Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. So the second-degree amendments can still be offered?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. Durbin), the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), and the Senator from Oregon (Mr. Wyden) are necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Vermont (Mr. Leahy) is absent on official business.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn) is necessarily absent. On this vote, the Senator from Montana (Mr. Baucus) is paired with the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye). If present and voting, the Senator from Hawaii would vote ``yea'' and the Senator from Montana would vote ``nay.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Glenn), the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye), are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Biden), the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Cleland), the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Dorgan), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kerry), the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. Kerrey), the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Maryland (Ms. Mikulski), and the Senator from Illinois (Ms. Moseley-Braun) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) and the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Inouye) are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1648 Withdrawn

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) and the Senator from California (Mrs. Feinstein) are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. Harkin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. FORD. I object.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, once again, I rise to discuss an issue that in the recent past has generated lots of talk and not much action-- campaign finance reform. But thanks to the hard work of my colleagues-- on both sides of the aisle--we are once again at the brink of doing something to address the many problems we have with our system for financing election campaigns. Thanks to the tireless efforts of our colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, we now know that the question is not whether a bill will come to the floor, but whether we will pass the bill that they have brought us. Keeping that in mind, I want to speak a bit today on why I support the measure before us. As an original co-sponsor of McCain-Feingold, I agree that what is necessary is a comprehensive overhaul of the way we conduct our campaign business. If we have learned anything from our experiences in the last few elections, it is that money has become too important in our campaigns. Mr. President, in the last election federal candidates and their allies spent over $2 billion--$2 billion--in support of their campaigns. The McCain-Feingold bill currently before us, I believe, is the sort of sweeping reform that we must pass if we are to restore public trust and return a measure of sanity to the way we finance elections. Now each of us has his or her own perspective on what's wrong with the system. For me, Mr. President, it's the explosive cost of campaigning. When I announced in March 1997 that I would not seek reelection, I said: ``Democracy as we know it will be lost if we continue to allow government to become one bought by the highest bidder, for the highest bidder. Candidates will simply become bit players and pawns in a campaign managed and manipulated by paid consultants and hired guns.'' The problem becomes clearer when you look at specifics. In my case, when I first was elected to the Senate, I spent less than $450,000--actually, $437,482--on my campaign. Back then, I thought that was a lot of money. If only I'd known. Mr. President, if I hadn't decided to retire, for next year's election I would have had to raise $4.5 million. Now, I know all about inflation but that's not inflation--that's madness. What's worse, I understand that if we continue on this path, by the year 2025 it will cost $145 million to run for a single Senate seat. Can any of us imagine what our country will look like when the only people who can afford public service are people who have--or can raise--tens of millions of dollars for their campaigns? I can't imagine such a future, Mr. President--and the time is now to make sure things never get that bad. McCain-Feingold won't cure everything that ails the current system, but I support it because it represents a real, meaningful first step toward restoring a sense of balance in our campaigns by ensuring that people and ideas-- not money--are what matters. Specifically, I support McCain-Feingold because it deals with a series of disturbing issues that have grown in importance in recent years. I also agree that a primary problem with the current system is the flood of ``soft money.'' But when I speak of soft money, Mr. President, I want to make it clear that we are talking about more than just the fundraising of the national parties. True--in 1996, the parties raised over a quarter billion dollars in soft money, which they then used in various ways to support their candidates at every level of the ballot. That's a lot of money, but it's only a small part of the total so- called ``soft money'' picture. That's because soft money is any money that is not regulated by the Federal Election Campaign Act. That includes national party money, of course, but it also includes millions of dollars raised and spent by independent groups on so-called ``issue ads.'' Thanks to the excellent work of our colleagues on the Government Affairs Committee, we now know that many of these so-called independent organizations, many claiming tax-exempt status, are established, operated, and financed by parties and candidates themselves--and their finances are totally unregulated. Therefore, McCain-Feingold is meaningful reform because it recognizes that the problem is not just ``soft'' money, it is ``unregulated'' money. The McCain-Feingold bill is also valuable because it recognizes that closing the party soft money loophole is not enough. The bill also addresses the