Mary Landrieu

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. My colleague from Virginia knows how much I respect him for his leadership on this subject and how difficult I know this debate is for him because he has been a champion of defense spending and strengthening our defenses and actually appropriating money in very wise ways, as we say about boosting the morale. But I have to go back to this letter. I most certainly know we have both turned it in for the Record. I think it is important because Senator Levin is on his way to this debate--since this letter is written by him--to make sure the Members understand the context of this letter. If it is read in its entirety, which I tried to do--not just reading the paragraph to which you referred but the next paragraph--it is clear that Senator Levin says that, while we do need to support the study, we must set aside now the resources necessary to fund the outcome of the study. I know the Senator from Virginia is familiar with the Congressional Budget Office study. I know he is familiar with ``Defending America, The Plan to Meet Our Missile Defense''--the numerous studies that have been done. Not one study indicates that we will be spending less money, but all suggest that we will be spending more, but differently. So again, I will conclude because I think my time is up. We are going to have a bill coming due. The question is, Is there money in the bank to pay it? Please vote for the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment so we have money to pay these bills when they come due and live up to our promises to our men and women in uniform. I yield back my time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I understand that I have approximately 5 or 6 minutes to close this argument. First, I thank the Senators from Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Missouri for lending their voice to this important amendment and to this important debate. I also acknowledge the great respect I have for the chairman of the Budget Committee, the Senator from New Mexico, who has just spoken passionately about an issue he has spent a great deal of time and energy working on for many years. He has called us to task many times to try to deal with an issue that is sometimes technical and difficult to explain but nonetheless an obligation this Nation has to protect our children and our grandchildren. He was speaking so beautifully in the 10 minutes given to him, it could have been allocated to our time, because he made so many of the arguments more eloquently than I can about the fact that this underlying budget does not have enough money or resources to do the things we know we need to do now. He has really helped make the argument of why the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment is so important. Point No. 2, regarding the costs mentioned by our distinguished chairman for nuclear stockpile stewardship, for the health care shortfall, for TRICARE, for housing, I ask this question: Do these requirements cease after the year 2002? Do these expenses not continue to recur? It defies logic that we could provide for this funding for 1 year and then simply turn our backs and walk away. That is why a 1-year amendment, although it is helpful and I could probably vote for it because it is better than nothing, certainly falls short, terribly short, of what we need to do to make a long-term, 10-year commitment to the basics. The third point: With all due respect to Senator Warner, whom I admire so much, the distinguished Senator from Virginia submitted this letter, dated March 19, to Senator Domenici and Senator Conrad signed by Senator Levin. He read the first two paragraphs. The most important paragraph is the fourth paragraph, which goes on to say, after saying we should consider the study: However, I believe there are certain requirements that must be addressed regardless of the outcome of the ongoing strategic review. Some increases above the projections contained in the President's budget outline of February 28 will be needed to continue the transformation of our military to meet the threats of the new century, to fulfill the commitments the Congress has made to improve quality health care to active and retired military families, and to continue the progress we have made in recent years to improve compensation, housing and other quality of life programs for our military families. He goes on to say: I also recommend that the Budget Resolution provide a sufficient mandatory spending allocation for the Committee. . . . Point No. 4. Please be clear. Our amendment does not try to prejudge the President. We are trying to prepare to implement the strategic study. We are not standing in the way of the study. We are laying the groundwork that we can walk on, that we can fight on, that we can defend. This is about laying down a priority in our budget for the next 10 years. Are we going to say yes to defense or no? Are we going to live up to our promises or turn our backs again? Are we going to provide help or say, as the Senator from Connecticut said, the check must have been lost in the mail? I know the Senators from Virginia and New Mexico too well to think they would walk away from obligations we have already made. I know that is not their intention. So let us do what is right. Let us choose the right priority, take the right step, be fiscally responsible. We know this bill is coming due. The question is, Is there going to be any money in the bank to pay it? If we don't vote for my amendment, the bank will be empty. There is nothing you can tell them. We are sorry; we spent the money. I am not going to do that. Because I am on the committee, because I live in the State of Louisiana, I know how important this is. I know we are not asking for too much: $10 billion a year for 10 years. It is a minimal requirement to lay the groundwork for this study. I ask the Senate to take this amendment seriously. This is a very important vote. We need to say yes. We can say yes to next year, with Senator Warner at $8.5 billion, and we can say yes the next year because the need for health care doesn't stop. People aren't going to move out of their homes on the bases. We are not going to end the distribution of spare parts. We are not going to run out of the need for ammunition. We need it in 2003 and 2004. I say to the Senate, let us live up to our promises, let us make the right decisions, and let's vote for the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I believe I have 5 minutes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Which makes it even more important we adopt the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment because at least there will be some money in the bank to pay some bills we know are coming due, in addition to the real and urgent needs that the supplemental represents. So I thank my colleague for raising that issue. This amendment does not cover it, but if there was a way for it to, we most certainly should because that is an additional obligation that we should meet.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield for a clarification?

