Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Harkin, myself, and others, I send an amendment to the desk to the education bill to amend the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, the amendment we are offering today would fully fund the Federal commitment to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA. When Congress approved IDEA in 1975, which mandates that States provide an appropriate education to students with special needs, it pledged to provide 40 percent of the funding. Congress has repeatedly passed nonbinding resolutions supporting the full funding of this commitment. However, even with large increases in funding over the last 5 years, from $3.1 billion in 1997 to $6.3 billion in 2001, the Federal portions of the funds for IDEA has not exceeded 15 percent. This leaves State governments and local school districts to pick up the tab for this federally mandated program, taking away vital local education funds and options. There is no question of the intent of this legislation. There was no question of the intent 25 years ago. Surely there is no question of the rightness of the intent of this program today. IDEA has proven to be a great success in ensuring all children, including those with special needs, receive a free and appropriate education across the United States. Prior to its enactment, only 50 percent of students with disabilities were receiving an appropriate education. Today the majority of children with disabilities are receiving an education in their neighborhood schools in regular classrooms with their nondisabled peers. High school graduation rates for special needs students have increased dramatically, and students served by IDEA are employed at twice the rate of older adults who did not benefit from this program. Congress did the right thing in passing IDEA 25 years ago. Today we are calling on Congress to again do the right thing, to fully fund the commitment Congress made to this program and to the people of this country. It is typical in a way of some of the things we do here in Washington to mandate a program and then leave the State or the local governments to pay for it. Congress said when it passed IDEA that it would provide 40 percent of the funding, but 25 years later we are providing barely 15 percent. This amendment will fulfill that commitment we made 25 years ago and increase Federal funding for this very important and relevant program. This amendment increases funding for IDEA in annual increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding is reached in fiscal year 2007. With these annual increments the amendment provides an additional $120 billion for IDEA over 10 years. The amendment will also free up at least $28.9 billion and up to $52.5 billion in education funds for local school districts by 2007. School districts will be eligible for additional flexibility if the State certifies they are meeting the requirements of the law. Forcing them to pick up the slack for Federal funding of IDEA has caused them to take funds away from other important priorities that they, the school boards, the teachers, the principals, and the parents think are most important--not what Washington thinks is most important but what those closest to education in America think is most important. This amendment will give local education authorities and taxpayers the ability to spend these funds as they see fit to fulfill their own education needs. They could hire more teachers, build new schools, and increase the technology in their schools. There are so many areas where they could use this funding to help our children everywhere achieve a better education. This amendment will give them the flexibility to do that. This amendment fulfills a commitment Congress made but has never kept. It increases funding for education. It frees up money for local school districts. It gives the local school districts more flexibility and at the same time fulfills the commitment to our disabled children. It restores local control to local dollars. This amendment will help our teachers and our State and local school officials to provide the best education possible for our young people. That should be our goal. In urging my colleagues to support our amendment, I point out it is because Senators Kennedy, Jeffords, and Harkin, and many others, both Republican and Democrat, over many years have led this effort to assure quality education for our disabled children. This amendment accomplishes what we set out to accomplish 25 years ago and more. And the ``more'' part of this amendment is to free up local school moneys to allow those local school districts to put that money where they believe their highest priorities are for education. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent the time not be charged against this amendment.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, what is the time arrangement? Is Senator Enzi controlling time?

