J. Cleland

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is eminently correct. The Persian Gulf illness question is one that continues to baffle those of us who try to deal and struggle with it, but it certainly baffles the members of the military family that served in the Persian Gulf. Those personnel deserve justice. They deserve treatment when they are ill and they certainly want us to get to the bottom of this question. This is one of the most serious issues facing active duty and retired military personnel, especially those who served in the Persian Gulf. I want to say on behalf of our committee and our great leader, Senator Kempthorne, that we take this challenge seriously, and this defense authorization bill will certainly help.

Mr. CLELAND. This is one of the issues that I personally have a strong commitment to and that is improving the quality of care in our military facilities for our military active duty and retired personnel. The conference report authorizes active duty personnel serving in remote locations to receive health care through the Tricare system at no expense to that military person or that military family. It will allow military personnel and their families to receive quality health care where they live. This provision has real implications for active duty personnel and their families. It represents another quality of life improvement contained in the defense authorization conference report.

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is absolutely right. The bill, in light of the criminal behavior uncovered at Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, responds to strong sentiments in the Congress. Some of those strong sentiments would like to legislate the end of gender-integrated training. There are equally strong voices against that type of legislation. During our Personnel Subcommittee hearings on this particular issue, the point was raised that a commission created by the Department of Defense might raise credibility issues in some quarters. Responding to such legitimate concerns, the Senate Armed Services Committee adopted the Kempthorne-Byrd amendment to create a congressional commission to report directly to the Congress on this very important issue. Mr. President, here again the Senate conferees had to fight in conference to ensure that the commission remained objective.

Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is eminently correct. Without the bill, the services will be prohibited from actually reducing personnel, which is called for in the Quadrennial Defense Review, and the services will be forced to add personnel that they have actually determined, Mr. President, they can live without. We do have an era of tight resources, and I think it is unwise of us as a Congress to force the services to keep people they cannot afford.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator very much. Mr. President, without the legislative authorization to increase military pay approved in this bill, the pay raise would be limited to 2.3 percent at the same time you have Federal workers who receive a pay raise of at least 2.8 percent. In other words, without the enactment of this bill, we will give civilians working for the Federal Government a larger pay increase, larger pay raise than we give to men and women who are out there risking their lives to defend the interests of this country. Mr. President, I once ran a wonderful agency, the Veterans' Administration, and I think our employees, our civilian employees, do a wonderful job. But this Defense authorization bill will allow us to give the full 2.8 percent increase that certainly our military people richly deserve.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I recently had the privilege of attending a reunion of Carter administration officials in Atlanta. In an interview he gave to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, President Carter, whose personal integrity has never been questioned, summed up the current state of affairs very candidly, and all too well. The President's comments, which appeared in the October 19, 1997 edition of the Journal-Constitution, were as follows: The intense competition now almost forces Democrats and Republicans to cut corners on basic principles of politics in order to raise enormous amounts of soft money. I think it's an embarrassment to our nation. It's a travesty of proper political life. And I think it debilitates democracy itself in our country. As (Vice President Mondale) and I have agreed, it's a form of legal bribery. People can raise hundreds of thousands of dollars and contribute that money to candidates in both parties. They don't do this from a sense of altruism or benevolence or generosity. They do it in expectation of access to leaders, to present their point of view personally to someone in the Senate or someone in the White House when the people who might suffer from that sort of decision don't have an equal opportunity to present their point of view. So it distorts the whole political system and I hope it will be changed. At that same Atlanta gathering, former Vice President Mondale paraphrased Abraham Lincoln to the effect that, ``With public trust, everything is possible. Without public trust, nothing is possible.'' He added, compellingly: ``Public trust cannot be bought. It must be earned.'' Indeed, this is an indictment of our political system from individuals who have reached the pinnacle of success in that system. I believe the single most important step we can take in this Congress in rebuilding public confidence and faith in our democracy is to enact, on a bipartisan basis, meaningful campaign finance reform to clean up a system which has gotten completely out of control and which undermines both the operation and reputation of our entire national government. I think President Carter and Vice President Mondale would certainly agree, and I commend their observations to my colleagues.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Regina Jackson, a legislative fellow on my staff, be granted floor privileges for the debate on S. 1292.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished senior Senator from Georgia who spoke eloquently on this matter. It is clear that the people are already there, and the need exists for this operation facility. There was a misunderstanding, a miscommunication, about this matter at the Executive level, and that we were not properly consulted. Otherwise, we would have been able to share vital information with them at the time, and it might have changed the outcome. But I hope, along with my distinguished colleague, Senator Coverdell from Georgia, that the Senate will override the President on this matter and make sure that this vital operational facility is present at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia to accommodate some 2,000 personnel that are already in place, as the Senator has so accurately indicated.