Ms. LANDRIEU. No, the Senator from Virginia did not hear me, but our colleague did such a beautiful job on missile defense.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I will be sending an amendment to the desk in just a few moments on behalf of myself and Senator Carnahan to correct the Record. We will be offering this amendment together this afternoon, along with Senator Corzine, Senator Breaux, Senator Lieberman, Senator Levin, Senator Graham, Senator Nelson, and Senator Reed. There may be others who will be joining us in offering what we hope will be a bipartisan amendment because this is surely a principle that both Democrats and Republicans have supported for many years. Before I get to my prepared remarks, I thank my colleagues, Senator Conrad and Senator Domenici, for their fine work in handling this debate. I will begin by giving a very graphic description of our national defense outlays as a share of GDP. It is helpful for our party, for the other side, and for our constituents to understand that these numbers have varied widely and fluctuated dramatically based on the current needs and crisis at hand. As my colleagues can see, we were spending in the 1940s almost 40 percent of our gross domestic product when this country geared up to fight the greatest war machine ever built in the history of the world, when we defended the world. Then we came down to a low of below 5 percent as we recovered from that war and then had to invest again for the Korean war. This number has fluctuated wildly. I hope this chart can be seen clearly because it is very important for the public to get a sense of this debate and to understand why this amendment is so important and why I am hoping we will have many Members support it. This is an effort to improve the budget resolution we are debating, and it is a very important debate clearly for the future of our Nation. As one can see, we came down a great amount in spending, of course, from the 1950s to the current year of 2001, and rightly so perhaps because we used this as a peace dividend. The world generally being at peace, we were able to contribute to our economy, to investments in other areas, and to stabilizing our budget. This was done in a bipartisan fashion. We can see under President Reagan's leadership these numbers went up slightly, which is referred to as the Reagan buildup, but the numbers have come down. Both candidates for President, Governor Bush and now, of course, President Bush, and Vice President Gore talked about the need to stabilize this line, to make strategic investments now, to not allow this line to continue to slide because the world is not becoming safer. The cold war may be over, but there are still many challenges. In addition, there has been study upon study, speech upon speech given by our chairman, our ranking member, and members of the committee talking about the time to invest now in our military to help turn around this sliding line; to help stabilize. Words they used: Let's be reliable; let's reinvest in our men and women; let's increase morale; let's improve housing; let's recapitalize. This amendment is a modest step toward that end. To remind all, during the 2000 election campaign, President Bush made a very compelling national security address at the Citadel, a military school with a rich tradition of history and honor. While we commonly refer to that as the ``Citadel speech,'' the speech has a name. President Bush entitled his remarks that day ``A Period of Consequences.'' That title is not just a casual descriptive phrase. It has an important legacy. It was first used by a man facing the most consequential period in his nation's history--Sir Winston Churchill. Assuming the reins of power at a time when Britain was threatened by the greatest war machine ever created, Churchill proclaimed: The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, we are entering a period of consequences. When he cited those remarks last September, President Bush was right. I agree with him, and so do many Members in the Senate. Our military has reached a period of consequences, and many difficult decisions need to be made. I will ask the Senate today to make one of those important decisions. This body will go on record with a clear choice of priority: we can either spend everything we have or think we have in a surplus that has not yet materialized or we can give commonsense tax relief, a realistic level of tax relief and also--which is most important--have money to make some strategic investments in one particular area with known shortfalls, and that is in defense. We just passed Senator Harkin's amendment. I was proud to support that amendment because this body, in a bipartisan way, made it clear another strategic investment we must make is in education. We must take a second step and make an important decision today to invest in shortfalls in defense. The President seemed to understand this problem during the campaign when he said: Not since the years before Pearl Harbor has our investment in national defense been so low as a percentage of GNP. Yet rarely has our military been so freely used--an average of one deployment every 9 weeks in the last few years. Since the end of the cold war our ground forces have been deployed more frequently, while our defense budget has fallen by nearly 