seen in all my years here. I understand the politics of surplus are difficult. But why shouldn't we be giving back to the American people some of their hard-earned money? It is their money. But, no, we have had a President who has insisted on constantly spending it. We put a marvelous tax package together this year, going right at middle America, to enhance the lives of our citizens, to improve the condition of America's families and communities, and this President vetoed it because he wants to prescribe how the money gets spent because somehow we have a White House that says: I know better. I know I can outthink the American family. I can shape a school system better than the American family and the American community because somehow I abide by this unique knowledge of knowing how to do it better. I disagree with you, Mr. President. Thank goodness, we have a Congress that does. That does not mean we are not going to work out our differences. The President has a right to participate. But I do not think he has a right to do one thing and say another, and do another thing and say something else. And that is what he has done with law enforcement. That is what he is doing in education. That is clearly what he has done on Social Security. That is what he is now trying to do with the budget.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss an important matter brought to my attention by one of my constituents. I recently received a letter from G. Ross Darnell, and he pointed out the importance of educating our students about the Constitution. In his letter, though, he also mentioned that our educational system has not been performing well in this area. I agree with Mr. Darnell on both points. The importance of education in preserving our liberties has been realized since the founding of our Republic. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison with his reflections on the new Constitution. In that letter he said, ``I hope the education of the common people will be attended to; convinced that on their good sense we may rely with the most security for the preservation of a due degree of liberty.'' Jefferson knew if the people were not aware of the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution they would be powerless to stop any encroachments upon them. I'm sure Mr. Jefferson would be quite alarmed at the state of ignorance today. While it is a cliche that a generation always finds faults with the one which follows, there is no denying that in terms of constitutional knowledge, the level of ignorance is severe. A poll of teenagers last year illustrates this. Only forty-one percent could name the constitutionally ordained branches of our government, only twenty-one percent could say that there were one hundred senators, and only thirty-six percent knew one of the most important phrases in our nation's history: ``We the People . . .'' These teenagers are moving into adulthood, but they are not taking with them a knowledge of our nation's Constitution. It is undeniable that our educational system has failed to address this deficiency. Many experts have documented the fact that most textbooks do not devote a sufficient amount of space to exploring the Constitution and the ideas and personalities which shaped it. Even the national history standards proposed a few years ago failed to address adequately the importance of this document. The Constitution, along with the Declaration of Independence, is the very foundation upon which our nation is built. To not devote sufficient space in textbooks or time in class to it is a tragedy not only for students but also for the nation. It's also troubling to note that when constitutional history is discussed today, the Founding Fathers are portrayed as racist, sexist elitists. This caricature of the Founders, which fails to take into account how the Constitutional Convention tried to balance the idealism of the Declaration of Independence with the political realities of the day, is only abetted by the shallowness of the constitutional teaching in our schools. How can students weigh the competing claims in this important debate when they don't even know what is in the Constitution? How should this deficiency be addressed? I'm not here to suggest another federal program which would impose standards on the state and local school districts. I have long believed that curriculum is best determined by local school boards which are much closer to the people than we are here in Washington, D.C. Instead, I am today using this opportunity in the United States Senate to urge my colleagues to support states, school districts, and teachers beginning a wholesale effort to renew in our youth a respect and knowledge for the Constitution. Our young people need to know the rights guaranteed by this seminal document. As Thomas Jefferson said, our liberties may depend on it.