Mr. CLELAND. Senator Coverdell and I are both supporters of the line- item veto to reduce wasteful spending. But the basis for the veto, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, must be prescribed and must rely on the facts, not on false assumptions. Clearly, in the case of the Moody facility, the facts did not justify the decision, and the project did not warrant a veto. Mr. President, this project has been and remains a top priority for Moody Air Force Base and for both Georgia Senators. The mission has been and remains in place at this time. I look to this bill to make right the wrong of the veto. In so doing, I hope to be able to support the needs of the additional 680 military personnel and approximately 1,500 spouses and dependent children that the mission has brought with it to Moody. I yield to my colleague, the senior Senator from Georgia, for his remarks. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleagues today in search of any rhyme or reason behind the veto of the $6.8 million project that the President vetoed at Moody Air Force Base in Georgia. It is known as the HH-60 OPS/pararescue project. It is a critical project that supports combat search and rescue training and pararescue training operations. This project should have been included in the budget. It benefits the quality of life for our service members, and has been operating at Moody since April, 1997. There is no apparent rationale for this veto action. I believe that the Moody project was vetoed because it failed to meet all the criteria for approval set by the administration. Thus, the claim was made that: first, the Moody project was not requested in the President's 1998 budget; second, the project would not improve the quality of life of military service members and their families; three, the project almost certainly would not begin construction in 1998. Responsible consideration of veto targets would have taken into account and weighed all the facts. The facts are these. My information is based on the fact that, in 1996, the Pentagon announced its plans to move two squadrons, the 41st and 71st, from Patrick Air Force Base, FL, to Moody Air Force Base, GA. In connection with the move, the Air Force began quartering a small number of people at Moody as early as October 1996 and subsequently moved the squadrons there in April 1997. The relocation is now complete and the unit is operating out of a temporary trailer. Having made a formal announcement, the Pentagon certainly had a genuine interest in the success of this project. The Air Force, having begun the transition in October 1996, obviously intended to implement the plan. Unfortunately, the decisions came too late for the Pentagon to include this project in the President's fiscal year 1998 budget, though, again, I believe there can be no doubt that our defense leadership fully supports the new mission for Moody. My distinguished colleagues, let us not forget that this Congress is duly responsible for ensuring that our legislation considers appropriate measures where the administration's submission may actually be lacking. It is not unusual, Mr. President, but in fact very common, that in the course of congressional review, we make additions or deletions that are in the best interest of national defense. In my opinion, this is one of the most critical projects that I have come across. I sit on the Armed Services Committee. I think it is my job, not only as a Senator from Georgia but as a U.S. Senator to bring up other concerns that the administration does not raise. I would like to say that the Moody squadron does employ the Blackhawk helicopter to implement its mission, and the project supports essential combat search and rescue training and pararescue training operations. What could be more important to the quality of life of military service members and their families than facilities that can operate to preserve those lives? Apparently, the administration erred in assuming that the squadrons had not yet located to Moody. Actually, the move began in 1996 and is now complete. I think if this veto is not overridden, the mission capability of the squadron will be seriously impacted. A combined function facility is required to provide both an adequate squadron operations space and pararescue space. No facility currently exists at Moody to support the HH-60 pararescue squadron. Without this facility, new mission functions will be almost impossible to perform and may not be able to operate as designed. Whether the veto was arbitrary or ill- advised, the bottom line is that the Moody veto makes no sense. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter sent by myself and Senator Coverdell be printed in the Record that expresses our point of view on this important matter.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, I certainly understand the position of the Senators from Texas and California. They have worked long and hard on this issue. I understand where they are coming from. I congratulate the Senator from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe, and others, who have worked just as hard to make sure this is a fair bill. The bill is consistent with the targets of the bipartisan budget agreement. On the major issues such as Bosnia, the B-2 bomber, and cooperative threat reduction, the bill is much closer to the Senate position than the House position. The most difficult issue to resolve in the conference was the depot maintenance provision. These provisions are the product of intense communication, diligent coordination and diplomatic negotiations of the issues to the fullest extent possible. We have actually been working on these issues some 9 months. We made numerous significant concessions in order to reach an agreement. In the final analysis, the major concessions were: We agreed to the Department of Defense request to continue free and open public-private competitions for the workloads at Kelly Air Force Base, TX, and McClellan Air Force Base, CA, with public-private partnerships. We agreed to the Department of Defense request to lower the 60-40 rule to 50-50. We agreed to the Department of Defense request to solicit a single contract for multiple workloads having been certified by the Secretary of Defense. And we agreed that it is critical to maintain a core capability at the public facilities with a surge capacity that supports our mobilization needs at a moment's notice. In spite of all the concessions made in this agreement, the opposition believes this should be an all-or-nothing deal. To do so, I think, would truly negate the rules of fairness and the competitive market, and it undermines the credibility of DOD's stated financial priorities. It also risks the future of legitimate privatization efforts by the Department of Defense. I am satisfied with the depot provision in the conference report. The Department of Defense is satisfied with the provision. And the provision has the unanimous support of the Senate Armed Services Committee on which I serve. The provision does not include everything that either side really wanted, but it is undoubtedly a fair and unbiased bill that places bidders on an equal footing. I find it hard to argue against fairness. So, Madam President, I suggest this body finally act on the defense authorization bill, and it has my support. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to honor a dear friend of mine, Patrick Curtis, who is being honored next week with the 100th star on The Palm Springs Walk of Stars in Palm Springs, CA. Patrick first set off on the road to stardom when he played Baby Beau Wilkes in Gone with the Wind. As a young actor working his way through film school, he worked on dozens of westerns, the Ma and Pa Kettle comedies, nearly every Tony Curtis film made in the 1950's, and even on the Leave it to Beaver set. Upon graduating from film school, Patrick received a naval ROTC commission. He later served his country in Vietnam in 1967 and 1968. Patrick has risen to become a highly successful film director and producer. He has had the opportunity to work with many legends and personal heroes of mine. Recently, he produced Meanwhile, Back at the Ranch, a documentary western about John Wayne, Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, Hoppy, and other six-gun legends. Even with his busy film schedule, Patrick has found time to give back to his community. He was asked by President Ronald Reagan to serve as president of the Vietnam Veterans Leadership Program, an organization of successful veterans with the purpose of helping veterans who have not been able to mainstream. For his continued support of Vietnam veterans, Patrick has been awarded the prestigious Air Force Association Humanitarian Award. He has also been presented lifetime membership in The Marine Corps League, The Navy League, and The Air Force League. In addition to his work with veterans, Patrick has worked to gather together talent in the entertainment industry to create public service announcements for groups such as Mothers Against Drunk Driving, DARE, and Activities for Retarded Children--all paid for by funds raised from the entertainment industry. Mr. President, I would like to honor Patrick Curtis for his outstanding and numerous contributions to the entertainment industry, to America's veterans, and to his community. Patrick's selfless service to his country and community are a great example of what it means to be a great, patriotic American.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I join my colleagues in recognizing September 15 through October 15 as Hispanic Heritage Month. It is important that we reflect on the great contributions that Hispanic-Americans have made to our Nation. Hispanic-Americans embrace the American society and culture, while at the same time perpetuating a unique cultural heritage of their own. In so doing, they are contributing to our Nation's diversity--a quality Americans take great and justifiable pride in maintaining. As one of the fastest growing segments of our society, Hispanic- Americans are an increasingly vital part of our economy. Hispanic-owned firms contribute significantly to our economic growth, and their ranks are increasing every day. In my own State of Georgia, which once served as the boundary between Spanish and English America, the number of Hispanic-owned businesses has risen 184.9 percent over the past 10 years. But the contributions of Hispanic-Americans go well beyond the economic arena. Their strong commitment to family, community, and country sets an example for all our people. For example, many have demonstrated their commitment to our Nation through dedicated military service. And Hispanic culture continues to enrich American art, music, and literature. Hispanic Heritage Month seeks to increase national awareness and understanding of and respect for Hispanics and their tradition of achievement in this country. Across the Nation, events are taking place which demonstrate our rich Hispanic heritage. Through these festivities, every American will be given the chance to experience Hispanic culture. I urge every citizen to do so. You will be educating yourself and giving the Hispanic-American community in your area the recognition it deserves.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I enjoyed the remarks of my colleague from the great State of Oklahoma. Mr. President, this is a day I have been waiting for since I had the great honor and privilege of taking my oath of office as a U.S. Senator back in January: a day when we are debating pending campaign finance reform legislation on the Senate floor. It has been a long and tortuous road since January, and on more than one occasion, we have all heard pronouncements that campaign finance reform was dead for this session, if not for all time. That we are here today is a great tribute to the perseverence an effectiveness of my friends and colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, as well as the relentless commitment of the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, to the cause of campaign finance reform. I wish also to thank the distinguished majority leader for affording us the opportunity to debate, and cast meaningful votes, on this vital issue. This is also a testimony to the groundswell of public opinion that is compelling us to act on a very embarrassing matter, the way we raise political money. Will Rogers said it best: ``It takes a lot of money now days to even get beat with.'' That was said over 70 years ago. It is certainly even more true today. But, in describing the current unremitting, unforgiving money chase which has overtaken our democratic process, especially, at the Federal level, in such a manner as to have a ``for sale sign'' on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, I like the quote by W.C. Fields to the extent, ``We must take the bull by the tail and face the situation.'' As we begin this Senate debate on whether or not we should enact far- reaching restrictions on the current way money is raised and spent for Federal office in America, we must face the situation that this current system is