Chuck Hagel

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join with nine of my colleagues today in introducing the ``Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.'' I am pleased that Senators Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Pat Roberts, Chris Dodd, Susan Collins, Tom Harkin, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, and Jack Reed have agreed to serve as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. This bill will have the Federal government fully meet its funding responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for the first time since it was enacted in 1975. When Congress passed the IDEA a quarter of a century ago, it agreed that the Federal government would pay 40 percent of the cost of ensuring that all children, including those with disabilities, receive a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. That is the laudable goal of the legislation, one we all share. Sadly, however, we have never in all these years met our funding commitment. Despite substantial progress over the last five years, Congress has never appropriated more than 15 percent of the cost of IDEA. The bill we introduce today will finally make good on Congress's commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities. In so doing, it will strengthen the ability of States and local school districts in implementing IDEA and serve the children with disabilities who are covered by its provisions. Our IDEA full funding legislation is very simple. It would obligate Federal funds to increase funding under Part B of the IDEA program by annual increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding is reached in fiscal year 2007. Last year, fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $6.3 billion for Part B. With these annual increments, the legislation would obligate an additional $37.5 billion over five years, or $52.4 billion over six years. Let me note that this legislation does not establish a new Federal mandate or entitlement, State and Federal courts and IDEA have already firmly established the right of a child with a disability to a free, appropriate education. The Federal government's failure for 25 years to contribute its share of these costs has simply shifted this Federal share onto State and local education agencies. Our bill will redress this failure: Federal funds will finally be provided to meet the Federal share. IDEA has been a great success. Prior to its enactment, only 50 percent of students with disabilities were receiving an appropriate education, 30 percent were receiving inappropriate education services, and 20 percent were receiving no education services at all. Today the majority of children with disabilities are receiving an education in their neighborhood schools in regular classrooms with their non- disabled peers. High school graduation rates have increased dramatically among students with disabilities, a 14 percent increase from 1984 to 1997. More students with disabilities are attending colleges and universities. And students who have been served by IDEA are employed at twice the rate of older adults who were not served by IDEA. IDEA has played a very important role in raising our nation's awareness about the abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities. Last November we celebrated IDEA's 25th anniversary. It is time to make good on our promise to fully fund this very worthwhile program, which is making such an important difference in the lives of so very many of our nation's children.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I join with nine of my colleagues today in introducing the ``Helping Children Succeed by Fully Funding the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.'' I am pleased that Senators Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Pat Roberts, Chris Dodd, Susan Collins, Tom Harkin, Olympia Snowe, Patty Murray, and Jack Reed have agreed to serve as original co-sponsors of this important legislation. This bill will have the Federal government fully meet its funding responsibilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, IDEA, for the first time since it was enacted in 1975. When Congress passed the IDEA a quarter of a century ago, it agreed that the Federal government would pay 40 percent of the cost of ensuring that all children, including those with disabilities, receive a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment. That is the laudable goal of the legislation, one we all share. Sadly, however, we have never in all these years met our funding commitment. Despite substantial progress over the last five years, Congress has never appropriated more than 15 percent of the cost of IDEA. The bill we introduce today will finally make good on Congress's commitment to fund 40 percent of the cost of educating children with disabilities. In so doing, it will strengthen the ability of States and local school districts in implementing IDEA and serve the children with disabilities who are covered by its provisions. Our IDEA full funding legislation is very simple. It would obligate Federal funds to increase funding under Part B of the IDEA program by annual increments of $2.5 billion until the full 40 percent share of funding is reached in fiscal year 2007. Last year, fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $6.3 billion for Part B. With these annual increments, the legislation would obligate an additional $37.5 billion over five years, or $52.4 billion over six years. Let me note that this legislation does not establish a new Federal mandate or entitlement, State and Federal courts and IDEA have already firmly established the right of a child with a disability to a free, appropriate