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, few issues present stakes as high for our country as global climate change. Worst case scenarios involving elevated temperatures and sea levels are disturbing to many people. On the other hand, capping energy use at levels lower than those in the growth-oriented nineties could chill our economy faster than it would cool down the climate. Responsible governance includes environmental stewardship. However, the ultimate obligation of any government official anywhere is to win freedom for the governed who do not now have it, and to protect freedom for those who are already free. By freedom, I mean the opportunity to achieve one's true potential, whether as an individual, a community, or a nation. And isn't it marvelous how freedom spawns discovery and innovation? And, in turn, how discovery and innovation solve problems and create opportunities? Mr. President, we need consensus on climate change. But there is no magic dust that we can sprinkle on ourselves to make us all embrace the same scientific and economic conclusions on this issue. Our only chance lies in good, hard work toward that end. Where should we begin? Knowledge leads to understanding, and understanding to consensus. Mr. President, at the moment we have some critical gaps in our knowledge of climate phenomena. We know not nearly enough about the Earth's capacity to assimilate carbon dioxide. We know not nearly enough about natural variability of the climate over years, much less over centuries and millennia. Our ability to measure and predict changes is not developed. Adequate measurement and modeling machinery is not even invented yet. Scientists at the National Research Council published a report in September, 1999, that confirm these observations. In the preface of that Report, they state: It would be a misinterpretation of U.S. administration policy and agreements at the Kyoto conference to conclude that the causes and characteristics of global change are sufficiently clear that scientific inquiry in this area should be limited to mitigation measures. * * * * * A great deal more needs to be understood . . . about global environmental change before we concentrate on ``mitigation'' science. We do not understand the climate system well enough to clarify the causes and likelihoods of rapid or abrupt climate changes. Likewise, Mr. President, we need to understand the economic implications of the leading policy alternatives. One year ago the U.S. Department of Energy published a sobering analysis of potential economic impacts of implementing the Kyoto agreement. But shouldn't we hear from other agencies as well? What would the Department of Labor have to say? How about Agriculture and Transportation? Let's look before we leap. A third area we must explore is technology. What do we really know today about how energy will be produced in this country in 20 years? What do we know about how--and how much--it will be consumed? Can we develop policies to encourage real improvement in energy efficiency without trying to pick the market winners and losers? Mr. President, we are now living in the Information Renaissance. But many in government behave as though we are still in the Dark Ages. If some of us in Congress have difficulty gaining access to government- controlled information in this area--and all too often we have--can you imagine the obstacles to private citizens? Let's get all the information--science, technology, economics-- together. Let's make it freely and widely available. All Americans have a right to know what their Government knows--and what their Government is doing--about climate change. Knowledge in the science, economics, and technology of climate change will yield to understanding. We should all be open to unexpected discovery, whether in pleasant surprises or confirmation of today's predictions. While we are waiting to close our knowledge gaps, why not go ahead with some steps that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while accomplishing other benefits along the way? Every minute wasted in traffic tie-ups is that much more carbon dioxide man releases into the atmosphere. If we apply technology to solving traffic problems and the greenhouse gas theory fizzles out, at least our efforts will have saved time for busy travelers and commuters. Let's find ways to encourage individual citizens, farms and small businesses, communities and States, to take some no-regrets action to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But let's not offer the false hope that their efforts will be rewarded in some kind of negotiable credits issued in an international currency of carbon caps or fuel rations. Mr. President, the two companion bills that several colleagues and I are introducing today set out to do all these things with regard to the global climate change issue. My legislation does not pretend to answer all the questions. Rather, it lays out a framework for reaching consensus that begins by developing knowledge; and from knowledge understanding; and from understanding consensus. Mr. President, let's get stared. I welcome my colleagues to join me as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that the text and a section-by-section analysis of each measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, few issues present stakes as high for our country as global climate change. Worst case scenarios involving elevated temperatures and sea levels are disturbing to many people. On the other hand, capping energy use at levels lower than those in the growth-oriented nineties could chill our economy faster than it would cool down the climate. Responsible governance includes environmental stewardship. However, the ultimate obligation of any government official anywhere is to win freedom for the governed who do not now have it, and to protect freedom for those who are already free. By freedom, I mean the opportunity to achieve one's true potential, whether as an individual, a community, or a nation. And isn't it marvelous how freedom spawns discovery and innovation? And, in turn, how discovery and innovation solve problems and create opportunities? Mr. President, we need consensus on climate change. But there is no magic dust that we can sprinkle on ourselves