fatally flawed. It has enough loopholes in it to drive a fleet of 18 wheelers through it and is rendering our democratic process and our Government, which flows from that process, vulnerable to influence peddling, the inordinate impact of special interest pressure groups, foreign influence and outright corruption. It's time to take the bull by the tail. I for one have been fighting this battle for campaign financing reform for many years. In 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, I introduced legislation in the Georgia Senate when I was a State senator limiting campaign expenditures and contributions. As Georgia's secretary of state in the 1980's and early 1990's, I fought for tighter limits on campaign giving, and full disclosure of lobbying expenditures. As a U.S. Senator sworn in this year on January 7, the first legislation I signed as a cosponsor was the McCain-Feingold campaign financing reform bill. I am 1 of 45 of my Democratic colleagues and 4 of my Republican colleagues pledged to support the McCain-Feingold bill in its present form when it comes to the floor of the Senate. Also, as a new Member of the Senate, I volunteered for service on the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has been conducting a far- reaching investigation into the multitude of alleged illegal and improper activities associated with the 1996 campaign. Just last week, the committee turned to consideration of suggested remedies for such abuses. All year long, I have listened to numerous witnesses, sifted through countless pages of testimony, read scores of media reports, and otherwise immersed myself in the nitty-gritty of the financing of Federal campaigns last year. I also had the personal experience of enduring the current process in my own race for the U.S. Senate in 1996. Sitting in these hearings and seeing the sordid tale of the money chase in 1996, has turned my stomach. I also think the American public has viewed all this with increasing disgust. What I have witnessed, heard, and read has made me even more convinced than ever that we must strengthen our campaign financing laws, now, and provide strong enforcement through the Federal Election Commission of these laws, or risk seeing our elections process, which is supposed to be conducted between the candidates, the press, and the voters, be swept away in a tidal wave of big bucks. Unless we act now, we will only see the power of special interest groups, corporations, and unions to pedal influence grow. We will only see our system more and more vulnerable to foreign governments and unscrupulous individuals. Unless we tighten our laws, we will see our system more and more operating against the public interest. I don't think our Founding Fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, had that in mind when they helped create this Government. Mr. President, the other day I was over in the Library of Congress and received a marvelous book by James Madison, titled ``The Search for Nationhood.'' Mr. President, I am afraid that more and more candidates for Federal office are not so much in search of fulfilling our search for nationhood as they are for fulfilling the search for money. I certainly don't think they had that in mind when they led the effort to create the U.S. Senate. Jefferson and Madison led the way to create the Senate to look at the long view of American government, and provide a balanced approach for the future of our country. Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence stated in that magnificent document that the Founding Fathers had pledged their lives, fortunes and sacred honor. They didn't say that in order to set up a democratic form of government that one had to spend their lives to pursue a fortune to run for public office and jeopardize their honor in the process. Opponents of McCain-Feingold tend to concentrate their spoken criticisms on its alleged violations of free speech. Those criticisms mistakenly equate money with speech. It is an equation which inevitably leads to the conclusion that the paid speech of the millionaire will have greater weight and influence than the opinions and expressions of the common man and woman. Certainly there can be little doubt about the commitment of James Madison, Father of the Constitution, an architect of the Bill of Rights, and President of the United States, to the great cause of free speech. But listen to what Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers: But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. While he was certainly both a revolutionary and a visionary, Madison never allowed himself to stray too far from the practical realities of the world in which he lived. To him, the lack of human perfection was thus the basis for government, and a factor which must be taken into account in providing a government with sufficient powers to accomplish its necessary functions, while at the same time holding it fully accountable to the governed. We must hold those who run for Federal elective office fully accountable to tight regulations and complete disclosure in the raising and spending of campaign dollars. Last week on the Senate floor, Senator Thompson delivered a very fine statement on campaign finance reform and free speech in which he pointed out that, in the real world, this current debate about campaign finance reform and free speech is not one of absolutes, as some would have it. This is not a choice between a system of unfettered free speech and government regulation, for our current system recognizes many, many instances in which there is a legitimate, and constitutional, public interest in regulating speech, from slander laws, to prohibitions on the disclosure of the identities of American intelligence agents, to the campaign arena itself, with a longstanding ban on corporate contributions, and quarter-century and older limits on other forms of contributions and disclosure requirements. So the debate really isn't about free speech. TV isn't free, yet it's the main vehicle by which Federal candidates connect to their voters, and the single most important factor driving up campaign costs. In the words of Dr. Norm Ornstein, a noted political scientist and recent witness in the Governmental Affairs hearing, the question is not free speech, but whether we will erect some fences to prevent the worst abuses of campaign financing to occur. I'm for tighter fences, to prevent the horse from getting out of the barn next time. Campaign finance reform opponents also sometimes claim to be concerned that such efforts will further increase