education. The Federal government's failure for 25 years to contribute its share of these costs has simply shifted this Federal share onto State and local education agencies. Our bill will redress this failure: Federal funds will finally be provided to meet the Federal share. IDEA has been a great success. Prior to its enactment, only 50 percent of students with disabilities were receiving an appropriate education, 30 percent were receiving inappropriate education services, and 20 percent were receiving no education services at all. Today the majority of children with disabilities are receiving an education in their neighborhood schools in regular classrooms with their non- disabled peers. High school graduation rates have increased dramatically among students with disabilities, a 14 percent increase from 1984 to 1997. More students with disabilities are attending colleges and universities. And students who have been served by IDEA are employed at twice the rate of older adults who were not served by IDEA. IDEA has played a very important role in raising our nation's awareness about the abilities and capabilities of children with disabilities. Last November we celebrated IDEA's 25th anniversary. It is time to make good on our promise to fully fund this very worthwhile program, which is making such an important difference in the lives of so very many of our nation's children.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, energy touches every facet of our lives. Energy is serious business. America must have a national energy policy that ensures we have a reliable, stable, and affordable source of energy. This cannot be neglected. To do so leaves our Nation vulnerable on all fronts. Energy policy ties together America's economy, our standard of living, our national security, and our geopolitical strategic interests around the world, and, of course, this Nation's future. We have entered a period where low energy supply has met high energy demand. Oil prices have tripled over the last 2 years, hitting a high last fall of nearly $40 a barrel--the highest price since the buildup to the Persian Gulf war in November 1990. Last Friday, the price of a barrel of oil was $29. This winter, California has endured severe disruptions in the supply of energy as a result of many factors, mostly a wrong-headed deregulation effort that left the market incapable of adapting to the imbalances between high demand and low supply. We are also seeing the impact of a combination of record high natural gas prices and a harsh winter. Consumers all across the country are being hit with double and sometimes triple the energy bills they had last winter. It is very difficult for many families to absorb this shock to their budgets, and they cannot go without heat. We have increased the Federal funding for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, LIHEAP, to assist families in the short term. But the real answer is a long-term change in policy. High energy costs ripple through the economy. Price spikes send a shock through the economy, increasing prices for everything that uses energy, and that is everything. They drive up inflation. An analysis last year by the Heritage Foundation found that high oil prices would cost the average American family of four more than $1,300, decrease consumer spending by nearly $80 million, and cost our economy almost 500,000 jobs over the next 2 years. In the United States, a slowdown in economic growth due to higher energy prices will have a negative impact on our Federal budget. The assumptions for projected Federal budget surpluses over the next 10 years do not take into account what would happen if high energy prices, energy shortages, or energy rationing stalled our economy. Where then would be our proposals to finance new prescription drug plans for Medicare recipients, provide more funding for education, grapple with the restructuring of our entitlement programs, and much needed funds to improve our Nation's military? The money needed to fund these areas of our Federal budget and pay down our national debt would have gone up in smoke--literally gone up in smoke. Energy policy has broad national security implications for the United States because we are so reliant on foreign sources for our supply of crude oil. During 1973, at the peak of the energy crisis, we relied on foreign sources of oil for 35 percent of our domestic supply. Since that time, we have become more, not less, dependent on foreign oil. Today we import about 57 percent of the oil used in the United States. Petroleum accounts for one-third of the U.S. total trade deficit. Who are we kidding? Our reliance on foreign oil leaves the United States vulnerable to the whims of foreign oil cartels. Should something happen to threaten this supply, we cannot turn on the spigots in the United States overnight; we are literally blackmailed; we are literally captive to outside energy sources. A tight oil market gives additional leverage to individual oil- exporting nations and tyrants. Half the world's spare production capacity right now is in Saudi Arabia. Iraq, whom we bomb by night and who imports oil by day, is now one of the fastest growing sources of U.S. oil imports. Our allies would be more vulnerable to threats from oil-producing nations because they are even more dependent on foreign oil. America and its allies must never allow themselves to become political hostages of energy supplier nations. This could lead to international blackmail and dangerous, unpredictable world instability. We drifted through the last 8 years without an energy policy, content to sit back and enjoy a good economy and take credit for that economy, but unwilling to prepare our Nation for the difficult