40 percent. One cannot argue with the numbers or argue with the trend line on this chart. The budget we are debating, unfortunately, without this amendment, will not stabilize this line. It will not turn it around. It will not invest in the quality of life issues so important to retain our soldiers and their families, to build morale, and to strengthen our troops, and most importantly, live up to promises we have made to them in terms of their pay, in terms of their benefits, in terms of the kind of housing we promised them. These words do not sound like those of someone advocating the status quo. I and many of my colleagues are baffled. I didn't imagine, frankly, that this amendment would need to be offered. But here we are, 7 months after the election, having this debate. Let me ask my colleagues, since the election, has the world gotten automatically safer? Did our military find a secret storage site filled with spare parts? Did the 13-percent civilian pay gap disappear? Did the dilapidated facilities we heard about in the campaign start repairing themselves? Maybe all of our military families at wit's end with TRICARE have been cured. We know that is not the reality and the needs still exist. The budget we are debating is deficient in that regard. The amendment of Senator Carnahan and myself which we are now debating we hope will begin to fix this and make a modest investment. Let me show a couple of pictures to highlight some of the problems we have in our own State. I have the great privilege of representing Fort Polk, one of the premier training centers in the Nation, in the view of our commanders. This is where our men and women train before being sent to Bosnia or to Korea or other places where we have either conflicts or have engaged in serious peacekeeping efforts. This is just one picture. I could show 100 pictures of housing, of dilapidated structures, of mold and mildew. If you go to Fort Polk's website, you will see old photographs taken at its creation in 1941. These are the same makeshift wooden huts, now used as dining facilities, that were there when Churchill was making his speech about ``a period of consequences.'' How long does this building need to serve its country before it can retire? I would say World War II, Korea Vietnam, Grenada, Desert Storm, and Kosovo should just about cover any building's life span. Not at Fort Polk. This is only one of many examples of situations repeated all across our country at our military bases. There are a variety of reasons for this crumbling infrastructure. However, if you talk to the base commanders you hear one refrain again and again. Real property maintenance is the first casualty. When officers are forced to choose between installing air conditioners for the Louisiana summer, or continue training their men and women for war, officers correctly choose training. However, it is wrong for Congress to force our military leadership to opt between essential quality of life initiatives and basic readiness, maintenance and safety. Yet that is the choice our post commanders are forced to make year after year. Furthermore, while the newer housing that the military is building is very nice, there is not nearly enough of it to go around. In the meantime, we force our servicemen and women to live in substandard housing. I would be willing to bet that you could go on nearly every base in America and find military housing that does not meet HUD's standards. Nonetheless, we wonder why we have a recruiting and a retention problem. If it were not for the extraordinary patriotism of our men and women, our ``problem'' would be an epidemic. Still, I suspect that many colleagues will respond that we are undertaking a strategic review, and we should not prejudge and rush to any conclusion. We should wait. To that, I refer my colleagues back to Winston Churchill. We are in a period of consequences. We should be done with the era of procrastination. In any case, we can study this problem to death, and it will not change the fundamental reality. These problems need a resolution today, not ten years from now. They will require a greater portion of our nation's resources to address. Yet if we do not set those resources aside in this budget resolution, they will not be there for us to invest later. The other irony about the supposed need for delay is the study itself. In all the reports that have come out, there has not been any indication that these quality of life initiatives are even being considered. Even if they were considered, it is extremely unlikely that any study would conclude that we need to spend less money on these issues. More likely than not, this amendment adding $10 billion a year would be viewed as a modest down-payment on a much larger debt coming due. Perhaps the real savings comes from military transformation? Maybe if we adopt new technologies and techniques we can forestall the need for more military spending? Not likely. Although Secretary Rumsfeld and Mr. Marshall may be the latest to study military transformation, they are not exactly the only study. I have brought with me a stack of studies that reach the same conclusion. We need military transformation. We need to recapitalize our forces. We need to encourage joint experimentation and operations, and we must prepare for the emerging threats of