the advantage currently enjoyed by incumbents. Even on its face, I have a hard time taking this argument seriously. I am aware of very, very few cases in the real world of contemporary American politics, whether at the Federal, State, or local level, where incumbents do not enjoy a substantial advantage over challengers under the current system. And, it is difficult to imagine any situation under which any form of campaign limits, whether or contributions or spending, will not constrain far more the incumbents rather than the challengers. For example, earlier this year, the group Public Citizen presented one of the first detailed analyses of the likely impact of the expenditure limits contained in the original version of McCain- Feingold, based not on theoretical conjecture, but on the actual results had S. 25 been in effect in the most recent elections for each of the 100 U.S. Senate seats, based on the 1992, 1994, and 1996 Senate elections. The findings of the Public Citizen study clearly demonstrate that had the provisions of McCain-Feingold been in effect since 1992, Senate campaign spending would have been reduced by $259 million-- that's $259 million--with far more of this reduction coming among incumbents than challengers. While fully 90 percent of all the Senate incumbents were able to exceed McCain-Feingold's spending limits, just 24 percent of all the challengers did so. In other words, 9 out of 10 Senate incumbents would have been forced to spend less by McCain- Feingold, while only one in four challengers would have seen their spending constrained. This should put to rest any legitimate argument that spending limits are an incumbent's protection measure. The record does not bear this out, and as the figures demonstrate, this is not even a close call. Some also charge that McCain-Feingold, in whatever version, would somehow advantage Democrats more than Republicans. First of all, one of the prime sponsors of S. 25 is my good friend and fellow Vietnam veteran, the distinguished senior Senator from Arizona. Senator McCain is many things. He is a wonderful human being, and a fine Senator. But, he is also a very faithful Republican. He would never put forward a proposal which would harm is party. Once again, the Public Citizen report bears out this commonsense wisdom. Since 1992, almost identical portions of Democratic and Republican Senate candidates would have exceeded McCain-Feingold spending limits: 54 percent of Democrats, 59 percent of Republicans. You can't get much more of a level playing field than that. And, while the revised version of McCain-Feingold does not contain spending limits, the principles of greater constraint on incumbents than challengers, and of relatively even partisan impact, applies to soft money and issue advocacy advertising as well. As I have told anyone who has asked, I like being a U.S. Senator. Having the privilege of representing my State in this body, where such giants as Clay, Webster, Calhoun, Norris, LaFollette, Dirksen, and Russell have served with distinction is the greatest honor of my life. But, sitting here day by day, with evidence continually mounting in the Governmental Affairs Committee hearings of campaign abuses, and public opinion surveys chronicling the loss of public trust in the political process, not to mention the ongoing massive fundraising which takes place all the time in the Nation's Capital, I cannot but conclude that the current campaign finance system is broken and cries out for reform. We have heard a lot of talk, and we will hear more talk this week and next, about these abuses, and about the general topic of campaign finance reform. But, the time is coming when we must take action. Certainly, the revised McCain-Feingold package is not perfect; it is not all that I think needs to be done to remedy our problem, but it is an essential first step aimed at dealing with the worst of these abuses which currently plague our campaign system. The revised bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal does not contain spending limits, does not contain limits on PAC's, and does not provide free or discounted broadcast air time for Federal candidates, all of which I personally favor. It places no limits on what groups or organizations say in their campaign-related communications. What the proposal does do is this: It bans soft money contributions to and spending by the national political parties--something that has been the bane of those that care about campaign finance reform, and who have witnessed the testimony before the Government Affairs Committee. It should be noted that the pursuit of soft money is at the root of almost all of the questionable fundraising activities identified to date by the Governmental Affairs Committee upon which I sit. I might say also that if you ban soft money then all contributions, whether you are a union member, a citizen, stockholder, would be voluntary because you would have only two ways you could contribute: Independently on your own, or through a political action committee registered with the Federal Elections Commission. That is voluntarily as well. The bill modifies the definition of ``express advocacy.'' These are ads, unfortunately, that don't provide a clear distinction between communications used to advocate issues from those used to back or oppose candidates. This bill would require that clear distinction. Under the proposal, independent groups will be free to air either kind of ad, but to qualify for the ``issue ad'' designation and thereby to avoid the disclosure and financing requirements applied to candidates and party committees, they merely have to not use a candidate's name or else run more than 60 days before the election. This hardly represents an infringement on free speech. It improves the enforcement of existing laws by expanding disclosure and Federal Election Commission monitoring capability. It strengthens current law in such areas as fundraising from Federal property, and the use of the Congressional franking privilege. It strictly codifies the Beck decision concerning the right of nonunion members to have a refund of any union fees used for political purposes to which they object. It bars political parties from making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who do not agree to limit their own personal spending on their own behalf. It bans all campaign contributions and expenditures by foreign sources. In addition to this core package, Senators McCain and Feingold will offer an amendment, which I strongly support, to establish a voluntary system in