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I rise this afternoon to support the Export Administration Act of 2001. I support the effort to move this debate along for all the reasons my distinguished colleagues have mentioned. I am an original cosponsor of this bill. I have participated in a number of the hearings over the last 2 years, so I have some sense of the thoughtfulness and the depth of the hearings, the testimony taken and the analysis given to this bill. I do want to make some brief comments, but as I lead into those comments, I want to make a couple of general observations. First, Senator Enzi said a few minutes ago that the previous administration supported this bill and the current administration supports this bill. The current administration consists of Vice President Cheney, who has some practical and working knowledge of national security as he served with great distinction in the House of Representatives, was the No. 2 Republican there for years, and he was our Secretary of Defense at a very critical time in the history of this country. Secretary of State Powell supports this bill. Secretary of State Powell's entire life has been about national security as he served as National Security Adviser to President Reagan, as he served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Presidents Reagan and Bush; two tours in Vietnam, decorated. I do not think there is a question about whether Secretary Powell or Vice President Cheney would risk national security for the dynamics of any legislation, but yet they strongly support this bill. Our current Secretary of Defense, Don Rumsfeld--we all recall that Secretary Rumsfeld is on his second tour of duty as Secretary of Defense. I ask the same question about Secretary Rumsfeld: Would he, in fact, be supporting a bill that would jeopardize the national security interests of this country? I do not think so, nor do I think President Clinton would have risked the national security interests of this country, nor do I believe President Bush would risk the national security interests of this country. So this talk about national security not being well thought through and not being advanced and prioritized, that somehow we are selling out to big business and commercial interests, with all due respect, that is nonsense. That is complete fabrication. Senator Enzi talked a bit about the current law, the current rules, restrictions, and regulations that we are dealing with today. Does it enhance our national security? Is it relevant to today's challenges? No, it is not. This update, this new bill makes our export control regime relevant to the challenges of a very complicated new world. America is faced with a very challenging dilemma. We live in an unpredictable and dangerous world. Part of our dilemma is a result of the fact that America leads the world in products and technologies that can be used for the best possible technologies, ends, and purposes and also the worst technologies, ends, and purposes. Again, there is no higher interest for America than our national security interest. We all agree America's national security interest is its most fundamental interest, so let's not cloud this debate about that. While always putting our national security first, our responsibility and challenge is to develop a workable and relevant balance that allows America's economic and trade interests to be protected as well. That is the challenge. In fact, our economic and trade interests are very much integral and part of our national security interest. They are not separate. You do not deal with trade and economic interests in this vacuum and national security interest in this vacuum. It doesn't work that way. The Export Administration Act of 2001 is a very important piece of legislation. It represents an effort to deal with this balance, to come to grips with the realities of this balance: How do we ensure we continue to sustain our economic growth and yet ensure, as best we can, that Saddam Hussein and other dangerous tyrants on the world stage do not gain access to our technologies that could aid in advancing their weapons programs, detrimental to our national security interests and the national interests of the world. We will begin to build a missile defense system in the near future because of the real and growing threat posed by infant ballistic missile programs in other nations. The world's collective failure to prevent nuclear proliferation is a constant threat to civilization. We need an export control regime that recognizes the real threats to this Nation, to our allies, to all the world and, at the same time, recognizes the utter futility of trying to control everything. This bill is based on the premise we need to build a higher fence around a smaller number of items, just as Senator Enzi said a few minutes ago. In the 1970s, you could track high-performance computers worldwide because there were fewer of them, less sophisticated, less powerful, easy to do in a bipolar world--the Soviet Union and the United States. Today, computers with nearly unlimited power, far more powerful than anything we saw in the 1970s or the 1980s, with far more capacity and capability, are available at Radio Shack. Are we going to shut down Radio Shack? Let's get real with a sense of economic sense in how we deal with this. Many components manufactured and sold in the United States are reproduced by foreign competitors with little lapse of time or effort. The world is simply too integrated. Some may not like that, but it is a fact of life. Capabilities abroad advanced so far to put the old system in jeopardy are not working, and we are dealing now with an old system that, in fact, is not effective. It is no longer relevant to today's global economy and national security interests and world threats. Our exports must recognize the realities of today's worldwide interconnections. The President of the United States, Secretaries of Commerce and Defense, our entire intelligence community, and our business community can all work within this legislative structure to provide a flexible export regime and continue to protect our national security interests. This bill establishes a system which meets both our security and commercial concerns. Only a control regime that raises the fence on the most critical dual-use technologies makes any sense. Our dilemma on exporting technology can only be solved by making control of critical technology a critical issue. Exporters and national security officials need clarity. We should not treat exporters as unpatriotic or unconcerned about proliferation or our national security interests. I have heard in the Senate over the last year not so veiled charges to that point. I have heard in the Senate things such as the almighty dollar is most important for many of the corporations of America. My goodness, what are we saying? I come from the business world. I am a businessman personally offended by that kind of statement. I don't know one businessman--there may be a businessman out there--I do not know one responsible corporate citizen in this country who would say to me privately or publicly