to make us all embrace the same scientific and economic conclusions on this issue. Our only chance lies in good, hard work toward that end. Where should we begin? Knowledge leads to understanding, and understanding to consensus. Mr. President, at the moment we have some critical gaps in our knowledge of climate phenomena. We know not nearly enough about the Earth's capacity to assimilate carbon dioxide. We know not nearly enough about natural variability of the climate over years, much less over centuries and millennia. Our ability to measure and predict changes is not developed. Adequate measurement and modeling machinery is not even invented yet. Scientists at the National Research Council published a report in September, 1999, that confirm these observations. In the preface of that Report, they state: It would be a misinterpretation of U.S. administration policy and agreements at the Kyoto conference to conclude that the causes and characteristics of global change are sufficiently clear that scientific inquiry in this area should be limited to mitigation measures. * * * * * A great deal more needs to be understood . . . about global environmental change before we concentrate on ``mitigation'' science. We do not understand the climate system well enough to clarify the causes and likelihoods of rapid or abrupt climate changes. Likewise, Mr. President, we need to understand the economic implications of the leading policy alternatives. One year ago the U.S. Department of Energy published a sobering analysis of potential economic impacts of implementing the Kyoto agreement. But shouldn't we hear from other agencies as well? What would the Department of Labor have to say? How about Agriculture and Transportation? Let's look before we leap. A third area we must explore is technology. What do we really know today about how energy will be produced in this country in 20 years? What do we know about how--and how much--it will be consumed? Can we develop policies to encourage real improvement in energy efficiency without trying to pick the market winners and losers? Mr. President, we are now living in the Information Renaissance. But many in government behave as though we are still in the Dark Ages. If some of us in Congress have difficulty gaining access to government- controlled information in this area--and all too often we have--can you imagine the obstacles to private citizens? Let's get all the information--science, technology, economics-- together. Let's make it freely and widely available. All Americans have a right to know what their Government knows--and what their Government is doing--about climate change. Knowledge in the science, economics, and technology of climate change will yield to understanding. We should all be open to unexpected discovery, whether in pleasant surprises or confirmation of today's predictions. While we are waiting to close our knowledge gaps, why not go ahead with some steps that reduce greenhouse gas emissions while accomplishing other benefits along the way? Every minute wasted in traffic tie-ups is that much more carbon dioxide man releases into the atmosphere. If we apply technology to solving traffic problems and the greenhouse gas theory fizzles out, at least our efforts will have saved time for busy travelers and commuters. Let's find ways to encourage individual citizens, farms and small businesses, communities and States, to take some no-regrets action to lower greenhouse gas emissions. But let's not offer the false hope that their efforts will be rewarded in some kind of negotiable credits issued in an international currency of carbon caps or fuel rations. Mr. President, the two companion bills that several colleagues and I are introducing today set out to do all these things with regard to the global climate change issue. My legislation does not pretend to answer all the questions. Rather, it lays out a framework for reaching consensus that begins by developing knowledge; and from knowledge understanding; and from understanding consensus. Mr. President, let's get stared. I welcome my colleagues to join me as cosponsors. I ask unanimous consent that the text and a section-by-section analysis of each measure be printed in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, seven years ago legislation was enacted, with my support, to create a memorial on the National Mall honoring Thomas Paine. A site has been selected and approved at 1776 Constitution Ave. However, the memorial project needs to be reauthorized until 2003 in order to raise the necessary funding to complete construction. Today I want to spend a moment to recognize the great American patriot, Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine thrived on new ideas, was broad minded and progressive. Through brilliantly written persuasion, he advocated four concepts which have since become cornerstones of American society and governance: independence, representation, unity, and leadership. Thomas Paine was the first patriot to call for a ``Declaration of Independence'' and a ``Continental Charter'' which proposed the basic principles of our constitution: ``securing freedom and property . . . and above all things, the free exercise of religion.'' Another cornerstone was laid when Paine had the foresight and courage to publicly advocate a representative, democratic/republican form of government for this country. He influenced George Washington and numerous other Revolution leaders as he stressed that government was a necessary evil which could only become safe when it was representative and altered by frequent elections. The function of government's role in society ought only be to regulate society and therefore be as simple as possible. Paine also introduced our status as a united, sovereign country with due regard for individual and states rights. He coined the phrases ``Free and Independent States of America'' and ``United States of America.'' The last cornerstone that Thomas Paine set for our country was the concept of a world leader fighting for human rights. Paine publicly denounced chattel slavery and was the first patriot to publish a defense of the rights of women in America. In his papers American Crisis I, Paine wrote: These are the times that try men's souls. . . . Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; . . . What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods, and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Paine has often been quoted by the leaders of this country on the great ideas of American independence, freedom and democracy--concepts which he was and still is unmatched in expressing. Without Paine's vision and initiative, our country would not be the republican world power that it is today. I am honored to have been able to help authorize his memorial seven years ago. I introduced S. 1681 to reauthorize the memorial until 2003 and I am glad that language from S. 1681 has been included in this bill to let this important work continue. Americans will be remembering Thomas Paine for generations to come, because of what we are doing today.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place Tuesday, November 2, 1999 at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, D.C. The purpose of this hearing is oversight to receive testimony on the recent announcement by President Clinton to review approximately 40 million acres of national forest lands for increased protection. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. 20510. For further information, please call Mark Rey at (202) 224- 6170.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. That was in the last cycle.

Mr. CRAIG. Specific to those elections.

Mr. CRAIG. It not only would not, you are speaking of a fantasy idea that I doubt will ever come to pass. But I thank you for asking that question.

Mr. CRAIG. That is a unique thought. I guess I had not thought of it that way. I do not necessarily suggest the $49.2 million is a corrupting factor.

Mr. CRAIG. I am happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I come to the floor this afternoon to engage in what has become an annual debate on campaign finance reform. But I am also here to honor Senator Mitch McConnell, who has chosen to be a leader on this issue for all the right reasons and, most importantly, the right principled reasons. To defend our Constitution and to defend free speech in this country is an admirable cause. I thank him for engaging in it. Along with that kind of leadership comes the risk of errors. I see that this weekend the New York Times, in its rather typical fashion, has decided to engage in this debate by simply calling names, suggesting that the Senate is a ``bordello'' and that Mitch McConnell is its ``madam.'' Shame on you, New York Times. I thought you were better than that. But then again, why should we think you are better than that on this issue, because you have chosen to take what you call high ground, which is in fact exclusive ground, that only you as journalists would have to speak out for America when no one else would have that opportunity. That is what this debate is all about. It is why I come to the floor, not only to support Mitch McConnell but to support these important principles that somehow the New York Times just flat stumbles over on its way to its version of the truth. There is another analogy I might use. It is similar to suggesting that this form of regulation is like a new architectural design for the Navy that gave us the Titanic. I suspect it is not new at all. In fact, it is not reform at all. And we have been up this creek one too many times. We are here today and we are engaged in a most serious way to debate what I think is an important issue. The Senate has held more than 100 votes on campaign finance reform during the past dozen years. Although the definition of ``reform'' has fluctuated widely over that period of time, the essence of this legislation remains the same--to restrict and stifle political speech. The bill now before us would also federalize or nationalize vast parts of America's politics. For the average citizen listening in today, let me repeat that phrase. Do you want your Government to federalize or nationalize political free speech in this country, to shape it and control it, and to tell candidates and their supporters how to speak? Someday they might even suggest what to speak. That is really the importance of why we come to this floor today to debate this most important topic. Under the new plan offered by Senators McCain and Feingold, there would be once again an across-the-board ban on soft money for any Federal election activity. You have already heard the sponsors and the supporters of this bill talk on and on about how soft money is bad, about how President Clinton rented out the Lincoln Bedroom in exchange for huge soft money donations, or how foreign nationals paid tens of thousand of dollars during the President's 1996 election campaign. They say all soft money is bad. Or should we say that Bill Clinton misused it and so, therefore, it is bad? I believe that is the kind of connection they are using. Sorry, Senator McCain; sorry, Senator