which those candidates who raise a majority of their contributions in their home State, accept no more than 25 percent of total contributions from political action committees, and spend no more than $50,000 of their own money in the election would receive a 50- percent discount on television costs. We must have controls--rigid, well-enforced controls--on campaign financing because campaigns are the embryo of democratic government itself. Men are not angels, yet we must find ways to govern ourselves in a fair and democratic manner. Therefore, we must enact laws to control the financing of campaigns for Federal office in a fair and democratic manner. My colleagues, the country is watching what we do on campaign finance reform. Make no mistake about this. They are understandably skeptical that we will take action to reform the system under which we all were elected. Their expectations for our action are quite low. Let's surprise the public as well as ourselves. Let's prove that physicians can heal themselves. Let's take the bull by the tail. I urge my colleagues to support the distinguished efforts of two courageous Senators, John McCain and Russell Feingold, who through their diligence, persistence, and strong belief in upholding the finest traditions of our democratic process have brought us to this hour. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oklahoma.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to pay tribute to my good friend Wally Amos. ``Famous Amos'' known to many Americans as the founder of Famous Amos Cookies and the father of the gourmet chocolate chip cookie industry, is an example to all of us. He is an example because of his dedication to our country as a veteran of the U.S. Air Force, and for what he has accomplished as an entrepreneur and businessman. He is a citizen of this country who has reaped great success but has not neglected his responsibilities to the community. And even more than that, Mr. President, Wally Amos brings a powerful and inspirational message to people in all walks of life. I have said over and over that I believe that small businesses and entrepreneurship are the foundation of the economic engine of this country. Wally Amos has for some time now written a monthly column subtitled ``Grow Your Business,'' and I would like to take just a few moments to highlight several principals that he has offered as a result of good and bad experiences he has lived though: First, effort doesn't always equal results. You grow a business by assessing your personal strengths and contributing them to the efforts of the team. Second, some of the greatest personal growth comes as a result of some of the most challenging experiences. What you give attention to grows. Rather than give attention to what you don't have, focus on what you do have. Third, fear creates anger, resentment, anxiety, frustration, and worry, none of which will help you succeed in business. Fourth, be passionate about your business. Demonstrate that you care for your employees and business associates. People are your most important asset. Fifth, your employees have a vested interest in your success. Sixth, dogmatic behavior and stubbornness have created long-term success. The quickest way to failure is to believe that your way is the only way. Mr. President, in every job Wally Amos has had, he always started at the bottom and worked his way to the top. I hope that others will look to the example of citizenship and entrepreneurship of Wally Amos and be inspired as I am.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I am proud to offer my support for the Small Business Administration reauthorization. I am extremely proud to be a part of the Small Business Committee and, I appreciate the work of my chairman and the ranking member for their hard work and for working together to resolve all of the outstanding differences on the details of the bill. I also thank so many of the staff for their hard work. Mr. President, there are several things I want to highlight in this legislation. First, I want to offer my strong support for the Welfare- to-Work Microloan Pilot Program. Many times, good men and women have come to this floor in support of programs and opportunities that aspired to do great things for those who needed it most. Some of those initiatives have gone on to become great public endeavors. I am proud to support such an endeavor, one that I believe will inspire and offer hope to Americans that truly want to break the cycle of poverty and build a business of their own. This program puts our money where our mouths are. It provides upfront technical assistance for business planning, loan application assistance, and development of sound business skills for people who we can provide a ladder of opportunity rather than just the same old welfare system. If we want to stand strong behind the notion that public assistance should be a hand up, not a hand out, we must pro-actively seek out ways to provide meaningful job opportunities for welfare recipients. This program is a step in the right direction. This program targets traditionally under-served Americans and gives them tools they can use to, not only take themselves off of the welfare rolls, but provide job opportunities in areas of the country that are desperate for job growth. This legislation has been tried and shown great promise. With 2.8 million Americans moving off of welfare, the potential for this program is obvious. It's the kind of investment that can return much, much more than what we put in. Let me add just a few more points. The average microloan to an individual is $10,800, not a lot of money by Washington standards, but to the man or woman who just wants an opportunity to change the direction of their life and that of their loved ones, it may make all the difference in the world. I also offer my support for the SBA's Small Business Technology Transfer Pilot Program. This important program builds on past successes of further advancing increased commercialization of federally funded research projects. Finally, Mr. President, I want to say how proud I am of the National Women's Business Council and the work that they have done. I am honored to have worked with Senator Coverdell and thank him for helping to obtain funding for this important organization and the work that they do on behalf of women. I further add that Anita Drummond on the minority staff and Suey Howe on the majority side were particularly helpful in this effort and should be commended for a job well done. All in all, there are many provisions in this