that the interests of his or her company are more important than the national security interests of this country. It isn't true. Be careful about throwing around loose language, saying many of America's companies and corporations are more concerned about their bottom line than the national security interests of this country. That is not correct. This legislation provides a structure that will allow our exporters to be partners in the overall objective of helping to prevent weapons development by the world's most dangerous and irresponsible dictators. We need to work more closely with our allies to continue to enhance multilateral controls and reporting on the movement of sophisticated technologies. America continues to provide the leadership and the negotiating process, as we have from the beginning, for more effective, multilateral controls. This bill ensures continued U.S. participation in multilateral export control regimes that support U.S. national security objectives. The United States will continue to exercise its leadership in export controls worldwide under this bill. In conclusion, I acknowledge Chairman Gramm and Senators Enzi, Sarbanes, and Johnson. These four have worked tirelessly, effectively, over the last 2 years to bring together a responsible, relevant piece of legislation of which we can be proud, and I am proud of being part of it. They have developed a commonsense and strong proposal for improving the current system. I look forward to continuing to work with them to get this legislation enacted so we can update America's approach to export controls for this hopeful new world where all 6 billion people reside together. That is doable. Let's get on with the work at hand. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address the coordination of spending, both public and private, on U.S. non- proliferation efforts in Russia. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues Senators Biden and Lugar. In 1991, the world faced the very real specter of nuclear chaos erupting from the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Largely through the foresight and leadership of Senators Nunn and Lugar, Congress established a fledging program that year authorizing the use of Defense Department funds to assist with the safe and secure transportation, storage, and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and other weapons in the former Soviet Union. The world is a much safer place because of these efforts. I commend my friend and co-sponsor, Senator Lugar, for the important contribution he has made to the national security of this nation. In the past ten years the Nunn-Lugar initiative has grown into a multi-pronged attack by the Departments of Defense, State and Energy to ensure that weapons of mass destruction, weapons-usable material and technology, and weapons-related knowledge in Russia and the Newly Independent States remain beyond the reach of terrorist and weapons- proliferating states. This investment has yielded an impressive return. Over the past decade, important gains have been made in securing weapons, technology and knowledge in the former Soviet Union. By assisting Russia we have enhanced our own national security. But this success has come with problems of coordination. U.S. public spending on non-proliferation programs in the Russian Federation suffers from a lack of coordination within and among United States Government agencies and departments. As recently as last January, a bipartisan task force led by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler released a report calling for improved coordination within the U.S. government on non-proliferation assistance to Russia. The importance of these programs to the national security of this nation demands that we address this issue. We must coordinate U.S. government non-proliferation efforts in Russia to ensure that our overall spending on these efforts is both efficient and maximized to further the national security interests of the United States. Ensuring the efficiency of our public spending also requires that we take into account the increased spending and investment by the United States private sector on non-proliferation efforts in Russia. This private spending, still small but registering positive results, will continue to increase. We must ensure that public spending on Russian non-proliferation programs is not in conflict with this important contribution from the U.S. private sector. The Non-Proliferation Assistance Coordination Act of 2001 calls on the President to create an interagency committee that will monitor and coordinate the implementation of United States non-proliferation efforts in Russia. Under the direction of the President's National Security Assistant, representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and Commerce would provide guidance on coordinating, de-conflicting and maximizing the utility of United States public spending on our important non-proliferation efforts in Russia. I believe U.S. non-proliferation efforts in Russia, first initiated a decade ago under the leadership of Senators Lugar and Nunn, have made lasting contributions to the national security of the United States. This bill will ensure that future non-proliferation assistance to Russia is well spent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill to address the coordination of spending, both public and private, on U.S. non- proliferation efforts in Russia. I am pleased to be joined in introducing this bill by my colleagues Senators Biden and Lugar. In 1991, the world faced the very real specter of nuclear chaos erupting from the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Largely through the foresight and leadership of Senators Nunn and Lugar, Congress established a fledging program that year authorizing the use of Defense Department funds to assist with the safe and secure transportation, storage, and dismantlement of nuclear, chemical and other weapons in the former Soviet Union. The world is a much safer place because of these efforts. I commend my friend and co-sponsor, Senator Lugar, for the important contribution he has made to the national security of this nation. In the past ten years the Nunn-Lugar initiative has grown into a multi-pronged attack by the Departments of Defense, State and Energy to ensure that weapons of mass destruction, weapons-usable material and technology, and weapons-related knowledge in Russia and the Newly Independent States remain beyond the reach of terrorist and weapons- proliferating states. This investment has yielded an impressive return. Over the past decade, important gains have been made in securing weapons, technology and knowledge in the former Soviet Union. By assisting Russia we have enhanced our own national security. But this success has come with problems of coordination. U.S. public spending on non-proliferation programs in the Russian Federation suffers from a lack of coordination within and among United States Government agencies and departments. As recently as last January, a bipartisan task force led by former Senator Howard Baker and former White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler released a report calling for improved coordination within the U.S. government on non-proliferation assistance to Russia. The importance of these programs to the national security of this nation demands that we address this issue. We must coordinate U.S. government non-proliferation efforts in Russia to ensure that our overall spending on these efforts is both efficient and maximized to further the national security interests of the United States. Ensuring the efficiency of our public spending also requires that we take into account the increased spending and investment by the United States private sector on non-proliferation efforts in Russia. This private spending, still small but registering positive results, will continue to increase. We must ensure that public spending on Russian non-proliferation programs is not in conflict with this important contribution from the U.S. private sector. The Non-Proliferation Assistance Coordination Act of 2001 calls on the President to create an interagency committee that will monitor and coordinate the implementation of United States non-proliferation efforts in Russia. Under the direction of the President's National Security Assistant, representatives from the Departments of State, Defense, Energy and Commerce would provide guidance on coordinating, de-conflicting and maximizing the utility of United States public spending on our important non-proliferation efforts in Russia. I believe U.S. non-proliferation efforts in Russia, first initiated a decade ago under the leadership of Senators Lugar and Nunn, have made lasting contributions to the national security of the United States. This bill will ensure that future non-proliferation assistance to Russia is well spent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, over the last few days many of my colleagues, both Republicans and Democrats, including many of my cosponsors, have expressed a desire to vote on each of the three main issues in our amendment to McCain-Feingold. I note that my dear friend John McCain mentioned that there might be some areas in my bill, which now is in the form of an amendment to McCain-Feingold, where we could find some agreement. The senior Senator from Arizona mentioned specifically that the disclosure part of my bill might be something on which we could find some common ground. Therefore, in order to allow my colleagues to vote on all three of the main issues of my amendment, I demand a division of my amendment into three parts by subtitle.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, please notify me when I have used 5 minutes of the remaining time. Mr. President, as I have listened this morning and throughout the days of last week about the dynamics of campaign finance reform, I believe it is well summarized in a piece that appeared in the New York Times on Sunday. I will read part of that piece because it does strike to the essence of real reform of campaign finance. Joel Gora, general counsel to the New York Civil Liberties Union, and Peter Wallison, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, wrote this thoughtful op-ed in last Sunday's New York Times. This is some of what they had to say: Despite all the noise [about campaign finance reform] soft money is not the monster it's made out to be. By definition, it consists solely of contributions to political parties for such things as party building, getting out the vote and issue advertising; it cannot be used for direct support of candidates. . . . But eliminating soft money contributions to parties sacrifices other values that we believe are fundamental to our democratic system. . . . Political parties are groups with broader interests, more intertwined with the electoral process. . . . Banning soft money denies parties the rights that we would not think of denying to other organizations. . . . The National Abortion Rights Action League can attack the Republican Party with money it raises from any source and in any amount; the National Rifle Association can attack the Democratic party with the same unlimited resources; however, if soft money is eliminated, neither political party will have the resources to counter these attacks. . . . There is also the free-speech guarantee of the First Amendment. Can there be any doubt that the core of the Constitution's protection of free speech and a free press is to inform the electorate? . . . The McCain-Feingold bill goes beyond even limiting contributions. It actually prohibits speech. . . . There are no real winners in this situation, but there are real losers--the voting public. And so said the New York general counsel to the New York Civil Liberties Union. I think Mr. Gora said it well. In these final minutes of debate, I go back to the basics that brought us here. We are here to reform our campaign finance system. My friends from Arizona and Wisconsin have offered one alternative. I believe it is the wrong approach. Their intentions are good, but the unintended consequences of their legislation would weaken our political system at the point where it should be the strongest. The McCain- Feingold bill would not open the process to more people; it would restrict the process to those who can afford to play outside the process. What do we gain by weakening the vital dynamic institutions of the political process, the political parties, the one group of institutions that is accountable to the American public and the only institution that will help a challenger take on an incumbent? We have heard an awful lot in this body in the last few days about incumbent protection, a lot of incumbent protection debate and amendments passed to protect our jobs. My bipartisan colleague and I have offered an alternative. It is real reform. It will change our campaign finance system. It will make it better, more accountable, more responsible. Our amendment provides more disclosure. It limits soft money. It increases the ability of individuals to participate by increasing the outdated 1974 limits on soft money. My goodness, where were all my colleagues in 1974 when this terrible corrosive corrupting factor of $1,000 was out there? I went back and read that debate. I was in Washington in 1974. There were Members of this body today who voted for that. Not a peep was made in 1974 about any corrupting influence. This is the same dollar amount. So how is that bad or how is that some way more corrupt? We face serious questions today. Are we going to reform our campaign finance system? I think we can. I encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment that amends the McCain-Feingold bill.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend, the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes of my time to my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Idaho.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend and colleague, the original cosponsor of this amendment, 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Tennessee, 10 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield up to 10 minutes to my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Nelson.

Mr. HAGEL. I yield 10 minutes to the senior Senator from Wyoming.

Mr. HAGEL. If he passes the Senator's test, then we are making progress and we are grateful. The Senator from Wyoming is present. I understand he would like to make some comments. I ask Senator Thomas, how much time does he need?

Mr. HAGEL. Yes.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I am overwhelmed with my colleague from Kansas. I note that the senior Senator from Arizona was taking note, making reference to all of his hangers-on friends.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield up to 15 minutes to my colleague from Kansas.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, in this final week of debate on campaign finance reform, we have an opportunity to achieve something relevant and important. Our hope has always been to get a bipartisan bill approved by the Senate that brings reform to the system, is constitutional, does not weaken political parties, and that our President Bush will sign. It is in that spirit that we offer our amendment, my colleagues and I, Senators Breaux, Ben Nelson, Landrieu, DeWine, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Gordon Smith, Thomas, Enzi, Hutchinson, Roberts, Allard, Brownback, Craig, and Voinovich. Whatever we do this week to reform our campaign finance system, we must look to expand, not constrict, opportunities for people to participate in our democratic process. The amendment we offer today is very similar to the legislation we first offered in the fall of 1999. It will improve the way Federal campaigns are finance and has three main components. First, hard money limits: This is just a matter of fairness and common sense. Today's hard money contribution limits are worth less than one-third of their value when the 1974 act was passed. They haven't been adjusted in more than 26 years. Hard money is the most accountable method of political financing. Every dollar contributed and every dollar spent is fully reported to the Federal Elections Commission. The individual limit of $1,000 in 1974 now equates to $3,300 in today's purchasing power. Our amendment raises this limit to $3,000 and indexes it for inflation. Second, our amendment focuses on disclosure. This is the heart of real campaign finance reform. We start from a fundamental premise that the problems in the system do not lie with political parties or candidates' campaigns but with unaccountable, unlimited outside monies and influence that flows into the system where there is either little or no disclosure. In recent years, we have seen an explosion of multimillion dollar advertising buys by outside organizations and individuals. These groups and wealthy individuals come into an election, spend unlimited sums of money and leave without anyone knowing who they were or how much they spent or why. Our amendment increases disclosure requirements for candidates, parties, independent groups, and individuals. We ensure that the name of the individual, or the organization, its officers, address, phone numbers, and the amount of money spent are made public. It is a very relevant question. Why do we want to ban soft money only to political parties--that funding which is accountable and reportable now? This ban would weaken the parties and put more control in the hands of wealthy individuals and independent groups that are accountable to no one. Our amendment caps soft money contributions to political parties to $60,000 per year--far below the unlimited millions that are now poured into the system. This is a very real and very significant limit. The Wall Street Journal recently reported that nearly two-thirds of the soft money contributions in the last election cycle came from those who gave more than the $120,000 election cycle soft money ban that would be in our bill. Two-thirds of the soft money contributions, or a total of nearly $300 million, in the last election cycle would have been prohibited by this cap. Regarding the State parties, our amendment codifies a defined list of activities that State parties must pay for with a percentage of hard dollars. For activities that promote candidates in Federal elections, State parties would follow a funding formula determined by the number of Federal candidates. For example, if 50 percent of the candidates promoted are Federal candidates, then 50 percent of the funding must come from Federal, or hard dollars. We agree with curbing the abuse of soft money. Finally, we believe our campaign finance reform proposal would pass constitutional muster. As Senator Sarbanes said on the floor of the Senate a half hour ago, what good does it do to pass legislation we know will be struck down by the courts? I look forward to debating the merits of our proposal with my Senate colleagues. Now I turn to my friend and colleague from Louisiana, who was an original cosponsor of this bill in October of 1999, Senator John Breaux. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator from Kentucky: Senator Breaux, I believe, wanted to speak. He may need 5 minutes. We may not use all of the time, but is that agreeable for an additional 5 minutes?

