Wendell Ford

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Johnson], the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg], the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski], and the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Wyden] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Lautenberg] would vote ``aye.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] and the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] are necessarily absent. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] would vote ``no.''

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Let me thank my colleagues for their remarks. One of the things that we have to take into consideration is that this bill is a bill that looks not only to the farmer but to his family, his children for education, and economic development in the community. I hope people understand, I hope my colleagues understand, that this bill incorporates payment for everything, even the shortfall in the crop insurance. So there should not be these so-called cheap shots, as my colleague from Kentucky explained, as it relates to the tobacco farmer, under this proposal. If you take a look, I would hope Senators will understand that. We have worked very hard putting this package together and hopefully it will be accepted within the parameters of any agreement.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on June 20, the attorneys general of several States emerged from a Washington hotel conference room to announce a proposed national tobacco settlement. The announcement sent Washington spin doctors to work, pronouncing the defeat of public enemy number one--the tobacco industry. Press release after press release painted a picture of fat cat tobacco executives, rich at the expense of public health, finally being called to account. But this picture of tobacco is not what I see when I go home to Kentucky. There I see hard-working farmers trying to make an honest living off a crop that has helped hundreds of communities in my State thrive for centuries. Maybe you've forgotten about the farmer. That wouldn't surprise me. They weren't in the room during the tobacco negotiations. They were not included in the final settlement, and to date, the only plan that mentions them would put them out of business. Mr. President, it is as if the thousands of men and women who have been the bedrock of hundreds of communities simply no longer have any value. Sixty thousand farm families produce tobacco in 119 of 120 counties in my State. While tobacco uses only 1 to 2 percent of their acreage, it produces 20 to 25 percent of their farm income. Along with these farm families are tens of thousands of workers who warehouse, process and manufacture tobacco. They all live in communities where every tobacco dollar has a multiplier effect on the local economy, rolling over three to four times. And they're the reason I am here today. Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my colleagues in introducing legislation which addresses the needs of tobacco farmers, tobacco workers, and their communities and should provide the framework for taking care of them in any comprehensive legislation. First and foremost, ``taking care of them'' means protecting the tobacco program. Opponents of the program claim they're not attacking farmers, but with the program goes stability, with the program goes the small family farmer, and with the program goes hundreds of small rural communities. Mr. President, the program is the key to preventing fence row to fence row production. It is the key to keeping tobacco prices high. And it is the key to keeping tobacco production in the hands of small family farms and keeping rural communities alive. Without the program, look for cheap cigarettes, look for the size of farms--at the very least--to triple in size. Look for family farms to go out of business, and look for the rural communities they sustain, to shut down. What are the benefits of killing the program? For hard-working family farmers there simply are none. That is why killing the program is a nonstarter. And even though criticisms are based either on misconceptions or misrepresentations of the program, we're willing to address them by covering all these costs with our legislation. But make no mistake, we're not willing to eliminate the program. The legislation we're introducing today follows the principles every one of my colleagues went on record supporting in a September 9 Sense of the Senate amendment. We all agreed that tobacco growers should be fairly compensated as part of any Federal legislation to implement the tobacco settlement. We all agreed tobacco growing communities should be provided sufficient resources to adjust to the economic impact of any settlement legislation. We all agreed compensation to farmers and their communities should come from funds provided within the parameters of the national settlement, as paid by tobacco manufacturers. And we all agreed the tobacco program should be maintained and operated at no net cost to the taxpayer. These four simple principles will mean the difference between a productive future for tobacco farmers and a ``for sale'' sign up at the end of the driveway--the difference between communities where a farmer's children stay to raise their children and a ghost town. At the core of the legislation is the establishment of a Tobacco Community Revitalization Trust Fund. The trust fund will provide compensation for farmers, investment funds for communities, and education and retraining funds, all within the parameters of the tobacco program and the national tobacco settlement dollar figure. First, the fund will provide tobacco quota holders with ``Payments for Lost Tobacco Quota'' based on the drop in the amount of tobacco they can grow. The national tobacco settlement could cause consumption to drop substantially, which would translate into deep cuts in each farm's tobacco quota and each farmer's income. Under our bill, quota holders will receive $4 per pound per year for every pound by which the quota drops below their base quota. A maximum lifetime limit on payments will be set for quota holders at $8 times the number of pounds in their base quota. Those who lease quota or grow tobacco as a tenant farmer will receive $2 per pound, with a life time cap of $4 per pound. Second, the trust fund will make payments to cover all administrative costs associated with the production of tobacco. This will include salaries at USDA to administer the tobacco program, and