legislation that I am proud to have had a part in crafting. I look forward to even more success on a bipartisan basis from within the committee, from the SBA and from the small business community in tackling the problems facing small businesses. I look forward to the work ahead. I thank my colleagues and I thank the chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, during my tenure as Administrator of the Veterans, Administration a ``fall back and rescue'' plan was formulated to be of assistance to those veterans with VA guaranteed mortgages which might be burdensome. The proposal which later became a VA regulation is now, as then, referred to as IRRRL which stands for interest rate reduction refinancing loan. Many thousands of eligible veterans have already benefited from this legislation during the past 17 years of its existence and the VA personnel involved deserve many thanks for their dedicated interest and help. My concern is not with the legislation or the Department of Veterans Affairs, but rather with the seeming reluctance of many in the mortgage industry to take a more active posture with regard to its implementation. I have been told by those who are in the know that the numbers of interested lenders is very small in comparison to the need. I call upon those companies who service GI mortgage loans to be more receptive and to make known throughout the veterans community the existence of these mortgage ``lifelines.'' The main features of the IRRRL are the following: First, in most cases the interest rate will be lower, and the payment will be lower. Documentation is at a minimum and no credit evaluation is done; second, refinancing can be done if the mortgagee is less than 2\1/2\ months behind in their payments; and third, the veteran can add up to $6,000.00 to the mortgage for energy efficient improvements, for example, air conditioning, heating systems, insulation, storm door and windows. In closing, I also encourage Secretary designate Hershel Gober to intensify the VA's efforts to communicate to veterans information on this very vital and viable tool which is available to them. Further, I hope to enlist in the same effort the extremely valuable services of my good friend, former VA Secretary Jesse Brown, whose knowledge and dedication to veterans is unquestioned.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I rise today to praise the accomplishments of the Olympic Solidarity Program and its partnership with the Savannah International Training Center, the only recognized athletic training venue in the United States whose athletes are funded by the International Olympic Committee. This scholarship program has brought athletes from Africa and South America to Georgia, continuing the spirit of the 1996 International Olympic games by giving opportunities to athletes from developing countries. The Savannah International Training Center is the largest Solidarity Training Center in the world. The Solidarity Program provides athletes with funds for room and board, education, visas, transportation and training costs. In June 1996, 25 Olympic Solidarity Athletes arrived in Georgia from countries such as Zimbabwe, Rwanda, and Colombia to participate in the outstanding track and field program. The facility hopes to be able to expand its programs to include weightlifting, swimming, and soccer. Essentially, the Solidarity Program provides athletes with a unique experience like no other in the United States or in the world. This program not only enhances the quality of life for the athletes; the Olympic Solidarity Program has provided the community of Savannah and the State of Georgia with an international experience comparable to the 1996 Olympic games. Exposure to the variety of cultures existing among the participating countries allows the citizens of Savannah to develop stronger ties with these nations and improve foreign relationships. The Savannah International Training Center continues to thrive and grow, exemplifying Georgia's commitment to the success of international athletics and the spirit of the Olympics. It is with great pride that I congratulate the Savannah International Training Center, the city of Savannah, the International Olympic Committee and the athletes involved for contributing to the unparalleled success of this distinguished program in the United States and for continuing the Olympic legacy in the State of Georgia.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I want to speak today about the work the National Women's Business Council [NWBC] is doing in my State and the work they do for the country in the interest of women-owned businesses. I want to make special note of the efforts of one of Georgia's shining examples of entrepreneurship. Mr. President, Carolyn Stradley started out filling in potholes with asphalt and from that has grown a small business that is now responsible for work done in both the Olympic Stadium and the Georgia Dome. In addition to successfully competing in a male dominated business world, she is literally paving the way for other women to find opportunities into the work force through the creation of small businesses. Yesterday morning Carolyn moderated a workshop that provided a forum to discuss, develop, and find consensus on policy recommendations which enhance women business owners access to capital and credit at every stage of business growth. This forum was part of 10 workshops being held at Federal Reserve Banks and branches across the nation. The top 10 recommendations from each of the 10 workshops will be compiled into a report and presented to Congress and the President by the NWBC. The participants of these workshops include women business owners, bankers and other lenders, government representatives and other experts who work daily to develop financial strategies that are so essential in getting small businesses off the ground. Mr. President, I want to commend the NWBC for their work and their continued efforts as an independent source of advice and counsel to the Congress, the President and the Small Business Administration. Their mission is to promote bold initiatives, policies and programs designed to foster women's business enterprise as well as an economic environment conducive to business growth and development for women- owned businesses. The council has focused on four key areas: (1) expanding public and private market opportunities for women-owned businesses; (2) promoting the development of a research agenda and data collection on the women's business sector and public awareness of its contributions; (3) strengthening