Feingold. Don't put me in the same category with Bill Clinton. Put me in another category. Put me in a category that recognizes the importance of free speech and that recognizes there are appropriate ways of handling it. As I have said in the past, and I say again, a total ban on soft money will have a significant negative effect on the lives of thousands of citizens who believe it is their American right to become engaged in the political process. In the end, you will hear no disagreement on this point from the sponsors or the supporters of the legislation. Let me take a few moments to explain how this proposal of a ban on soft money will affect thousands of citizens involved in America's politics. Here in Washington, the national party organizations receive money from donors. The donations can be from individuals, lobbying groups that represent their members, businesses, or unions. The political organizations receiving these donations include the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Republican Senatorial Committee, the Democrat Senatorial Committee, the Republican National Congressional Committee, and the Democratic National Congressional Committee. All of these political organizations receive donations from contributors. What happens next is--and it is very important that we follow this because this is supposed to be the negative side of politics; this is supposed to be the side that corrupts. And yet, so far, it is clearly outside the Halls of the Senate. The money flows to these national political organizations. What happens next? These political organizations distribute some of that money to their respective political parties in counties and localities all over the country. As you can imagine, there are thousands of State, county, and local political offices that receive this financial aid. Then, under certain conditions already defined by State and Federal law, the local parties use this money for activities such as purchasing campaign buttons, bumper stickers, posters, and yard signs to express an opinion, to express an idea. The money is also used by voter registration activities on behalf of the partys' Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees. The money is also used for multicandidate brochures and even sample ballots. Can you imagine corruption yet emerging out of this that somehow would affect the vote or influence the vote of an individual Senator on this floor? I know Halloween is close. I know Senators McCain and Feingold are searching for ghosts. And maybe in this scenario there is a ghost. But, fellow Senators, it is only a ghost because here is what happens next. Let me give you an example. Say it is an election day. You go down to your local polling site, whether it is at a school, a local church, a National Guard armory, or your American Legion hall. Sometimes there is a person there who will hand you what is called a sample ballot listing all of the candidates in your party running for office. It is a way of identifying people running for your office or running for office in your party. As most voters, you are more than likely to choose candidates of your party. However, under the McCain-Feingold proposal, it would be against the law to use soft money to pay for a sample ballot with the name of any candidate who is running for Congress on the same sample ballot with State and local candidates combined. Corruption? As I said earlier, it is close to Halloween. Under the McCain-Feingold legislation, it would be against the law to use soft money to pay for campaign buttons, posters, yard signs, or brochures that include the name or picture of a candidate for Federal office on the same item that has the name or picture of a State or local candidate. That is called Federal control. That causes the creation of a bureaucracy to examine every election process right down to the local county central committee. Imagine the size of the new building here in Washington. Imagine the Federal agents out on the ground. Imagine it; that is what ultimately we reduce ourselves to when we begin to micromanage, as is proposed in this legislation, the kind of political process that most Americans believe and have reason to believe is a fair and honest process. Under McCain-Feingold, it would be against the law to use soft money to conduct a local voter registration drive 120 days before the election. These get-out-the-vote drives have proven to be effective tools for increasing interest among people in the political process. Frankly, that is what we are all about, getting people interested in participating in their government. Not enough do now. With McCain- Feingold, in the end we would probably even cause that to be restricted. In fact, in 1979 Congress supported revisions in the law pertaining to get-out-the-vote drives because they were concerned about important party-building activities and they promoted citizen participation in the election process. As we have heard on the Senate floor, the sponsors and supporters of this bill think this, and what I have just discussed, is corruption. Let's look at the reality of what this legislation creates. I will talk about a man I know by the name of Jack Hardy, the chairman of the Republican Party in Custer County, ID. Custer County is about as big as Delaware, New Hampshire, and New Jersey together with only about 4,000 citizens living in that huge geographic area. Jack Hardy, chairman of the Republican Party in that county, works at a full time job as a carpenter. He also enjoys spending time with his family. Jack relies