the 21st century. All the reports have a different emphasis. They come from the broadest possible political spectrum, but they all endorse these same principles. What is more, they all believe we need a top line increase in defense to accomplish these goals. Again you will find a range of perspectives from about a $30 billion annual increase at the low end, to a $100 billion annual increase at the very high end. Either way, the conclusion is the same. The problem is that if we do conclude that we need a significant investment, there will be no money for us to invest. I support the strategic review. I imagine that I will support a good deal of what Secretary Rumsfeld has to say. We have reason to believe there is a big bill on the horizon. We have the money in the bank. I suggest we allocate some of that money toward this bill that is due today. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership is taking those savings and living for the moment. How they will account for this decision, I do not know. The other important point to keep in mind is that this amendment does not change the bottom line need for reform at the Pentagon. I agree with Senator Byrd's insistence that the Pentagon get its books in order. Furthermore, the low end estimates for the need to recapitalize our current force are an additional $30 billion per year. My amendment is providing the services $10 billion. If this is all the services get, they still have to cover that two-thirds gap somehow. To do so will require the services to rethink what they are doing, and how they are doing it. This fundamental rethinking is an exercise we all should endorse. It will not be any less necessary should our amendment pass. I invite the Senate to look at the build rates for the Navy. Last year, the Navy CinC's stated that they could not perform their missions with fewer than 360 ships. Yet, for the past eight years, the Navy has been procuring only an average of six ships per year. This build rate is the lowest since 1932, and will result in a Naval fleet of 180 ships if continued. All of our military forces serve the dual function of good-will ambassadors and ``cooperation builders'' with our allies. This role is even more prominently performed by our Navy. It also serves as an important signal of American resolve at crisis points. However, we may soon reach a point where our Navy, rather than an instrument of American power projection, is relegated to protecting an increasingly tenuous forward-presence. I might also mention that we take a hard look at what we are saying to our NATO allies about their defense budgets. As we insist that our allies take greater strides to bridge the capability gap, we also remind them that the whole solution will not be found in greater efficiency or reform. We consciously assert that transformation costs money, and no nation can expect to improve capabilities without an increase in the top-line budget. I would submit that the logic of these arguments applies no less to the United States than it does Belgium or Norway. This amendment acknowledges the truth, we are in a period of consequences for our military. We can acknowledge that fact and pass this amendment, or stick our heads in the sand. With the People's Republic of China increasing defense spending 15 percent, with the Middle East edging toward open conflict, with the conflict in the Balkans spilling over to Macedonia, with increased military cooperation between Iran and Russia--this seems like a very dangerous time to ignore reality for the sake of political posturing. A tax cut that robs our military of much needed reinvestment is wrong-headed and reckless. Another great English Prime Minister Lloyd George once said of America that ``she always does the right thing, after she has tried all other options.'' Today I present the Senate with the option to do the right thing. Pass this amendment, put the needs of our military and our nation before short-term political gain. When we asked people to reenlist, we asked the spouses: Would you like your spouse to reenlist? Have your children live in places that we don't even allow our Housing and Urban Development to build and to fund? We ask our service men and women to live in substandard housing with inadequate pay, with health care that is less than what was promised when they signed up to serve. These are the things I hope my amendment will fix and make the minimum downpayment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I appreciate that. Let me comment briefly as we decide the appropriate way to proceed. I must certainly note we will have a vote on this amendment that Senator Carnahan and I are offering. I suggest to the distinguished managers, our amendment and that of Senator Warner could be complementary. His amendment deals only with 1 year of an increase, which I actually support. I agree we need an increase for the 2002 budget. My amendment makes a longer, more reliable, stable commitment over 10 years. Given the underlying budget resolution does the same, we are not necessarily in disagreement, except for the fact that mine has a 10-year outlook and his has only 1 year. I simply argue that while his amendment might be a step to take, we could certainly take this step as we make a decision for the strategic investment that we need to make over this decade--not just for 1 year. On another point, some may say: Senators, you know there is a strategic review under way. Shouldn't we wait before we consider this amendment? I have brought to the floor today studies that I could submit for the Record. This one is a ``Strategy For Long Peace,'' by the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. I am just going to refer to two. This one is called ``Averting the Defense Train Wreck in the New Millennium'' by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. These are two very well known and well-respected think tanks. As I said, I have with me an additional 15 studies that I have brought, from conservative to liberal think tanks, that have looked at this issue and are actually probably part of the strategic study underway. In no case that I can find, after reviewing all of these studies, do any at all indicate that a strategic review would result in less of an increase or reduction in defense spending--not one. Even with those arguing for transformation from a cold war structure to a new structure, even for those who are arguing for very aggressive transformation, there is not a study that we can find, no expert on either side of this debate, who is going to make an argument that this spending line is going to go down. It is going to go up. Yet the budget resolution we are debating is not, in the current form, going to allow for that. So our amendment will set aside $100 billion out of the tax cut, $10 billion a year, to make room for the strategic study, to make room for the quality of life, to make room for the improvements that need to be made to boost the morale and to boost the vigor of our Armed Forces. Waiting is not only going to force us to make some very tough decisions down the road, but waiting is also going to cost the taxpayer billions of dollars because of the delay, because of this budget gap. It is not fair and it is not right and it is not smart. We can do it all if we use common sense and reasonableness and we are careful about what numbers we put on the tax cut and on certain strategic investments. I am going to try to wrap up in just a moment, only to say the President campaigned on this issue when he ran for President. People voted for him based on a promise to support an increased military investment. Many of us who even voted for the other candidate believe it is a very important step to take now, to improve and to strengthen our investments, particularly the quality of life issues of housing, pay, other compensation, and health care; to strengthen our retention of our forces and to provide for them the things that we promised when they signed on the bottom line. If we are careful, if we make the right decisions today, we can have a reasonable tax cut, we can pass strategic investments in education and defense, and we can pass a budget that will work, not only for this year but for next year and for many years to come. So I am proud to offer this amendment on behalf of my colleagues. I could give many more examples where it comes to our Navy, to our Army, to our Air Force, to Marines, to the things we need to maintain our ships and planes, as well as our quality of life issues. In closing, let me say with all due respect to my chairman, who is going to offer another amendment, whether he does it before I do or after I offer mine, I agree with him that we need to increase spending by his amendment of $8.5 billion for 2002. But that does not go far enough. We are laying down a budget for the next 10 years. Are we just going to offer our military an increase for 1 year and say you are on your own for years after? We need to be reliable. We need to be trustworthy. We need to live up to our promises. We need to support the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment that will begin to make a modest investment to keep this line stable, to keep our country secure, and to put the money where our mouth is. When we say we support our men and women in the Armed Forces, let's do it now. If we cannot do it now, when are we going to do it? Once this budget resolution passes without my amendment, it will not matter if 100 strategic studies come back. There is not going to be any money to fund it. Let us, while we can, make the investment for our men and women in the Armed Forces. I yield the remainder of my time back. I think the manager has done a beautiful job. Senator Carnahan would like to speak for a few minutes on this amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU. If I may interrupt for one moment, I understand the amendment is now at the desk, so I would like to officially call it up.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, I just have a question.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I have no objection to the 60 minutes divided for the discussion of the Landrieu-Carnahan amendment and the Warner alternative. How will the debate proceed? Will we alternate pro and con or will we take our 60 minutes first or alternately allocate the time?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Reserving the right to object, there are a number of other Members who would want to speak on this amendment. I am wondering if Senator Lieberman, who was here, and Senator Reed, who was here, will be given time to speak on this amendment?

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, the Members are going to be discussing the details of this amendment because there seems to be some confusion with the text. I want to take a few minutes to explain it as staff is working on it, and we may need a little bit more time. Generally, there is broad consensus, both on the Republican side and the Democratic side, that one of the best things we could do to improve our current system is to try to provide for greater disclosure. One of the great tools we now have for disclosure is the electronic medium, the electronic opportunity, the tools the Internet and new technologies have provided. My amendment really embraces this new technology. It is quite a simple amendment. It requires the FEC to develop a standardized software package that any Federal candidate running for Federal office would be required to use in our reporting requirements. The report would basically go on line. Instead of waiting a quarter, or 6 months, or a year, or 48 hours, whatever the current waiting period is, a candidate or a political committee that is required to report would basically enter the data as if he were making deposits--which we all do--into a bank account. Those deposits would become transparent. The report is like a report in progress, and people would have access to what contributions were being made to the candidate--in this case--or to a committee, basically instantaneously. That is the essence of my amendment. There is no new reporting requirement. It will hopefully not be onerous on us because the FEC will be required to come up with this new software. We will allow them the time to develop it because we don't want to rush the process. We want them to do it correctly. They would give us the software, and we would download it onto our computer, and as checks came in, as expenses were released by the campaign, it would be available instantaneously on the Internet. That is the essence of my amendment. We are having a few problems with the drafting of the amendment. That is what I offer as an improvement to our current system. We have reports that we must file. They are quarterly or annually or, sometimes when one is close to an election, daily. This would be instantaneous reporting with no new work required of the candidate or the committees using software that will be developed. That is what I submit for consideration. I am hoping we can voice vote this amendment as soon as the technical difficulties are worked out. I yield back the remainder of my time, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I really appreciate the leadership the Senator from Connecticut has brought to this issue. I thank him for providing time for me to offer this amendment. Amendment No. 124

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Ms. LANDRIEU. No. I am prepared to have a voice vote.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Would I be in order to ask unanimous consent that for this amendment there be a voice vote tonight? Of course, I will abide by the wishes of the chairman and ranking member. I believe this amendment has been cleared.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I am resubmitting the amendment. The staff has been working on it. Basically, as I described earlier, this amendment would not require any additional recording, no additional work on behalf of the candidates. It would simply direct the FEC to come up with standards for software so that our recording would basically be done electronically, totally transparent and basically almost instantaneous. There would be no changes of reports, no requirements for new reports, no requirements for new work, just basically instantaneous transparency. I think both sides have argued--and I definitely agree--that full disclosure is one of the things we could do to improve it. That is what this amendment does. I offer it at this time.

Ms. LANDRIEU. Yes.

Ms. LANDRIEU. It is a modification of the original amendment. Senator McConnell had some excellent points that were incorporated. We wanted to leave adequate time for the FEC to develop these new rules and procedures. There is no deadline basically. It does not mandate the FEC to develop the software, but it allows them, I say to the Senator, to develop the standards. Industry develops the software and then makes it available to us. So for our constituents, for interested parties, and for journalists, our reporting will basically be as if you were accessing a Web site.

Ms. LANDRIEU. I thank the Senator. Amendment No. 124, As Modified Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Ms. LANDRIEU

Ms. LANDRIEU. Will the Senator yield?

Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I come to the floor to support Senator Cochran in his amendment. I think it is an excellent amendment and goes a long way toward moving to a more full and complete disclosure. I understand some of the questions that have been raised. But as I read this amendment, it is very good. We are doing this in Louisiana and perhaps other States, learning how to use this new technology in many good ways. It helps our campaign finance system be more transparent. For instance, the Senator is correct; you can take a State such as Louisiana and simply make this requirement for our State agency to make all of these reports available over the Internet on one Web site so people don't have to search through a variety of Web sites. I commend the Senator for his amendment. I support his amendment and urge the Senator, unless absolutely necessary, not to adjust the amendment. It is very clear. It simply takes the law and all the reports and urges the FEC to put them in one central site. It will make it easier for our constituents, easier for the news media, easier for us to follow those reports. I will have an amendment later taking this a step further and requiring the FEC to develop standardized software which will make it much easier for everyone to file the required reports in a timely fashion. My amendment will take this a step further by requiring it to be almost instantaneously reported. Deposit a check in your bank account, and it will appear on the Internet. People can follow the flow of money. There are many disagreements about limits and whether there should be caps or no caps, and should broadcasters have to give special rates or reasonable rates--since I voted for that amendment, ``reasonable rates''--for political candidates. Frankly, in my general discussions with Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and many people on both sides who support campaign finance reform, the one area on which we all agree is more disclosure. The one thing everybody says, opponents of McCain-Feingold as well as proponents, is that we should be coming forward more aggressively in our disclosure. That is what the amendment of Senator Cochran does. I compliment him for that. I urge my colleagues to look favorably upon it. I thank him for the work he is doing in regard to campaign finance reform. I hope we don't change this amendment too much. It is quite simple and very good in its current form. Later on today, I will propose my amendment that will make it a virtual reality check on all campaign contributions coming in from a variety of different sources and make it much easier for Members to be held accountable for moneys we are collecting and the votes we cast. The Cochran amendment is very good, and I hope we will adopt it.