the networking capabilities of women entrepreneurs and the technical assistance and training infrastructure; and (4) expanding the financial resources available to women business owners and ensuring their access to them. I believe that it is particularly fitting that the NWBC does have this focus and I would point to a few important figures, just in Georgia alone, that would support this. Mr. President, as of 1996 there are nearly 204,000 women-owned businesses in Georgia employing over 622,000 people and generating over $87 billion in sales. During the period of time from 1987 and 1992, the National Foundation for Women Business Owners estimates that the number of women-owned firms in Georgia has increased by 112 percent, employment has grown by 334 percent and sales have risen 508 percent. In 1996, women-owned firms accounted for 36 percent of all Georgia firms, and provided employment for 34 percent of Georgia workers, and generated 24 percent of the State's business sales. Finally, I am proud to point out that Georgia ranks fifth in growth in the number of minority women-owned firms as of 1996--a 227 percent increase between 1987 and 1996. Mr. President, I encourage my colleagues to support and fund organizations like the National Women's Business Council. Small Businesses are the foundation of our Nation's economic engine and small businesses are the future continued economic growth and success.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, hearing the discussion in this Chamber today gets my juices flowing. I appreciate the comments of everyone here. It reminds me that back in my great State of Georgia there is a little town called Waycross that has adopted as its mascot a little comic strip character called Pogo. Pogo was a little possum that lived on the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp, and he was famous for one statement, which is, ``We have met the enemy and he is us.'' There is no question, Mr. President, that the enemy of campaign finance reform is us, and yet the friends of campaign finance reform are us. We have to resolve this issue. It is not going to be left up to anyone else, any one other body. We have to do it and no one else is going to do it. I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin and Maine and Michigan to discuss this critical issue that I think is one of the most important issues we face certainly this year. Now, my friends, Senators McCain and Feingold, have indicated we will be voting on this issue in this Chamber this September. I certainly hope so. Three of us here also have the distinction, and I guess it is an honor, of serving on the Governmental Affairs Committee which is investigating a series of illegal and improper activities in connection with the Federal elections of 1996. All three of us--myself, Senator Collins, and Senator Levin--are recently veterans of the campaign finance wars, each of us having won election or reelection in the 1996 elections. I think that is one of the reasons why we have a burning desire to change the very system under which we ran. While the Governmental Affairs Committee has more work to do in uncovering the full story of the 1996 elections, it is already abundantly clear that the atrocious current system of Federal campaign finance laws has made our country vulnerable to efforts by foreign as well as domestic sources to improperly influence our electoral process. As Georgia's secretary of state and certainly as a U.S. Senator, I have been aware for a long time of the domestic abuses of big money and special interests, and that concern has helped fuel my longstanding interest in significant campaign finance reform. Mr. President, these Governmental Affairs proceedings have been an eye-opener for me. They have indicated to me the incredible vulnerability that this country and our political system experience in terms of foreign special interests. As the preceding speakers have indicated, we as a group are not wedded to any one plan. We will be working with other Senators to come up with the best legislation we can possibly put together. But we will insist that the final legislative language we will support and force a vote on in September be truly bipartisan, must be real reform and not a sham, and in my view to constitute real reform at a minimum we must reduce the role of big money in our political process, help level the playing field for less- financed candidates and must ban soft money altogether at the Federal level. One of the unifying threads of the Governmental Affairs investigation to date has been the very concentration virtually of all the fundraising abuses in both parties in the realm of soft money. So I look forward to taking our case back home to our constituents in August and in forging a bipartisan compromise which does incorporate the necessary elements of real reform. We are not going to terminate our effort. We intend to terminate these abuses.

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CLELAND

Mr. CLELAND. Would my colleague from Georgia yield?

Mr. CLELAND. I would also like to thank the chairman, the ranking member, and my colleague from Georgia for their help. I yield the floor. Structure Research

Mr. CLELAND. I thank the chairman. I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague from Georgia. Hartsfield is operating beyond its capacity during peak departure and arrival times. This produces excessive delays, inconveniences passengers, disrupts flight schedules, and increases operational cost for Hartsfield's carriers. Commuter, typically turboprop, and other prop aircraft operations compose approximately 18 percent of the airport's activity. These aircraft weigh much less than air carrier jets. During final approach, additional intrail separation must be used when a turboprop is behind an air carrier jet due to wake turbulence. This additional separation imposes delay to aircraft behind the turboprop, delaying passengers and increasing costs resulting from the downwind portion of flight. By removing the vast majority of commuter aircraft from both the downwind and final approach segments of flight, delay is reduced for both air carrier and commuter aircraft. Thus, an additional runway to handle turboprops and light commuter jets would provide many benefits to all Hartsfield carriers. I support priority consideration by the FAA and urge the FAA to issue an LOI for Atlanta. Would the chairman and the ranking member agree with me and the senior Senator from Georgia that this project should receive priority consideration by the FAA?