on financial aid from the State and national party organizations to run his Custer County Republican Party. There are thousands of Jack Hardys all over the country. Most are volunteers. They put in long hours supporting their party and their candidates hoping to make a difference because they believe as Americans they ought to be involved in the party process to get people elected who believe in and represent the ideals that the Jack Hardys of America hold. Jack Hardy is a hard-working man who wants to make a difference. McCain-Feingold is saying we will make it tougher, Jack. Here is how we will make it tougher. We are not going to allow you to use the kind of resources that come from the State and the Federal parties. You have to get out and hustle: forget your job. You have to get hard money from donations, local business money, and individuals to fund any activities. Jack already does some of this. He already solicits among individuals and businesses in his community. But never is there enough on an election day or before an election day to do the right kind of work. Jack Hardy relies on his State and Federal party to help him. People such as Jack Hardy will be forced to take more of their time off from what is a nonpaid voluntary job to help participate in American political activities. In other words, fundraising hard money will become a bigger concern for the State and local officials than ever before, and whoever raises the most money can fund more political activities. It is that simple. Essentially, what we have done is make money the most compelling factor in campaigns instead of part of what is necessary to run a good campaign organization. Frankly, this is silly stuff. Exactly what kind of campaign finance reform is this? What are we trying to accomplish? We just added more laws to a system that is already heavily burdened with rules and regulations, many of which can't even get enforced because the Federal Election Commission doesn't function too well. Again, it is a federal bureaucracy that has probably outserved its usefulness. We have just added more laws to a system that is already not working. We forced thousands of State and local party officials to raise more money from their constituents, to confuse the process that we think works pretty well now. If the point of McCain-Feingold is to reform the campaign finance system, then I think the last thing we want to do is ban soft money. I support the amendment offered by Senator McCain to require State and local officials to file immediate electronic disclosure of contributions. That is key to anything we do. Let the voters know firsthand about the money source coming into their politics. Voters are not dumb. They are talented, bright Americans who make their own judgments. And they should be based on the knowledge handed them, without having to create a monstrously large Federal bureaucracy. I am bothered by what has been left out of McCain-Feingold. For example, there is no protection in this bill against union workers. This issue has already been debated thoroughly on the floor. I noticed just this past week the AFL-CIO has endorsed Al Gore in his candidacy for the Presidency. Of course, this will bring in millions of dollars of reported and millions of dollars of unreported money. Why? In large part, we have exempted labor unions from certain levels of campaign requirements and we do not exempt other citizens of our country. Most importantly, we have said labor bosses can take the dues of their members and use them for political purposes that maybe even those union members don't want. The American political process ought to be a free process. We want it to be open. We want and must always have full disclosure. If union dues go to fund Al Gore's campaign, there will be a lot of union people in Idaho who will be very angry because they openly tell me they cannot support this candidate. Why? Because he put them out of work. His policy on public lands and public land resources and this administration's reaction has cost thousands of union men and women to be out of work in my State. If their dues go without their ability to say no, they have a right to be angry. Yet the provision I am talking about is not in McCain-Feingold. I am talking about a term we call ``paycheck protection.'' This is a very important part of any kind of campaign finance reform any Member wants to see. During the 1996 elections, union leaders tacked on an extra surcharge on dues to their members in order to raise $49.2 million to defeat Republican candidates around the country. There is no reason not to say it; that was their intent. They were open about it. The union bosses have announced they plan to spend much more in the 2000 election. Yet nothing in this law says they can't do that. We shouldn't say, ``You can't do it.'' We should say there are rules about how to collect the money. The right of the citizen is to say yes or no to how his or her money is used for political purposes. There are others waiting to speak. This will be an issue we will debate into the week. It is an important issue, but it is one I think the American citizens understand quite well. When mom and dad come home at night and they sit at the dinner table and one spouse says to another, ``How was your day?'' my guess is they do not say, ``And, oh, what about those campaign finance laws that Senator Feingold is debating in the U.S. Senate? Those are really important to us.'' I doubt they say that. In fact, I doubt even few moms and dads have ever said that. I think what they will talk about, though, is the shooting that happened down the street too close to their school; or the economy that cost a brother or a sister their job; or the taxes they paid that denied them the ability to spend more on their children or put away more for their children's education. Yes, and they probably even, in a rather disgusted way, talk about some of the examples of moral decline in this country. My guess is that is what goes on around the dinner tables of America, not, ``Oh, and by the way, Senator Feingold has a great campaign finance bill.'' What are important issues, as we debate the issues in the closing days of this Senate, are issues about public education and safety and crime and all of that. We will engage in that with our President in the coming days as we finalize some of these key appropriations bills. Again, I think what is important to the American people are issues like crime, the economy, taxes, health care, education, social security, and the moral decline of the country. What people really care about is whether their children will get safely back and forth from school--and whether they'll get a good education in the public schools. They care about keeping their jobs and trying to make ends meet while they watch more and more of their hard earned money slip away to Washington to satisfy this President's lust for spending. They care about their future--whether they can save enough money to retire some day. And if they retire, will there be any money left in the Social Security system, or will it all be spent on more government programs. These are the real concerns of Americans today, and I hope the Senate will soon be able to turn its attention to these important issues. Let me conclude by saying we are not wasting our time debating campaign finance reform. Defending the right of free speech and the right of citizens to participate in this most critical of American institutions is our job. To defend and protect that right is the reasonable goal. So I appreciate joining with my colleagues on the floor to oppose McCain-Feingold and hope Senators will join with us in protecting that freedom of expression of America's citizens. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. CRAIG. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. CRAIG. I wouldn't know.

Mr. CRAIG. I not only do not know of anyone, I know if you accused anyone of changing their opinion because of that, you would have a fight on your hands. I do not mean just a verbal fight. I say to anyone who would suggest to any of us that money influences, from the standpoint it is going to change our philosophy, change our attitude or corrupt us, as some Senators have suggested on this floor that it does--out West we call them fighting words. Because you are questioning a person's integrity. You are basically saying they are for sale. Shame on those Senators who come to the floor to make that kind of suggestion. Maybe they know something we do not.

Mr. CRAIG. No. I do not believe that a majority of them would. I think their basis for what they call a pro-choice position is one firmly grounded on their philosophy. I don't criticize--I don't agree, but I don't criticize--their right to hold that. But what National Right to Life is saying is that they want to have the right to give the Democrat Party money if they choose to. What they are saying is, we want to have a right to organize individual citizens to come together to pool their money for the purpose of giving it. What McCain-Feingold says is: No, you can't do that. National Right to Life is saying, in this instance: Give us choice, the right to choose where we want to play in the political process. Don't deny us what is our right as American citizens or an American group to participate in the political process.

Mr. CRAIG. What is corrupting about that is when a labor boss says he is going to take the dues of his member without asking him or her whether he can use those dues for a political purpose.

Mr. CRAIG. Thomas Jefferson had something to say about that. He said it was wrong, and an individual's money never should be used for those purposes. That is the corrupting factor, when money you thought you controlled for the purpose of expressing your political opinion would get misused. I think in this instance it does.

Mr. CRAIG. In other words, following the logic that money talks and money influences.

Mr. CRAIG. How can you change your position on things that are fundamentally right in America, such as the right of an individual to control his money or her money for political purposes? Absolutely not.

Mr. CRAIG. Remember the New York Times says I am a member of a bordello.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, let me tell you how comforting it is to have our Chaplain, Lloyd Ogilvie, returning to us in good health and to hear his words and the spiritual guidance he offers the Senate. We are to happy to have Lloyd Ogilvie back.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately proceed to a vote on the conference report to accompany the VA-HUD appropriations bill. Following the vote, the Senate will immediately resume debate on the campaign finance reform bill, with further amendments to the bill anticipated. Debate on the campaign finance bill is expected to consume the remainder of the day and will continue throughout the early part of next week. However, Senators who intend to offer amendments are encouraged to work with the bill managers to schedule a time for debate on those amendments as soon as possible. I thank my colleagues for the attention.