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I would like 15 minutes.

Mr. HAGEL. Madam President, the Senate is about to engage in an open and full debate on campaign finance reform. It is time for this debate. My friends, John McCain and Russ Feingold, deserve much credit for getting the Senate to this point. They have been passionate in their efforts to reform the system. If the Senate passes a campaign finance reform bill--and I believe we can--it will be largely due to their efforts and leadership. We have an opportunity to achieve something relevant and meaningful. My hope, my goal, for the outcome of these 2 weeks is to get a bipartisan bill approved by the Senate that brings reform to the system, is constitutional, and that President Bush will sign. Whatever we do, we must look to expand, not constrict, opportunities for people to participate in our democratic process. We must be careful not to abridge the rights of Americans to participate in our political system and have their voices heard. Political parties, individuals, and organizations that represent millions of Americans all have rights guaranteed by the first amendment to the Constitution. These rights guarantee that they can express themselves politically and participate in the electoral process. Democracy is messy. We are going to hear a number of examples of how messy and unfair democracy is over the next 2 weeks. Our system is imperfect, but our Government works because of the rights of all people to participate in this democracy. We should take steps to encourage greater participation in the process. We should expand the ability of the American people to get involved. We must not weaken political parties or other important political institutions of our system. Over the next 2 weeks, we will need to guard against taking actions that will have unintended consequences. The answer to reforming our system is not to shut people out or diminish the abilities of our institutions and individuals to participate in the process. We must also guard against impugning each other's motives on the floor of the Senate. No Senator has the high moral ground over any other Senator. There are and will be differences on campaign finance reform. Let us debate these differences without assigning sinister motives to our opponents. The Nation and the world will be peeking in through their television windows to witness this Senate debate. Will they see dignity, respect for others' opinions, honest discourse, and elevated debate? I believe so. Our country deserves it, and we owe it to our fellow citizens. This is a historic moment for the Senate to rise above the shrill political rhetoric of our time. How do we best change our campaign finance system? For me, the core of campaign finance reform must begin with accountability, openness, and disclosure. These are the essential components of reform. I start from a fundamental premise that the problem in the system is not the political party; the problem is not the candidate's campaign; the problem is the unaccountable, unlimited outside moneys and influence that flows into the system where there is either little or no disclosure. That is the core of the issue we will debate beginning today. The political parties are and have been a vital component for our system, especially for a challenger to take on a well-financed, entrenched incumbent. Who else is there to support that challenger, be that challenger a Democrat or a Republican, unless the challenger is self-financed? It is the party who activates the base and gets out the vote and helps give that challenger a forum to get his or her message out. That is good. That is helpful. That is important to democracy. Political parties encourage participation. They promote participation. They are about participation. They educate the public. They ensure the viability of all in the system. Their activities are open, accountable, and disclosed. Have there been abuses? Oh, yes, there have been abuses. By the way, abuses in the political system did not just begin with so-called soft money or non-Federal money. It is instructive for all of America to go back into the mid-1800s and look at some of the Harper's Weekly magazines. Ask yourself the question: Is our political system cleaner today, is it more open today, is it more honest today than it was in the 1800s, early 1900s? Oh, yes, it is; absolutely it is. So there must be some frame of reference that we come from with an educated debate on campaign finance reform. Any reform that weakens the parties will weaken the system. It will lead to a less accountable system. It will lead to a system less responsive to and accessible by the American people. Why do we want to ban soft money to political parties, that funding which is now accountable and reportable? This ban would weaken the parties and put more money and control in the hands of wealthy individuals and independent groups who are accountable to no one. If any one of us in America wishes to find out who is running a television or a radio spot for a candidate or against a candidate, you cannot now find that information. Why is that? Because it is not disclosable. I know that is difficult for many in this country to believe but that is the case. When you take power away from one group, it will expand power for another group. I do not believe, as well, that our problems lie with candidates for public office and their campaigns. Their campaigns are fully open to the public. All dollars raised and expended are disclosed. The voters can hold them responsible and should and must hold candidates accountable. Have we had bad players in the system? Do we have bad players now in the system? The American public will make that judgment. Recent years have been ripe with accounts of those who dance on the pin head of technicality and who skirt the law because there is no controlling legal authority, but I do not know how you legislate ethical behavior. Of course, if it was just a matter of laws and regulations, then we would have no crime in America. Why? Because we have laws against murder, we have laws against robbery, we have laws against everything. If it was that simple--just pass another law--the world would be just fine. We cannot allow our outrage at the morally questionable actions of a few lead us to tamp down the system so tightly that we shut out the involvement of the overwhelming majority. What sense does that make? The more money that is pushed outside the reportable system of candidates and political parties, the less control candidates will have over their own campaigns. Voters can hold candidates responsible for their conduct. They cannot hold outside groups and wealthy individuals accountable. I believe the greatest threat to our political system today is those who operate outside the bounds of openness and accountability, not those who operate inside the bounds of accountability and reportability and disclosure. In recent years, we have seen an explosion of multimillion-dollar advertising buys by outside organizations. These groups and wealthy individuals come into an election, spend unlimited sums of money, and leave without anyone knowing who they are or how much they spent or why. They can have a major impact on the outcome of any election--any election--especially in small States. Do they have a right to participate? Of course they have a right to participate, but their actions must be disclosed. In the fall of 1999, I introduced a bipartisan bill to reform our campaign finance system. I reintroduced that legislation this year with several Democratic and Republican colleagues. I am pleased to report that more and more of my colleagues have come on as cosponsors to this legislation in the last couple of days. The components of our legislation will genuinely improve the way Federal campaigns are financed. We increase disclosure requirements for candidates, parties, independent groups, and individuals. The current system provides no disclosure for the activities of outside groups or individuals. We ensure that the name of the individual, the organization, its officers, addresses, phone numbers, and the amount of money spent are all made public immediately. Our legislation limits soft money contributions to political parties to $60,000 per year. That is far below the unlimited millions-- unlimited millions--that are now pouring into the system with no accountability, no disclosure. This is a significant limit. The Wall Street Journal reported Friday that two-thirds of all the soft money contributions in the last election cycle came from those who gave more than the $120,000 limit for a 2-year cycle, which is part of our bill. Two-thirds of the soft money contributors in the last cycle would have been subject to this cap. I say to those who question the cap, whether it is relevant, important, or whether it does anything, I think the Wall Street Journal numbers address that issue. We limit soft money but do not ban it so political parties are not disadvantaged by wealthy individuals and independent organizations. This is particularly important because it is at the State level of our politics, State party organizations that have the responsibility of getting out the vote, of organizing the vote, the registration drives, the grassroots participation. In the process, that very vitality is the core of representative government. Why cut that off, that accountable disclosure of money, to make the system more a part of every citizen's opportunity to participate? As originally provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, soft money, non-Federal money, in fact, can be used by political parties for various activities over the course of an electoral process. I hear some talk that this is a new phenomenon. If this is new, why, since 1974, has the Federal Election Commission had 7 pages of regulations as to how to use soft money? It isn't new. These are legitimate, worthy, and important functions of the political parties and should not be inhibited by a total ban on soft money. I do believe we need to tighten the definition on the uses of soft money. This should be part of any reform bill we pass, and we can do that and should. Today's hard money contribution limits are worth less than one-third of their value when the 1974 act was passed. This funding goes directly to candidates' campaigns and political parties and is the most accountable method of political financing. Every dollar contributed, every dollar spent, is fully reported to the Federal Election Commission. Everybody knows who is making that contribution. The individual limit of $1,000 in 1974 equates to $3,300 today. Our bill raises this limit to $3,000 and indexes it for inflation. By doing this, we ensure individuals have the same ability to participate as they were granted in the groundbreaking 1974 legislation. Furthermore, we believe our campaign finance reform proposals would all pass constitutional muster. This is a legitimate concern--whether, in fact, we pass a bill that will withstand appropriate constitutional scrutiny and protect the rights of the first amendment. I believe the constitutional issues are as critical as any we will debate over the next 2 weeks. The Constitution is the foundational document of our Nation. The rights guaranteed within that document cannot be dismissed because of political expediency, regardless of how noble the motive of the reform effort. Our system is imperfect. Representative government is imperfect, but certainly we can expect a higher standard from our political leaders than we have seen in the past. Personal accountability is the core of political accountability. Congress has a genuine opportunity to work with President Bush to achieve real reform. The President supports campaign finance reform. I look forward to working with all my colleagues during this debate to get a constitutional, bipartisan campaign finance reform bill passed, one that the President will sign, that will genuinely reform our system. That would be an achievement of which we all would be proud. Mr. M4cConnell. How much time remains?