challenges ahead and make the hard choices necessary for energy independence. When this crisis arose last year, the Clinton administration had no solution or strategy for how to deal with the problem. The policies of the last administration served to discourage and at some points actually completely shut off domestic oil and natural gas production. Over the last 8 years, we have seen millions of acres of possible exploration areas for oil and natural gas completely taken off the table. While oil consumption in the United States has risen by 14 percent since 1992, U.S. crude oil production has declined by 17 percent. Over the last 4 years, 58,000 wells were shut down. What do we do about this? What can we do to address this problem? We must pursue a comprehensive energy policy that decreases our reliance on foreign oil by increasing the safe and environmentally sound production of our domestic oil and gas resources and by developing a more diversified supply of energy sources. We cannot wait for the next crisis to decide what we will do. Natural gas demand is estimated to grow by 30 percent over the next decade. Shutting off the lights and increasing efficiency won't begin to make up for the increased demand. We need a greater supply of energy. We must develop a national energy policy that meets the present and future needs of our country. I am pleased today to join Chairman Murkowski and my colleagues in introducing the National Energy Security Act. We must increase our production of energy. This legislation will help ensure an affordable, reliable, and diversified domestic supply of energy. We must also focus on becoming more efficient in our use of energy. Conservation is important. This bill will help make energy prices less volatile and alleviate the impacts that the wild price swings have on the national economy. It will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The United States must seek to further diversify its energy resources portfolio. We must all learn the lessons of history and recognize that we should not be focusing our energy needs in one area but must have a diversity of sources of energy to meet those needs. The bill we are introducing today promotes alternative fuels for vehicles, it encourages the production of traditional sources of energy, and advances cleaner technologies for the future. It encourages the development of biofuels, geothermal, hydropower, clean coal, and other energy options. For the United States to protect itself from the whims of international oil cartels and tyrants, we must harness and develop as many of our renewable energy resources as possible. This bill also increases funding for LIHEAP by $1 billion to ensure that low-income families will not have to choose between heating their homes and feeding their families. And, yes, part of the solution includes opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration. Drilling in ANWR has been used to portray the Bush administration, and those who support opening ANWR to drilling, as anti-environment. What strikes me odd about that line of argument is that it is faulty. It is faulty for many reasons. One of the most important among them is that most countries from which we import our oil now have very little regard for the environment. You look at some of these foreign oilfields around the world and you see total destruction of the environment, no regulation, no laws, no respect for the wildlife and the land on which they drill. A study done by the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission found that U.S. producers spend almost $3 billion annually, or roughly $2 a barrel, to comply with environmental regulation in the United States. I doubt that one-tenth of this is spent on environmental regulations in all the other oil- and gas-producing countries combined. Who is taking care of the environment and who is not taking care of the environment? So if environmentalists are truly concerned about the worldwide environment, it would seem to me they would want every possible drop of that oil and natural gas to be found in the United States to be pumped and drilled under safe environmental regulations imposed by State and local governments, the EPA, the Federal Government, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We are all concerned about the environment. We have led our Nation far too long without a comprehensive energy strategy. The President and Congress must immediately address America's need for a strong, defined national energy policy. It underpins our national independence. Energy independence underpins our national security, it underpins our economy, our standard of living, our trade, our role in the world, and the future for our children. Our Nation's future is directly connected to energy capacity. If we fail this great challenge, we will leave the world more dangerous than we found it. That is not our heritage. This will require bold, forceful, and intelligent leadership. We can do this. We will do this. This is America's heritage. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct problems with a provision enacted last fall in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. I am pleased to be joined as original cosponsors by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Dodd, Lugar, Roberts, and Dorgan. The provision contained in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill was a revised version of legislation originally introduced last Congress by former Senator Ashcroft and me, together with Senators Dodd, Lugar, Roberts, and many others. The purpose of our bill was to lift all unilateral economic sanctions on the export of American food and medicine. Passage of this provision acknowledges what most Nebraska grain and livestock producers have always known--when the United States places unilateral sanctions on other nations, American producers are hurt, not the sanctioned nation. As the world leader in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, America plays a critical role in helping prolong and improve the quality of people's lives. Ensuring that these products and therapies are available to people all over the world not only benefits American businesses and workers, but also reinforces America's image as a country of both innovation and compassion. The provision enacted in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill was changed, however, in the conference committee with the House of Representatives. The final legislation blocked--only for sales to Cuba--access to normal export financing in the U.S. private sector. Thus, while claiming to open up the Cuban market for the export of American agricultural and medical products, it placed restrictions making American exports uncompetitive. Finally, the provision codified new restrictions on the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba. The Cuba Food and Medicine Access Act of 2001 would correct those mistakes by repealing the new travel restrictions and permitting normal credit and financing support for food and medicine exports to Cuba. As we rewrite the farm bill we should begin by delivering on a promise we made last year to end unilateral sanctions on our own farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers. But this issue goes beyond increased commercial opportunity. The export of American food and medicine is also a humanitarian undertaking. Blocking exports in these commodities harm the health and nutrition of the people of the sanctioned nation. It does nothing to harm governments and government leaders with which we disagree. Until last year, food sales to Cuba were prohibited except to independent importers, which did not exist. And while medical sales to Cuba were theoretically possible, licensing procedures were so difficult and complicated that they had the effect of severely restricting such exports. Last year's bill went part of the way to clear away these impediments. We should now finish the job. I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to correct problems with a provision enacted last fall in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill. I am pleased to be joined as original cosponsors by my distinguished colleagues, Senators Dodd, Lugar, Roberts, and Dorgan. The provision contained in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill was a revised version of legislation originally introduced last Congress by former Senator Ashcroft and me, together with Senators Dodd, Lugar, Roberts, and many others. The purpose of our bill was to lift all unilateral economic sanctions on the export of American food and medicine. Passage of this provision acknowledges what most Nebraska grain and livestock producers have always known--when the United States places unilateral sanctions on other nations, American producers are hurt, not the sanctioned nation. As the world leader in the development of pharmaceuticals and medical devices, America plays a critical role in helping prolong and improve the quality of people's lives. Ensuring that these products and therapies are available to people all over the world not only benefits American businesses and workers, but also reinforces America's image as a country of both innovation and compassion. The provision enacted in the fiscal year 2001 agriculture appropriations bill was changed, however, in the conference committee with the House of Representatives. The final legislation blocked--only for sales to Cuba--access to normal export financing in the U.S. private sector. Thus, while claiming to open up the Cuban market for the export of American agricultural and medical products, it placed restrictions making American exports uncompetitive. Finally, the provision codified new restrictions on the ability of Americans to travel to Cuba. The Cuba Food and Medicine Access Act of 2001 would correct those mistakes by repealing the new travel restrictions and permitting normal credit and financing support for food and medicine exports to Cuba. As we rewrite the farm bill we should begin by delivering on a promise we made last year to end unilateral sanctions on our own farmers, ranchers, and agricultural producers. But this issue goes beyond increased commercial opportunity. The export of American food and medicine is also a humanitarian undertaking. Blocking exports in these commodities harm the health and nutrition of the people of the sanctioned nation. It does nothing to harm governments and government leaders with which we disagree. Until last year, food sales to Cuba were prohibited except to independent importers, which did not exist. And while medical sales to Cuba were theoretically possible, licensing procedures were so difficult and complicated that they had the effect of severely restricting such exports. Last year's bill went part of the way to clear away these impediments. We should now finish the job. I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, let me congratulate the Presiding Officer, my new colleague from the State of Nebraska, for his eloquence and leadership and his direction as he presides over this body. I want him to know--and I think I speak on behalf of all of us--we appreciate his being here and presiding. (The remarks of Mr. Hagel pertaining to introduction of S. 22 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I yield the floor and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today, I join several of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, in