any shortfall in the provision of crop insurance for tobacco farmers. This should finally put a stop to false claims that tobacco growers receive subsidies from the Federal Government. Third, the trust fund will provide Farmer Opportunity grants for higher education. Tobacco farmers and their dependents will be eligible for higher education grants of up to $1,700 per year--which is the current average size of a Pell grant--to attend a university, community college, vocational school, or other recognized institution. Academic eligibility standards will be modeled after Pell grants, including requirements that students maintain satisfactory progress toward the completion of their degree, and maintain at least a C average. Funding will be provided to cover up to 25,000 individuals from tobacco farm families. Mr. President, the tobacco program has long meant the difference between whether a family can afford to send their children to college or whether their education stops after grade 12. We need to do everything we can to preserve a farm family's ability to provide their children with access to higher education opportunities. Fourth, the fund will provide benefits to displaced workers from tobacco warehousing, processing, and manufacturing operations. This program is modeled after the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Displaced Workers. Under these provisions, workers who lose their jobs can receive tobacco readjustment allowances, employment services, job training, job search allowances, and relocation allowances, all of which are modeled after the NAFTA benefits and services. And fifth, the fund will provide economic development assistance to tobacco growing communities hit hard by the national tobacco settlement. The economic development fund will begin at $400 million per year minus the amount used for administrative costs of the tobacco program, distributed through block grants to tobacco growing States. States can use the funding to provide several types of assistance including rural business enterprise grants, farm ownership loans, activities which create farm and off-farm employment, activities which expand infrastructure facilities, and services which help diversify local economies, long-term business technical assistance, grants to agricultural organizations to help tobacco growers find supplemental agricultural activities, and activities which create or expand locally owned value-added agricultural processing and marketing operations. Providing stability, preserving traditions, keeping farms in the hands of families, protecting hundreds of communities, Mr. President, I believe this legislation will give tobacco farmers, tobacco industry workers and tobacco growing communities the resources to deal with the national tobacco settlement likely to impact them. With the tobacco program completely funded by tobacco growers or the industry itself, antitobacco advocates can no longer take aim at the farmer under the pretense of fiscal responsibility. And with a sense of stability and predictability, farmers can begin to prepare for the future in a responsible and thoughtful way. I plan on sharing this proposal with my colleagues involved in writing comprehensive legislative proposals to implement the national tobacco settlement, but I hope all my colleagues interested in this issue and interested in preserving a farming tradition will take a close look at this program so that we can move forward in helping tobacco farm families and their communities. Mr. President, we have not just singled out the farmer. We have included the total community, from education to job opportunity, whatever it might be, so we have taken in the whole community. I am very pleased with the hard work and support that has been given to me by Senator McConnell, Senator Faircloth, Senator Helms, and others to make this introduction so important today.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Sarbanes] and the Senator from Maryland [Ms. Mikulski] are necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, on June 20, the attorneys general of several States emerged from a Washington hotel conference room to announce a proposed national tobacco settlement. The announcement sent Washington spin doctors to work, pronouncing the defeat of public enemy number one--the tobacco industry. Press release after press release painted a picture of fat cat tobacco executives, rich at the expense of public health, finally being called to account. But this picture of tobacco is not what I see when I go home to Kentucky. There I see hard-working farmers trying to make an honest living off a crop that has helped hundreds of communities in my State thrive for centuries. Maybe you've forgotten about the farmer. That wouldn't surprise me. They weren't in the room during the tobacco negotiations. They were not included in the final settlement, and to date, the only plan that mentions them would put them out of business. Mr. President, it is as if the thousands of men and women who have been the bedrock of hundreds of communities simply no longer have any value. Sixty thousand farm families produce tobacco in 119 of 120 counties in my State. While tobacco uses only 1 to 2 percent of their acreage, it produces 20 to 25 percent of their farm income. Along with these farm families are tens of thousands of workers who warehouse, process and manufacture tobacco. They all live in communities where every tobacco dollar has a multiplier effect on the local economy, rolling over three to four times. And they're the reason I am here today. Mr. President, I am pleased to join several of my colleagues in introducing legislation which addresses the needs of tobacco farmers, tobacco workers, and their communities and should provide the framework for taking care of them in any comprehensive legislation. First and foremost, ``taking care of them'' means protecting the tobacco program. Opponents of the program claim they're not attacking farmers, but with the program goes stability, with the program goes the small family farmer, and with the program goes hundreds of small rural communities. Mr. President, the program is the key to preventing fence row to fence row production. It is the key to keeping tobacco prices high. And it is the key to keeping tobacco production in the hands of small family farms and keeping rural communities alive. Without the program, look for cheap cigarettes, look for the size of farms--at the very least--to triple in size. Look for family farms to go out of