problem of so-called ``issue advocacy'' advertising. These so-called issue ads have developed as a new--and sometimes devious--way that unregulated money is issued to affect elections. Lawyers might call it ``issue advocacy'', but I'm not a lawyer so I call it what it really is, ``handoff funding''. ``Handoff funding'' is where a candidate ``hands off'' spending, usually on hard-hitting negative ads, to a supposedly neutral third party whose finances are completely unregulated and not disclosed. Now I know there are those who call these ads free speech. But this isn't free speech, it's paid speech. Of course we need to respect the Constitution, but we can't let people hide behind the Constitution for their own personal or partisan gain. McCain-Feingold draws this paid speech into the light where not the lawyers but the jury--the American people--can decide which issues and which candidates they will support. Mr. President, I want to respond just a moment to the claim of many of my Republican colleagues that McCain-Feingold's issue advocacy reform somehow limits free speech. That simply is not true. When this bill passes, not one ad that ran in the last election--not one, not even the worst attack ad--will be illegal. What McCain-Feingold would do is say to those candidates and groups who have been using ``handoff funding'' to puff themselves up or tear down their opponents--all the while claiming that they were simply, quote, ``advocating issues''--is that within 60 days of the election they must take credit for their work, dirty or otherwise. The only people whose speech will be prevented by this law are people who are afraid to step into the light and be seen for who they are. That, Mr. President, is what I call reform--and I think the American people would agree. Another critical issue addressed in McCain-Feingold--and this is one area, I think, where we all are in nearly unanimous agreement--is the question of disclosure. Currently there is too much campaign activity-- contributions and spending--that is not disclosed to the public on a regular, timely basis. We must commit ourselves, as does McCain- Feingold, to providing the American people with timely and full disclosure to information about political spending, and the means by which they can access that information. Like many colleagues, I believe that the Internet and electronic filing is the way to make this happen; but I hope we will make it clear that all campaign finances--including third-party issue advocacy--are to be disclosed before we get too worried about how such disclosure would take place. Mr. President, all these reforms will be meaningless unless we are willing to do right by the Federal Election Commission. If the FEC really is the toothless tiger that many people said it is, we must take at least some of the blame for removing its teeth. Any bill that makes changes to the campaign finance laws without restoring the FEC's funding and improving its ability to publicize, investigate, and punish violations cannot truly claim the title of ``reform.'' In conclusion, Mr. President, I know that we will not have an easy road to passage of campaign finance reform legislation. In this body there are a number of colleagues who are opposed to reform and aren't afraid to speak their minds about the quote, ``danger,'' of reform. Mr. President, I can't blame them. If I had the advantage of millions of dollars from wealthy folks and millions more from corporations and special interests, I would think reform was dangerous, too, and I would have to think twice before supporting a bill that took away that advantage. Their opposition--whether in the public interest or their self-interest--means that the debate on this issue will get more than a few of us into a real lather. I'll take that challenge, Mr. President. Just because campaign finance reform will be difficult, and might require each party to give up things it cares about or simply has gotten used to, is no reason not to pass McCain-Feingold, and soon. All we need to do is to roll up our selves and remember the wisdom of that great Kentuckian Henry Clay, who called compromise ``mutual sacrifice.'' Our way is clear, if not easy, but I have confidence that we will do what is right to restore public confidence in the way we fund our campaigns. I look forward to the continuing debate, and to demonstrate to the American people that we are serious about cleaning up the system by voting for comprehensive campaign finance reform.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to exempt certain disabled individuals from mandated managed care coverage under Medicaid. During consideration of last year's budget legislation, this issue arose but was not addressed in a satisfactory manner. That legislation provided a broad grant of authority to states to require individuals eligible for Medicaid to enroll in managed care plans. Prior to this change, states were required to obtain waivers from the federal government in order to initiate such cost savings measures which would shift large portions of their Medicaid populations into managed care. However, states have generally not been interested in shifting certain categories of individuals into managed care, such as individuals in nursing homes or special needs children. In fact, last year's legislation specifically exempted certain categories of special needs children under age nineteen. Mr. President, I believe for certain categories of individuals it does not make sense to limit this exemption to individuals under age nineteen. For example, mentally retarded individuals receiving Medicaid benefits do not enter into a new health care category once they reach their nineteenth birthday. I believe limiting the exemption for such individuals is arbitrary and unwise policy. My legislation would simply remove the age limitation for severely disabled individuals. I want to express my thanks to the Voice of the Retarded for their leadership on this issue and their willingness to bring it to my attention. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this legislation from that organization be inserted into the Record. I also want to thank Louise Underwood, a constituent of mine who has been a tireless advocate over the years for the rights of mentally retarded and other disabled individuals. It is my hope that this straightforward correction to last year's legislation will be viewed as noncontroversial, and can be enacted into law in the months ahead.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to exempt certain disabled individuals from mandated managed care coverage under Medicaid. During consideration of last year's budget legislation, this issue arose but was not addressed in a satisfactory manner. That legislation provided a broad grant of authority to states to require individuals eligible for Medicaid to enroll in managed care plans. Prior to this change, states were required to obtain waivers from the federal government in order to initiate such cost savings measures which would shift large portions of their Medicaid populations into managed care. However, states have generally not been interested in shifting certain categories of individuals into managed care, such as individuals in nursing homes or special needs children. In fact, last year's legislation specifically exempted certain categories of special needs children under age nineteen. Mr. President, I believe for certain categories of individuals it does not make sense to limit this exemption to individuals under age nineteen. For example, mentally retarded individuals receiving Medicaid benefits do not enter into a new health care category once they reach their nineteenth birthday. I believe limiting the exemption for such individuals is arbitrary and unwise policy. My legislation would simply remove the age limitation for severely disabled individuals. I want to express my thanks to the Voice of the Retarded for their leadership on this issue and their willingness to bring it to my attention. I ask unanimous consent that a letter in support of this legislation from that organization be inserted into the Record. I also want to thank Louise Underwood, a constituent of mine who has been a tireless advocate over the years for the rights of mentally retarded and other disabled individuals. It is my hope that this straightforward correction to last year's legislation will be viewed as noncontroversial, and can be enacted into law in the months ahead.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent. I further announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bryan), is absent due to illness. I also announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Reid), is absent attending a funeral. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Bryan), would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Michigan (Mr. Levin) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan). is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mr. Moynihan) is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, today I add my name as an original cosponsor of a constitutional amendment to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag. I know that there are many who believe that the desecration of our country's flag is the ultimate expression of their political freedoms, but I do not believe all speech is free. Our country pays a price when we see demonstrations which tear down our standard bearer of national integrity. Our flag represents the values upon which this nation was founded and our charter of government established in Philadelphia in 1787. When we no longer value the flag as a symbol of national unity and allegiance to this compact, our Republic is weakened. Burning our country's flag is not political free speech, it is political garbage. As a society, we have placed parameters on free speech. A person who shouts fire in a crowded theater does not enjoy the protection of freedom of speech. A person whose words incite violence does not enjoy the protection of the First Amendment. I firmly believe that no legitimate act of political protest should be suppressed. Nor should we ever discourage debate and discussion about the Federal government. However, to allow the physical desecration of our national symbol is to allow the ties that bind us as a country, the ties that bind one generation to the next in their love and respect for this country, to be weakened. When we no longer value our flag, we lose value for our country, our government, and each other. Over two hundred years after the ratification of our nation's Bill of Rights, the United States Supreme Court erroneously ruled that the desecration of our national symbol is protected speech in the case of Texas vs. Johnson. In response to this decision, the United States Senate overwhelmingly passed the Flag Protection Act, which was also declared unconstitutional by the high court. The Supreme Court's action has made it clear that a constitutional amendment is necessary for enactment of any binding protection of the flag. Up to this point, neither House of Congress has been able to garner the two-thirds super majority necessary for passage of a constitutional amendment. But because grassroots support for this amendment continues to grow, I have joined with members on both sides of the aisle to again try passing this amendment. I am hopeful that this time we will get the necessary votes. Let me close by recalling the words of a Union Soldier in his last letter to his wife dated July 14, 1861. He said, ``my courage does not halt or falter. I know how American civilization now bears upon the triumph of the government and how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood and suffering of the Revolution, and I am willing, perfectly willing, to lay down all my joys in this life to help maintain this government and pay that debt.'' Today, our task here in the Senate seems trivial in comparison. But if we want the flag that hangs in school rooms, over courthouses, in sports stadiums and off front porches all across America, to continue symbolizing that same commitment to country, then it is a challenge we cannot fail to meet. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important legislation.