introducing the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2001, S. 22. I am pleased to be joined by not only the Presiding Officer, my new colleague from Nebraska, but also by Senators Landrieu, Breaux, DeWine, Hutchison, Smith of New Hampshire, and Thomas, in introducing this legislation today. I also want to acknowledge the two Senators who have led the fight on campaign finance reform over the years--John McCain and Russ Feingold. Their commitment to this issue and leadership has elevated the debate on this very important part of our democratic system. They deserve recognition and they deserve credit. Mr. President, S. 22 has three primary components, as you know. First, it expands and codifies disclosure for candidates, political parties and all organizations and individuals who participate in the political process. Second, it caps and regulates soft money donations to the National political parties. Third, it increases hard money contribution limits and then indexes these limits to inflation for future years. Our Federal campaign finance system is broken. As all of us know, in politics, as in life, perception is an important dynamic of reality. The American people's perception of the integrity of our political system is directly connected to their confidence in the system. Americans see a political system controlled by special interests and those able to pump in millions of unaccountable dollars. As our citizens become demoralized and detached because they feel they are powerless, they lower their expectations and standards for government and our officeholders. As a result, the American people are losing confidence in our system. They are losing trust in their elected officials. We need to fix the system. The Senate will engage in an open, honest and wide-ranging debate on campaign finance reform this year, as it should be. The debate must be thoughtful, factual and deliberate. Any legislative action will have immense consequences for our political system and all who participate in it. S. 22 represents a strong, bipartisan foundation from which consensus can be built and real campaign finance reform can be established. Our bill is imperfect. It does not address all of the issues. It does not have all of the answers. But it is a genuine attempt to bring about real reforms, including greater disclosure and more accountability. Greater disclosure, I believe, is the heart of campaign finance reform. We should not fear an educated and informed body politic. We should encourage it. In recent years, so-called independent groups and individuals have played and increasingly dominant role in the political process launching late TV blitzes, moving poll numbers in the final weeks and days of a campaign, and then disappearing without the public ever knowing who they were and how much they spent for or against the candidate. There are several provisions in S. 22 that will increase the disclosure of campaign financing and election activity. But the most significant is the provision affecting what information is made public regarding political broadcast ads, especially ads referred to as issue advocacy ads. Issue advocacy adds generally refer to a Federal candidate and his or her positions on issues, but since the ads do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a Federal candidate, they don't trigger the reporting and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Even though these ads don't expressly advocate for or against any candidate, many people consider the clear intent of these ads, which is to influence the outcome of elections. Our legislation addresses the problems associated with the disclosure of these issue ads by requiring disclosure of the relevant information at the broadcast stations who broadcast these ads both on radio and TV. Currently, broadcast stations must comply with Federal communications regulations requiring them to place in their public file information on ads run by Federal candidates and political parties. This includes a record of the times the spots are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased, and at what rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the ad. However, presently, there is no requirement that any of this information be placed in the public file for political ads run by independent organizations or individuals. Our legislation will codify these regulations and expand them to cover all political broadcast ads without violating anyone's constitutional rights. Under this bill, the American public and the media will know who is buying these ads and how much they are spending for the ads. Also, let me make clear one thing this provision does not do. It does not require organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership lists. It preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to know and the privacy rights of members and donors. In addition to increased disclosure, this legislation regulates and caps soft money donations. It limits individuals, independent organizations, corporations, and unions, to an aggregate of $60,000 per year in soft money contributions to the national political parties. These donations are disclosed at the Federal Election Commission. We already have constitutionally tested limits on hard money. Political parties have to deal with this. These contributions are reported from the political parties and from the candidates and their campaigns. We should look at placing limits on soft money contributions as well. This legislation also adjusts the hard money, or Federal contributions, that is are already fully disclosed to and regulated by the Federal Election Commission. Currently, an individual contribution limit