business, and look for the rural communities they sustain, to shut down. What are the benefits of killing the program? For hard-working family farmers there simply are none. That is why killing the program is a nonstarter. And even though criticisms are based either on misconceptions or misrepresentations of the program, we're willing to address them by covering all these costs with our legislation. But make no mistake, we're not willing to eliminate the program. The legislation we're introducing today follows the principles every one of my colleagues went on record supporting in a September 9 Sense of the Senate amendment. We all agreed that tobacco growers should be fairly compensated as part of any Federal legislation to implement the tobacco settlement. We all agreed tobacco growing communities should be provided sufficient resources to adjust to the economic impact of any settlement legislation. We all agreed compensation to farmers and their communities should come from funds provided within the parameters of the national settlement, as paid by tobacco manufacturers. And we all agreed the tobacco program should be maintained and operated at no net cost to the taxpayer. These four simple principles will mean the difference between a productive future for tobacco farmers and a ``for sale'' sign up at the end of the driveway--the difference between communities where a farmer's children stay to raise their children and a ghost town. At the core of the legislation is the establishment of a Tobacco Community Revitalization Trust Fund. The trust fund will provide compensation for farmers, investment funds for communities, and education and retraining funds, all within the parameters of the tobacco program and the national tobacco settlement dollar figure. First, the fund will provide tobacco quota holders with ``Payments for Lost Tobacco Quota'' based on the drop in the amount of tobacco they can grow. The national tobacco settlement could cause consumption to drop substantially, which would translate into deep cuts in each farm's tobacco quota and each farmer's income. Under our bill, quota holders will receive $4 per pound per year for every pound by which the quota drops below their base quota. A maximum lifetime limit on payments will be set for quota holders at $8 times the number of pounds in their base quota. Those who lease quota or grow tobacco as a tenant farmer will receive $2 per pound, with a life time cap of $4 per pound. Second, the trust fund will make payments to cover all administrative costs associated with the production of tobacco. This will include salaries at USDA to administer the tobacco program, and any shortfall in the provision of crop insurance for tobacco farmers. This should finally put a stop to false claims that tobacco growers receive subsidies from the Federal Government. Third, the trust fund will provide Farmer Opportunity grants for higher education. Tobacco farmers and their dependents will be eligible for higher education grants of up to $1,700 per year--which is the current average size of a Pell grant--to attend a university, community college, vocational school, or other recognized institution. Academic eligibility standards will be modeled after Pell grants, including requirements that students maintain satisfactory progress toward the completion of their degree, and maintain at least a C average. Funding will be provided to cover up to 25,000 individuals from tobacco farm families. Mr. President, the tobacco program has long meant the difference between whether a family can afford to send their children to college or whether their education stops after grade 12. We need to do everything we can to preserve a farm family's ability to provide their children with access to higher education opportunities. Fourth, the fund will provide benefits to displaced workers from tobacco warehousing, processing, and manufacturing operations. This program is modeled after the NAFTA Trade Adjustment Assistance Program for Displaced Workers. Under these provisions, workers who lose their jobs can receive tobacco readjustment allowances, employment services, job training, job search allowances, and relocation allowances, all of which are modeled after the NAFTA benefits and services. And fifth, the fund will provide economic development assistance to tobacco growing communities hit hard by the national tobacco settlement. The economic development fund will begin at $400 million per year minus the amount used for administrative costs of the tobacco program, distributed through block grants to tobacco growing States. States can use the funding to provide several types of assistance including rural business enterprise grants, farm ownership loans, activities which create farm and off-farm employment, activities which expand infrastructure facilities, and services which help diversify local economies, long-term business technical assistance, grants to agricultural organizations to help tobacco growers find supplemental agricultural activities, and activities which create or expand locally owned value-added agricultural processing and marketing operations. Providing stability, preserving traditions, keeping farms in the hands of families, protecting hundreds of communities, Mr. President, I believe this legislation will give tobacco farmers, tobacco industry workers and tobacco growing communities the resources to deal with the national tobacco settlement likely to impact them. With the tobacco program completely funded by tobacco growers or the industry itself, antitobacco advocates can no longer take aim at the farmer under the pretense of fiscal responsibility. And with a sense of stability and predictability, farmers can begin to prepare for the future in a responsible and thoughtful way. I plan on sharing this proposal with my colleagues involved in writing comprehensive legislative proposals to implement the national tobacco settlement, but I hope all my colleagues interested in this issue and interested in preserving a farming tradition will take a close look at this program so that we can move forward in helping tobacco farm families and their communities. Mr. President, we have not just singled out the farmer. We have included the total community, from education to job opportunity, whatever it might be, so we have taken in the whole community. I am very pleased with the hard work and support that has been given to me by Senator McConnell, Senator Faircloth, Senator Helms, and others to make this introduction so important today.

Mr. FORD. Let me thank my colleagues for their remarks. One of the things that we have to take into consideration is that this bill is a bill that looks not only to the farmer but to his family, his children for education, and economic development in the community. I hope people understand, I hope my colleagues understand, that this bill incorporates payment for everything, even the shortfall in the crop insurance. So there should not be these so-called cheap shots, as my colleague from Kentucky explained, as it relates to the tobacco farmer, under this proposal. If you take a look, I would hope Senators will understand that. We have worked very hard putting this package together and hopefully it will be accepted within the parameters of any agreement.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I believe that we have 30 minutes.

Mr. FORD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Ford and Mr. Faircloth pertaining to the introduction of S. 1310 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, the Senator from North Carolina is here. So with your permission, we will proceed.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Don't bet on that.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I thank the Leader for his clarifications regarding this legislation.

Mr. FORD. Finally, the railroad industry expressed concern that the bill could possibly interfere with the right-of-way agreements companies have negotiated between themselves. Can this concern be addressed?

Mr. FORD. While there is not a definition of ``excavation'' in the bill, some definitions in other bills on this subject would have covered routine railroad maintenance. I am concerned that railroads might be required to participate in a program that places an undue burden on activities that pose little threats to underground facilities. How would the bill before us affect this matter?

Mr. FORD. Railroads also raised the issue of whether it is appropriate to require them to participate in one-call systems as ``underground operators'' because railroads own their right-of-ways and know the location of their own facilities within those right-of-ways.

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I would like to clarify the intent of a portion of the Commerce Committee's ISTEA amendment that deals with State one-call (``call-before-you-dig'') programs. I'm interested in this language as it relates to the treatment of railroads. I understand that the provisions proposed to be added to the ISTEA legislation are the same as the provisions of S. 1115, the ``Comprehensive One-Call Notification Act of 1997.'' The Leader, together with the Minority Leader, introduced this bill as S. 1115 in July, and the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation already held a hearing on this bill in September.

Mr. FORD. The railroads also urged Congress to provide for immediate response in the case of derailments and natural disasters. Does the bill address this issue?

Mr. FORD. Does the legislation impose mandates on States and require them to change their programs?

Mr. FORD. Among the minimum standards required for a program to be eligible for federal assistance is the requirement for ``appropriate participation by all excavators.'' However, the bill does not define these terms. Isn't that going to lead to a variety of inconsistent outcomes?

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment today to talk about some hard working Kentuckians. Earlier this month marked the close of the 1997 year for car models. With that closing came the news that the Toyota Camry was the best-selling car in the United States and that Ford's F-Series trucks are the number one selling trucks in the nation for the 16th year in a row. Also at the top were the Ford Explorer as the number one sports utility vehicle and the Ranger as the number one compact pickup. I'm proud to say that the number one car, truck and sports utility vehicle all have ``made in Kentucky'' stamped inside. The Camry is built in Georgetown and two of the Ford trucks--the F-250 and the F- 350--along with both the Ranger and the Explorer, are all made in Louisville. About 80 percent of the Camrys sold in the nation come from Kentucky, while the Kentucky-made Ford trucks account for about 26 percent of the F-Series sales. Behind those impressive sales figures are thousands of hard-working Kentuckians committed to doing the best job possible. Their hard work not only put Toyota and Ford at the top of the charts, but their local communities and the state come out winners as well. A strong company with productive workers is a boost to the local economy and a successful plant is a powerful recruitment tool for the state. Mr. President, number one sales mean a number one production team. I know I speak for my fellow Kentuckians when I say we're awfully proud of all the hard work that put the Toyota and Ford vehicles at the top. Keep up the good work and know that you've made all Kentuckians proud.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I make a point of order that the Senate is not in order.

Mr. FORD

Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is necessarily absent.

Mr. FORD

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 may finally be on the brink of actually 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 will support the measure currently before us. As an original cosponsor 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 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 them, 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 the millions of dollars raised and spent by corporations, unions, interest groups, and tax-exempt organizations. Our recent experience shows that these organizations 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 currently before us 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 advoacy advertising. These so-called issue ads have developed as a new--and sometimes devious--way that unregulated money is used 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 hardhitting 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 say 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 rollup our sleeves 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.