is now set at $1,000. That limit was originally set in 1974. Our legislation would move that current $1,000 limit to $3,000 per candidate per election. Indexed to inflation, today a 1974 $1,000 contribution is worth $3,000. In future years, all individual limits would be indexed to inflation. This would have a positive effect on the system because more campaign money would go directly to the candidates, where there is the most disclosure and accountability. Any legislation to reform America's campaign finance system needs to reverse the sharply rising trend of moneys going outside the reportable system toward unaccountable, independent groups and individuals who do not report, who are not required to report or disclose. That trend has been more and more away from the candidates in the political parties. We must also ensure that any campaign finance reform genuinely improves the system and doesn't result in unintended consequences that actually make it worse. The challenge in reforming our campaign finance system to do so without infringing upon the constitutional rights of Americans to freely express themselves under the first amendment and the guarantees of equal protection under the law in the fifth amendment. Any effort, no matter how well-intentioned, that doesn't pass constitutional muster will be an effort in futility, adding further to the erosion of public confidence in our system. Congress has an opportunity this year to pass a relevant and responsible campaign finance reform bill that the President will sign. My colleagues and I will be fully engaged in this debate this year with the ultimate goal of making our campaign finance system more open and accountable--the essence of any reform.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, today, I join several of my colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, in introducing the Open and Accountable Campaign Financing Act of 2001, S. 22. I am pleased to be joined by not only the Presiding Officer, my new colleague from Nebraska, but also by Senators Landrieu, Breaux, DeWine, Hutchison, Smith of New Hampshire, and Thomas, in introducing this legislation today. I also want to acknowledge the two Senators who have led the fight on campaign finance reform over the years--John McCain and Russ Feingold. Their commitment to this issue and leadership has elevated the debate on this very important part of our democratic system. They deserve recognition and they deserve credit. Mr. President, S. 22 has three primary components, as you know. First, it expands and codifies disclosure for candidates, political parties and all organizations and individuals who participate in the political process. Second, it caps and regulates soft money donations to the National political parties. Third, it increases hard money contribution limits and then indexes these limits to inflation for future years. Our Federal campaign finance system is broken. As all of us know, in politics, as in life, perception is an important dynamic of reality. The American people's perception of the integrity of our political system is directly connected to their confidence in the system. Americans see a political system controlled by special interests and those able to pump in millions of unaccountable dollars. As our citizens become demoralized and detached because they feel they are powerless, they lower their expectations and standards for government and our officeholders. As a result, the American people are losing confidence in our system. They are losing trust in their elected officials. We need to fix the system. The Senate will engage in an open, honest and wide-ranging debate on campaign finance reform this year, as it should be. The debate must be thoughtful, factual and deliberate. Any legislative action will have immense consequences for our political system and all who participate in it. S. 22 represents a strong, bipartisan foundation from which consensus can be built and real campaign finance reform can be established. Our bill is imperfect. It does not address all of the issues. It does not have all of the answers. But it is a genuine attempt to bring about real reforms, including greater disclosure and more accountability. Greater disclosure, I believe, is the heart of campaign finance reform. We should not fear an educated and informed body politic. We should encourage it. In recent years, so-called independent groups and individuals have played and increasingly dominant role in the political process launching late TV blitzes, moving poll numbers in the final weeks and days of a campaign, and then disappearing without the public ever knowing who they were and how much they spent for or against the candidate. There are several provisions in S. 22 that will increase the disclosure of campaign financing and election activity. But the most significant is the provision affecting what information is made public regarding political broadcast ads, especially ads referred to as issue advocacy ads. Issue advocacy adds generally refer to a Federal candidate and his or her positions on issues, but since the ads do not expressly advocate the election or defeat of a Federal candidate, they don't trigger the reporting and disclosure requirements of the Federal Election Campaign Act. Even though these ads don't expressly advocate for or against any candidate, many people consider the clear intent of these ads, which is to influence the outcome of elections. Our legislation addresses the problems associated with the disclosure of these issue ads by requiring disclosure of the relevant information at the broadcast stations who broadcast these ads both on radio and TV. Currently, broadcast stations must comply with Federal communications regulations requiring them to place in their public file information on ads run by Federal candidates and political parties. This includes a record of the times the spots are scheduled to air, the overall amount of time purchased, and at what rates, and the names of the officers of the organization placing the ad. However, presently, there is no requirement that any of this information be placed in the public file for political ads run by independent organizations or individuals. Our legislation will codify these regulations and expand them to cover all political broadcast ads without violating anyone's constitutional rights. Under this bill, the American public and the media will know who is buying these ads and how much they are spending for the ads. Also, let me make clear one thing this provision does not do. It does not require organizations to identify individual donors or provide membership lists. It preserves a reasonable balance between the public's right to know and the privacy rights of members and donors. In addition to increased disclosure, this legislation regulates and caps soft money donations. It limits individuals, independent organizations, corporations, and unions, to an aggregate of $60,000 per year in soft money contributions to the national political parties. These donations are disclosed at the Federal Election Commission. We already have constitutionally tested limits on hard money. Political parties have to deal with this. These contributions are reported from the political parties and from the candidates and their campaigns. We should look at placing limits on soft money contributions as well. This legislation also adjusts the hard money, or Federal contributions, that is are already fully disclosed to and regulated by the Federal Election Commission. Currently, an individual contribution limit is now set at $1,000. That limit was originally set in 1974. Our legislation would move that current $1,000 limit to $3,000 per candidate per election. Indexed to inflation, today a 1974 $1,000 contribution is worth $3,000. In future years, all individual limits would be indexed to inflation. This would have a positive effect on the system because more campaign money would go directly to the candidates, where there is the most disclosure and accountability. Any legislation to reform America's campaign finance system needs to reverse the sharply rising trend of moneys going outside the reportable system toward unaccountable, independent groups and individuals who do not report, who are not required to report or disclose. That trend has been more and more away from the candidates in the political parties. We must also ensure that any campaign finance reform genuinely improves the system and doesn't result in unintended consequences that actually make it worse. The challenge in reforming our campaign finance system to do so without infringing upon the constitutional rights of Americans to freely express themselves under the first amendment and the guarantees of equal protection under the law in the fifth amendment. Any effort, no matter how well-intentioned, that doesn't pass constitutional muster will be an effort in futility, adding further to the erosion of public confidence in our system. Congress has an opportunity this year to pass a relevant and responsible campaign finance reform bill that the President will sign. My colleagues and I will be fully engaged in this debate this year with the ultimate goal of making our campaign finance system more open and accountable--the essence of any reform.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 5461, which is at the desk.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read the third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 386, submitted earlier by Senator Bob Smith.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Senator. I know that is the intent of the leadership.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Friday, December 8. I further ask consent that on Friday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each with the time equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, in executive session I ask unanimous consent the Foreign Relations Committee be discharged from further consideration of the nomination of Richard N. Gardner, the Senate immediately proceed to his consideration, the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 10:30 a.m. tomorrow. The House is expected to consider a continuing resolution that would continue funding through Tuesday, December 12 early tomorrow morning. It is the intention of the Senate to pass the continuing resolution by voice vote as soon as it is received from the House. Therefore no votes are expected prior to Tuesday, December 12, at a time to be determined.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 385 introduced earlier today by Senators Durbin and Fitzgerald.

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 439). The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 439) entitled ``An Act to amend the National Forest and Public Lands of Nevada Enhancement Act of 1988 to adjust the boundary of the Toiyabe National Forest, Nevada'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert:

Mr. HAGEL

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to amendments of the House with respect to each of these measures.

Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on the bill (S. 1694). The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 1694) entitled ``An Act to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study on the reclamation and reuse of water and wastewater in the State of Hawaii'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert: