Fred Thompson

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I want to address the subject of Social Security, as my colleague from New Hampshire has so eloquently addressed a few minutes ago. It is a matter about which we are all concerned. We all agree that something is going to have to be done about it because the numbers simply don't work. We all know that the money needed to pay to more and more retirees is not going to be sufficient because we are not going to have a sufficient number of people paying into the trust fund. We are going to have more and more retirees and fewer and fewer workers in the future. The numbers simply are not going to add up. We all recognize that a day of reckoning is coming, and many of us have been struggling to try to decide what to do about it. It seems as if there are really only three choices. One is to raise taxes. We pay for Social Security with Social Security taxes, FICA taxes. We could raise them astronomically on future workers. The second is to cut benefits, which, of course, nobody wants to do. The third choice is to have some kind of fundamental restructuring and reform. I think more and more people have concluded that is what has to happen. A lot of people, including myself, think we have to have some system whereby the worker can invest some of that money in those FICA taxes for something that will have a much greater return than they are getting today. We were hoping that before the President left office, there would be some leadership from the President in making some of the hard choices we all know are going to have to be made. Any one of those choices I have just described is not an easy political choice to make. It will never be made unless we get some leadership from the President, at which point I think a lot of people will fall in line. We have, on a bipartisan basis in the Senate, already been trying to work toward that end. Frankly, I don't think the political risks are as great as a lot of people think. I think we should tell the people the truth and do something, go ahead and do it. There is not a lot of risk to that. Most people believe otherwise. But we will have to have Presidential leadership under any circumstances. The President has come forth with a plan which does not really do those three things I mentioned before in terms of the alternatives, but he seeks to basically put the problem off to another day. It is a good strategy in a year before an election because it avoids the problem while pretending to solve it. But it certainly doesn't do anything to solve it. I think we can reach agreement on that with a pretty wide consensus on a bipartisan basis in this body because too many Democrats and Republicans have been working together and concluding that the approach that has recently been suggested by the President is something that just won't work. Here is the basic situation. Right now, mandatory spending programs such as Social Security and Medicare consume two-thirds of our Federal budget. In 1980, it was 53 percent; 1990, 63 percent; today, 66.5 percent. By 2030, if no changes are made, mandatory spending, including Social Security and Medicare, will eat up 100 percent of Federal revenue. We know we cannot go down that route forever. At the same time, we are facing a demographic time bomb that will place unprecedented new burdens on the Federal budget. The number of Americans over the age of 65 will more than double between now and 2030. Also, during the same period, the working age of Americans will only increase by 25 percent. This means there will be fewer people paying into the system to support many more beneficiaries. Most everyone, myself included, argues that more people living longer is not a bad problem to have. But it will place tremendous strain on the Social Security Program and on our Federal budget, neither of which is particularly well equipped to deal with it. I cannot agree with the President when he said in his radio address that his proposal to transfer general revenue credits--getting away from the FICA self-financing system that we have now, but dipping into general revenue credits, coming in from income taxes because we have a surplus now, that to transfer these credits into the Social Security trust fund is ``the first big step toward truly saving Social Security.'' Let me first point out the general revenues the President wants to transfer to Social Security come from the very same projected budget surplus he said we could not count on for tax cuts. Now he is using those same uncertain surpluses to so-called save Social Security. The President cannot have it both ways. I will quote from testimony of David Walker, Comptroller General, testifying before the Finance Committee in February. The Senator from New Hampshire quoted Mr. Walker saying ``this does not represent a Social Security reform plan.'' I will not quote all of his statement at this point, but an additional statement he made was that ``the changes to the Social Security Program will thus be more perceived than real,'' talking essentially the same as the President's plan. Although the trust funds will appear to have more resources as a result of the proposal, in reality nothing about this program is changed. He concluded that the proposal does not present Social Security reform but, rather, it represents a different means to finance the current program. It is not Social Security reform and will not save Social Security. One of the risks of the proposal is that the additional years of financing may very well diminish the urgency to achieve meaningful changes in the program. That would not be in the overall best interests of the Nation. In other words, whether it is designed to have the effect of convincing people we are doing something that we are not, that we don't have to address the problem for a while, when, in fact, we are not taken care of, thereby makes the problem worse when we finally do get around to instituting some responsible reforms. I don't know if I can say it any better than the Comptroller. What the President is proposing is to add more debt to the Social Security trust fund, more paper IOUs that one day will have to be redeemed. What is different about these paper IOUs is that they do not represent excess FICA taxes--money collected for the specific purpose of financing the Social Security Program. For the first time, the President is proposing to inject general revenue dollars into the trust fund, based on a calculation of interest savings we will realize as a result of paying down the debt. There are several problems with this. One, as the Comptroller General pointed out, adding more IOUs to the trust fund may give the impression on paper of extended solvency but it does not change by one minute the day on which the cash-flow problem comes home to roost; that is, the day on which payroll taxes will not be sufficient to cover benefit payments and we will have to begin redeeming the IOUs in the trust fund. In the absence of real reform, as I said, there are only three ways to redeem the IOUs. Rather than taking steps to reduce the program's unfunded liability, the President's proposal makes us more reliant on the unhappy choices of raising taxes or cutting benefits. Rather than acknowledging that we will have to either raise payroll taxes, adjust benefits, or find a way to enable people to earn a higher return on FICA taxes, the President makes the program more dependent on future infusions of general revenues from the Treasury--income taxes from young workers that will come into the system later on. That will only exacerbate the trend I discussed earlier in which an ever-increasing portion of the overall Federal budget is being dedicated to entitlement programs for the elderly. Everyone believes Social Security is a vitally important program, and everyone is committed to making sure that it is there for current seniors and future generations to rely upon. I am not sure we are all committed to the proposition that 100 percent of the Federal budget should be dedicated to Social Security and Medicare. In fact, I am pretty sure most believe the Federal Government has other responsibilities as well, such as national defense, national parks, infrastructure, and schools. That is the direction in which we are headed and the President's proposal gets us there more quickly. The second problem with transferring general revenues into the Social Security trust fund, as David Walker pointed out, is that will, in all likelihood, diminish the momentum for real reform. If we continue to avoid real reform, we only have to look at countries in western Europe to catch the glimpse of the problems we face: Pension benefits that are on average 1\1/2\ to 2 times as generous as our Social Security; astronomical payroll taxes to fund the benefits; 40 percent in France; 42 percent in Germany; 39 percent in Italy, on top of other taxes imposed by the government, and an average unemployment rate across European Union countries that will be double that of the United States this year, 9.1 versus 4.3. According to a recent series in the Washington Post, it simply costs companies too much to create jobs in Europe. In Germany, the textile industry, for example, payroll taxes and fringe benefits add 70 percent to the average salary. These countries have promised more than they can afford, just as we have. We need to have a debate about structural reform of our Social Security Program. It needs to be a bipartisan debate. We need to have real options on the table, not gimmicks designed to give one party political advantage over the other. I hope the President will agree to work toward that goal, but until he does I hope we do not fall into the trap of instituting something that makes the situation worse. That is what this proposal will do. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes as if in morning business.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. I will take it and pose it to him.

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the McCain-Feingold legislation as amended. I do so based upon the premise that it is our responsibility in this body, it is our responsibility as a Congress, to address the issues concerning the election of Federal officials. I can think of nothing more appropriate to address than how we elect Federal officials and the way in which we elect them. It is not up to the Federal Election Commission to do this for Congress. It is not up to the Attorney General to do this for Congress, nor the lower courts. It is for Congress to state precisely what kind of system we want--or no system, if we don't want a system--to state that clearly and be willing to stand up and make a case. This is a balancing process, one that has been endorsed by the Supreme Court of the United States. I think the purists on both sides of this issue probably have missed the boat. It clearly does cost more now to run campaigns than it used to cost. In my opinion, the $1,000 limitation, for example, is clearly too low. It needs to be adjusted for inflation. On the other hand, those who say there is not enough money in politics and that we should be able to donate unlimited amounts of money to parties for the benefit of those who are running for office I think miss the boat, also. Surely, we can strike some kind of a balance wherein we can address the legitimate costs of running for office and the fact that we are not going to be able to eliminate money from politics on the one hand with certain reasonable limitations that do not cause public cynicism and do not cause questions to be raised concerning the motivations of those who write the laws in this country. Both history and common sense demonstrate beyond any purview of a doubt there is something inherently problematic with giving large amounts of money to people who write the laws, especially when donors of that money are affected by the laws that are being written. That is not a novel concept. That is something historians back in the 19th century were talking about. They were talking about the downfall of the Roman Empire, something that the Venetians addressed seven centuries ago when they placed strict limits on what could be given to elect the officials. Under their system, if one was going to ask elected officials for any favors, one couldn't contribute to them at all. We have recognized that in this body. Senator Barry Goldwater, who is one of my heroes, has been called Mr. Republican; he has been called Mr. Conservative over the years. He is the conscience of the conservatives. It is one of the things that caused me to want to get into politics. I admired his courage. I also admired what was on his mind. He was always a man of integrity and always willing to look a little bit further than the end of his nose, look a little bit further than things that affected him. He said in 1983 about big money: It eats at the heart of the democratic process. It feeds the growth of special interest groups created solely to channel money into political campaigns. It creates the impression that every candidate is bought and owned by the biggest givers, and it causes elected officials to devote more time to raising money than to their public duties. If the present trends continue, voter participation will drop off significantly-- I might ask parenthetically if that sounds familiar-- public respect will fall to an all-time low-- I ask the same question-- and political campaigns will be controlled by slick packaging artists, and neglect of public duties by absentee officials will undermine government praises. That was Barry Goldwater in 1983. I am disappointed some of my colleagues on the Senate floor did not have an opportunity to question him and interrogate him and try to get him to name names as to those who are corrupt. That is what Barry Goldwater said in 1983. It is not just statements made here that recognize this inherent problem to which there is no one answer--I might add, an inherent obvious problem--and has been with us over the centuries. It is based on human nature. In response to that, we do such things as pass a gift ban. If there is no problem with the giving of things to public officials and to candidates for office, why have we passed the gift ban rule? But we did. So we have the rather curious situation now where an individual cannot buy a Member dinner, but he can give a Member $1,000 for his campaign. Or he can bundle $100,000 for you. Or if he is rich enough, he can give $1 million to your party for your benefit, but he cannot buy you dinner. We recognize this basic question in the laws that we pass. In 1907, we banned corporate contributions. In 1943, we banned union corporations. In 1974, we passed limits on amounts of money that could be given to individual candidates. We passed limits on amounts of money that could be given to political parties. We set up a system of partially funding Presidential campaigns--the idea being if the taxpayers funded the Presidential campaigns, the Presidential candidates would not have to go out and raise private money. Why were we concerned about that if it is the same old answer--the things we have been talking about for the last few minutes. We set up that system. I might say, since that was passed and has been in effect since 1976, until the last Presidential campaign, we have had no real problems in terms of scandals. The Presidential candidates each spent about the same amount of money; sometimes Republicans won, sometimes Democrats, sometimes incumbents, sometimes challengers. That is what we had until recently. This balance that was struck--not impeding first amendment rights but recognizing this inherent question, this inherent historical century- old problem--the balance that was struck was upheld by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court acknowledged we were placing limitations on individuals, perhaps involving the first amendment in some ways, but the Supreme Court said in striking a balance between that legitimate concern on the one hand and the concern over the corruption or appearance of corruption on the other hand was a decent one to strike and was permissible to strike. So we set up a system of limitations and disclosures. This is not a personal matter. This does not have to do with individual Members. It is not about Members as individuals as we consider this in the Senate and the Congress. We haven't been here for very long when considering the course of history, and none will be here very much longer. What we are supposed to do is look past that and do what is necessary and beneficial for the country. I have been distressed in watching this morning, that all of the concern supposedly has not been on the merits of campaign finance but attacks on the Senator from Arizona because he has raised these questions--the same ones that Barry Goldwater raised. Hopefully, we will be able to get back and debate the issues as to whether or not our current situation is a good one. I was thumbing through some material. I haven't been able to catch up on my reading lately. I suggest we direct our attention to what people are saying--not the Senator from Arizona, not Common Cause, not the ACLU, not the advocates we all are on the issues. Congressional Daily was put out by the National Journal on October 7. This journal is primarily a discussion of the legislative issues, what is happening and what is going to happen. In this article written by Bruce Stokes, I was struck by this passage that probably didn't raise any eyebrows because it is so common nowadays. This man wrote: More importantly, the China WTO issue may loom large in some congressional primaries not because voters will care but because candidates on both sides of the issue will use it to raise money from business and labor, a milk cow Members of Congress may be reluctant to cut off by actually voting on the issue. That is not something I would say. I do not know that to be true at all. But this is what people writing for the National Journal are saying. I suggest we ought to be concerned about that. We ought to be a little bit more concerned about the message and not so much concerned about the messenger. So maybe we can get back to the issue, as we proceed these next few days, as to whether or not we have a good situation in this country today. I suggest it is not about the total amount of money in politics. People argue there is too much money in politics; there is not enough money in politics. How long is a piece of string? I am not here to say there is too much or too little money in politics per se. People point out Procter & Gamble spends more on advertising soap than we spend on politics. But I would say a couple of things about this. No. 1, I draw a distinction between what we do and soap making. I hope it would be fairly obvious but perhaps not. Second, the problem, again, is the age-old question: What do we do about the necessity for money in politics and political campaigns on the one hand and the inherent problem of giving large sums of money to individual politicians, to individual legislators, or to individual parties which will inure to the benefit of those legislators? Procter & Gamble has nothing to do with that. The advertisers who place those ads, the people who run those ads, do not conduct public policy in this country, but we do. So why are we here today? Why does this keep coming back? Because, as I have said, we have not addressed this legislatively. The answer is, we are going to have to strike a new balance. We are going to have to readdress what we have done in this country on campaign finance and what we have learned over the last few years because having set up a system that, for better or for worse, whether you agree with it or not, struck that balance in terms of letting money in, letting people have enough money to run but not being overwhelmed by money so it looks as if your vote is based on something other than the merits--that has been totally done away with, basically. We do not have that system anymore. You say: When did Congress change it? Congress did not. Congress really did not do anything to change that system. That system was changed by, basically, the Federal Election Commission and by interpretations of the Attorney General. Now soft money can, in large measure, do what hard money used to do. The gates have been opened. Presumably, after learning the lessons of the last Presidential campaign and the interpretations that the highest law enforcement officer in the country has placed on it, which presumably is the law which presumably is going to be the pattern candidates for both parties are going to be following, a candidate can now go out and raise millions of dollars of soft money, run it through the State parties, coordinate its expenditures, and run television ads, as long as he doesn't say, ``Vote for me.'' That is basically the system we have today. The system we have now is not what we want. It is not what we ever voted for before. It is not the system we have had before. But because of FEC interpretations and the Attorney General, that is the system we have now. As we often have to do in this body, we have to readdress fundamental issues. You seldom fix anything for the duration of eternity. Sometimes you can do pretty well for a couple of decades, as we did in 1974. People say it didn't work. I think it worked pretty well in most respects. Certainly, in the Presidential campaigns it has worked well. It has now been proven the hard money limits are too low. That is one of the things we have learned. What do we do? Throw the whole thing out or do we raise the hard money limits? I think we ought to raise the hard money limits in light of the reality we have learned since the last time we addressed this issue. We have a system now where basically there are no practical limitations on any amount of money anybody wants to give to effect political campaigns. If that is what we want, an argument can be made that is a good thing. It has never been made as far as I know. It has never been voted on in this body. Do we want that? If we do not want that, we ought to say so. If we do, we ought to say so. How did we get into a situation where, without this body lifting a finger, we went from a system where people were mightily concerned about the $5,000 PAC check, by the $1,000 individual check--from that system, that is the last time we addressed it, to a system whereby now you are not a player unless you are giving $100,000? It started in 1978, the FEC rule that parties could send certain moneys to the State parties; the Federal party could send to the State parties for party-building activity. Then in 1991, they said they could fund certain voter drive costs with soft money, up to a percentage: It is 35 percent in a nonelection year, 40 percent in an election year. In 1995, for the first time the FEC said you can use soft money for television. Then, Mr. Morris over at the White House showed the President how he could take the matching money, certify that he wouldn't raise any money himself, go out and raise all of this additional $44 million in soft money, while being able to say, ``I am not raising this money for my campaign; I am raising it for the party.'' So the President raises all this additional money, the President sits in the Oval Office and coordinates all of it, tells what kind of ads to put on, where to put them on, how much, and how much money to spend. That is the procedure that Attorney General Reno put her stamp of approval on. Until some court or somebody--or this body--says otherwise, that is the way it is. Now a President or a Presidential candidate, and if so, a congressional candidate, can raise unlimited amounts of soft money, run it through the proper party, coordinate the ads, and have ads run as long as they qualify as issue ads. I am not even arguing the merits of that now. I am saying that is what we have today, and I do not think a lot of people realize it. We did not realize it until recently. The problem we have is that we want to castigate the President for opening up the floodgates. But instead of leaving it at that, we want to do it, too, because the system we have now has been the one that has been developed by the FEC, Mr. Morris, the President, and the Attorney General. Those are the standards we are now operating under. Those are the standards which Members of this body are fighting to preserve. Not only have we discovered it because a few years ago soft money did not play much of a role at all, and what was there went for party- building activities, not for what we see now--not only have we discovered it, or the President discovered it for us, we discovered it, we like it, it now has constitutional protection, and we would have political disaster if we did not have it anymore. We haven't had it very long, but now that we have it, it would be absolute political disaster if we had to do away with it. Back in 1990, for a 2-year cycle, both parties raised $25 million in soft money. In 1996, under Mr. Morris and the President and their new plan--their Plan B, they called it--they raised $261 million. That is from $25 million at the beginning of the decade to $261 million. For the first 6 months of 1999, the parties have raised $55 million and the predictions are, by those who do this sort of thing and have been correct in the past, that by November of 2000 we will have raised $525 million of soft money, which is more than double 1996. The year 1996 was the high-water mark because that is when it was discovered; that is when it was perfected; that is when the doors were opened. By November of next year, the predictions are we will double that. The question is, How long will this go on? How long should it go on? I suggest that we are in need of a new balance. We need to drastically cut back or eliminate soft money, but we need to raise the hard money limits to comport with inflation. It is true--and the promoters of reform need to understand this--that we are developing a system whereby only the rich or the professional politician can participate anymore because those limits are so low. They have not kept up with inflation. If $5,000 were indexed for inflation today, it would be, what, $32,000, or something of that nature. The costs are much more. It is becoming much more time consuming. We need to raise those hard dollar limits across the board, and then we would not need that soft money as much, for one thing, and a lot of that soft money, I think, would come into the hard money system. That would be consistent with our long history of concern on this matter and our long history of legislating on this matter. What are the arguments? I would have hoped by now we would have heard a little bit more about the merits and the arguments of this case instead of the personalities. But as I understand the arguments, No. 1, all this soft money--it is true that the floodgates have been opened. It is true that in every election cycle, we will be doubling the amount of money next time. We will be up there with good old Procter & Gamble before long. The answer is, this just goes to parties; it does not go to candidates, so it cannot have a corrupting influence. I am wondering, if that is the case, why are we spending so much time raising it. I am wondering why President Clinton spent so much time raising it in the White House? Did he really enjoy having coffee with all that many people because the money was going to the Democratic National Committee? And yet he continued to raise it. Do the national committees have no relationship at all to the members? I do not think we want to try to convince the American people of that. Roger Tamraz met with Don Fowler when he was chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Tamraz agreed to contribute $300,000 to the DNC. He had an oil pipeline he wanted to build in the Caspian Sea region. To make a very long story short, he was able to set up a meeting with the Vice President. To the Vice President's credit, he canceled that meeting. He kept working. He got Mr. Fowler to call the National Security Council for him. He got Mr. Fowler to call the CIA for him. Tamraz attended six events with President Clinton in 9 months. Sullivan over at the Democratic National Committee prepared two memos summarizing Tamraz's hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to various Democratic institutions. Four days later, he attended a coffee with the President, talked about the pipeline with Mr. McCarty, and McCarty later enlisted Energy Department officials to lobby for the pipeline, officials who were aware of Mr. Tamraz's contributions to the DNC. I do not think anyone would contend that Mr. Fowler, who was chairman of the DNC at that time, had no influence with regard to the members of his own party and the members of this administration. Some people say Mr. Tamraz did not get what he wanted. Is that cause for great comfort to find out in a situation such as this, a pitiful situation such as this, that this individual did not in this instance get what he wanted? Besides, I raise the question, if there had not been a courageous young woman by the name of Ms. Heslin at the National Security Council who was raising red flags about all of this, I do not know whether or not Mr. Tamraz's luck would have been different. The same principles are involved with soft money contributions as they are with hard money contributions. This is not an easy thing to discuss. This is not something where anybody wants to be holier than thou. We all raise money. We all know we have to raise money. We all try to strike a balance in terms of amounts, in terms of appearances, but if we really are trying to strike a proper balance to come up with something that may not necessarily be the best in the world for us as an individual politician but really is something the country is going to have to move toward, if we really do our jobs, we are going to have to do that. Let's not kid ourselves: We are not casting aspersions on any individual. It is not enough for us to stand up and say: OK, who here is a crook? I see no hands; therefore, there is no problem. Let's go home. We are talking about something that is supposed to pertain for all time and something that, hopefully, will deal with appearances as well as reality, appearances that the Supreme Court recognizes as a valid concern and has been recognized as a valid concern throughout history.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. We are talking about motivations. The Senator brought this up. It caused me to think about this. Again, I ask you, why do you think these corporations and unions contributed that much money to both parties?

Mr. THOMPSON. Principles of both parties simultaneously?

Mr. THOMPSON. Partially the basis of Buckley v. Valeo, you would agree.

Mr. THOMPSON. Is there any way you can violate the law under our current system today? Yes, I can think of ways. A clear quid pro quo would be a violation of the law. But you have to prove a quid pro quo, which is a very high standard. That is under the bribery statutes. But under the campaign part of it, as long as you disclosed it, raising unlimited amounts, I see no effective limitation. There is even a controversy as to whether or not foreign soft money contributions are now legal. A lower court held they were legal. I had a discussion with Attorney General Reno in one of our hearings, when she was trying to excuse what was going on over in the White House and the fact that the President was sitting over there coordinating millions of dollars of soft money for his personal ads to benefit his campaign, and she said: Well, soft money is not regulated. I said: Soft money is not regulated. What about soft money that came from China or Indonesia or somewhere? She said: Well, that would be illegal. I said: Logically, it wouldn't be. If soft money is soft money, it doesn't say anything about a source. Sure enough, a Federal judge agreed with my analysis. Now the court of appeals has overturned that lower court. So goodness knows where we are. But the whole question of foreign soft money is at issue now.

Mr. THOMPSON. Certainly.

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.

Mr. THOMPSON. Let me reclaim the floor, if I can. I won't be very much longer. But listening to the discussion, it looks as if we need to take a step back and look at it as others have from the outside. What makes me angry is reading things such as the article in the National Journal. To me--this is my view; you know what I think about the system--I think things such as this article in the National Journal and others portray a situation that is worse than it is. But it is portrayed that way because so many people believe that. Our problem is this--this is no aspersion on anyone, but I am not going to shrink from it because you ask me to name names--our problem is this: When big bills come up and major industries are affected-- whether it be telecommunications, whether it be banking, whether it be health care, or anything else--and the tremendous hard money contributions start coming into our respective parties, Democrat and Republican, I think people take a look at that and think there is a connection. Do they think that we are necessarily being bribed? I would hope not. Because I know that not to be the case. But it is, at a minimum, an appearance problem that has been with us historically. We have always recognized there is this tradeoff we are having to deal with. What we are trying to do is strike a proper balance.

Mr. THOMPSON. I will. But I would also like--now or later--to pose this: I was looking through this list, and in the first 6 months of this year, 37 companies, corporations, gave $50,000 or more to both parties--both parties. I would ask the Senator why he thinks they did that.

Mr. THOMPSON. Most of these things we are talking about are disclosed, and that does allow us to have the debate. But to follow up on that for a moment, conceding, for a moment, we are using the money for noble purposes.

Mr. THOMPSON. If I may, in the first place, the perception of potential corruption is one of the bases for Buckley v. Valeo. The Supreme Court took a look at that and they said that is a valid reason for legislating in this area. And because of that, because of that decision, what we are talking about today is not a restriction on anybody's first amendment rights. I think in times past Senators had a decent point with some provisions. What we are talking about today does not impinge on the first amendment because it in some way restricts somebody to spend some money somewhere. Because they are limited in donations does not impinge on the first amendment. Buckley v. Valeo holds that also. In answer to my friend, I am aware of erroneous public perceptions as well. They don't trust used car dealers much. My father was one for 50 years in the same little town. I know about all that. But I answer that when newspapers start voting, when they are sent up here and trust and confidence is placed in them to come up here and vote for the American people on these issues, then they subject themselves to the same limitations the Supreme Court says can be placed on us.

Mr. THOMPSON. There are lots of things we used to think were against the law.

Mr. THOMPSON. The real question is, if you prove a quid pro quo, which reminds me of some of the old corruption laws we have had on the books for many years, under which there has never been a prosecution, you have to prove the high standard of a quid pro quo, which is very difficult. I think we can all agree that it is improper, whether or not it is illegal. I think it raises a further question, the basic question, which is kind of the converse of the well-stated point I think the Senator from Kentucky made. The converse of that is, do appearances matter at all? Suppose we know we are trying to do the right thing, but we are seeing this tremendous influx of money at times from industries with which we are dealing on legislation. Should we be concerned about that? Perhaps we should go out and explain to the American people how that is unrelated, how the patriotic spirit of these companies and unions just happened to peak at certain times coincidentally. I am not saying that appearances should rule, but I do ask the question whether or not they should matter. I yield for the purpose of an answer to the Senator from Utah.

Mr. THOMPSON. I couldn't agree more with my colleague from Utah on that point. It points out another difficulty for those who would try to sit down and apply some kind of commonsense analysis to this and think about what it ought to be, maybe 10 years after we have left this body, something we can be proud of. We sat there, the Senator from Utah and I, for almost a year and saw the most egregious violations of propriety, ethics, what ought to be illegal--some clearly was illegal. And many of our colleagues who are now calling the loudest for reform were definitely silent on those occasions. It really grieves me. I think it is extremely unfortunate that so many of us have lost our ability to take the high ground on this issue because of that. Now we see a succession of semiprosecutions where nobody gets any jail time. Everybody gets a slap on the wrist. Nobody is forced to testify against anybody else. The Attorney General gives her stamp of approval on something that nobody in their wildest imaginations thought would have been legal a few years ago. That is kind of a sidebar. What I am trying to do is not let my anger over that and having watched that and gotten damn little cooperation during it cause me not to be able to try to figure out what would be best for us as a system as we go forward. Briefly--I have taken too long--on the constitutional issue, I do not believe the constitutional concerns that have been expressed heretofore are with us now. We do limit hard money. Under prior law, 1974, we limited hard money to both individuals and to parties in this country. We actually prohibit unions and corporations from contributing in this country. That has been upheld as constitutional. It would not make any sense to me to say that we can limit a $1,000 contribution in hard money but we cannot limit or do anything with a million-dollar contribution in soft money when it is going for the same purpose. I think the constitutional points that were made previously no longer apply. In summary, allusion has been made to perception. My concern on that is not what a public opinion poll one day or the next might say but a consistent trend of objective analysis--the Pew Research people are some that come to mind--that shows that in this time of prosperity, this time of peace, we have increasingly cynical views toward our elected officials in this country and toward our institutions. This is especially true with regard to the young people. This is a generation of young people who did not experience Watergate, who did not experience Vietnam, who did not experience the assassinations we all went through as a nation. What reason do they have to be cynical? They are more prosperous than young people have ever been before. Yet the numbers indicate they are more cynical about us and what we are doing than ever before. That is what concerns me, not these petty personality disputes we have around here. In 1968, 8 percent of the American people contributed to elections of any kind--Federal, State, national, local. By 1992, it had dropped to 4 percent. I don't know what it is today. But talking about contributions, that is 4 percent of the American people. So as the soft money doubles, the amount of people contributing is halved; voter turnout declines. Thomas Paine, the famed agitator for the American Revolution and author of Common Sense, said this: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right and raises at first a formidable cry in defense of custom. Let's not lock ourselves into the defense of this custom. Let us look beyond ourselves for a moment and ask ourselves: Is what we are doing going to make for a stronger country? Will it engender respect for our institutions and for this body? Will it give the average citizen more or less confidence in the integrity of his or her government? I think we know the answers to those questions. I yield the floor.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I rise today to express my disappointment that the agriculture appropriations conference report that Congress is sending to the President does not ratify a Southern Dairy Compact that 14 state legislatures have approved. I recently met with several dairy farmers from Tennessee who stressed to me the importance of the Southern Dairy Compact to their farms' survival. Dramatic fluctuations in the price of milk continue, and it is increasingly difficult for these family farms, many of which have been passed down from one generation to the next, to hang on during the hard times. Let me illustrate how dire the situation is: in the last two years, 400 dairy farms in Tennessee have been forced out of business, reducing the total number of farms producing Grade-A milk in the state to under 1,000 for first time since anyone started counting. Today I will vote to cut off a filibuster on the agriculture appropriations conference report because America's farmers are in urgent need of the disaster assistance the bill provides and cannot afford any delay in its delivery, but I am no less committed to the establishment of a Southern Dairy Compact. I believe it would provide the stability in milk prices that dairy farmers need to survive and would protect the region's local supply of milk. Fourteen southern states, including Tennessee, have voted to participate in the Southern Dairy Compact, and it's now up to Congress to ratify it. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to get that done.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, on June 18, 1999, Tennessee-based Lebanon Clowns celebrated their inaugural reunion at their Baseball Team Roundup in Lebanon. The Negro League baseball team gathered for the first time in over thirty years to reminisce about their youthful baseball exploits. The Clowns were a favorite among Lebanon's African- American community as they played teams from Birmingham, Alabama, Pontiac, Michigan and Nashville and Chattanooga, Tennessee. The Negro Leagues were an integral part of American baseball history. A product of segregated America, it gave opportunity where opportunity did not exist. The teams were professional, pre-integration black baseball leagues in which the level of play was considered to be the equal of play in major league baseball. The first stable black league was the Negro National League organized in 1920 by Andrew ``Rube'' Foster. This league, as well as the recognized Negro National League-- created by Gus Greenlee in the early 1930s--and the Negro American League, are universally regarded as having offered the highest level of play among African-American players of the day. During the 1940s the Negro National and Negro American leagues reached their highest point of popularity and financial success. While fans dreamed of watching their stars compete in major league play, the eventual realization of this dream meant the end of both leagues. Some historians contend that the Negro Southern League and Texas Negro League, as well as several of the stronger independent teams during the 1920s and 1930s, offered major league caliber play. The Negro National League folded under financial pressures at the end of the 1948 season. The Negro American League continued play into the late 1950s, but was no longer a stable circuit. As the talent pool of black baseball was absorbed into the integrated major and minor leagues, Negro League team owners were left without a product of sufficient quality to attract fans to the ballpark. Baseball history would not be complete without recognizing Negro League teams such as the Philadelphia Stars, Newark Eagles, Bacharach Giants, Nashville Elite Giants, St. Louis Stars, and the Memphis Red Sox. The Negro Leagues brought us such great players as Willie Mays, Henry Aaron, Satchel Paige, Smokey Joe Williams, and Jackie Robinson. The players and teams of the Negro Baseball League have become a fundamental part of American culture and are forever woven into the fabric of professional baseball. The surviving players, some now in their seventies, are still as filled today with pride and love for the game as they were when they were young rookies on dusty sandlots. So today, I pay tribute to the Negro League by recognizing the deceased and surviving players and managers of the Lebanon Clowns, Negro League baseball team: John Forris ``Bigclue'' Griffith; Harry ``Hammerhead'' Harris, Jr.; Tommy ``Redeye'' Humes; Robert Earl ``Smiley'' Smith; Gilbert ``Sunny'' Oldham; Robert Oldham; Teddy ``Mutt'' Owens; Claude Britton; Bob ``Woods'' Oldham; L.D. ``Zeak'' Ward. George McGown, Jr.; Jerry ``Foots'' Oldham, Sr.; Robert L. ``Pondwater'' McClellan; Betty Lou Oldham; Bob White; Price Logue; Norton Whitley; Roy L. Clark; Kenny Andrews. James Shannon; Lee R. Rhodes; Carl Gilliam; Lonnie Gilliam; Howard Walker; Eddie Muirhead; Charles Walker; Pot Walker. Herman Denny; James H. Carter; Walter ``Rabbit'' Hastings; Robert Pincky; Charlie McAdoo; Jelly Walker; John C. Martin; Junior Donnell; Frank Simpson; Lonnie Neuble. Buck Hunt; Richard ``Boosem'' Owens; Elmer Draper; James Turner; Arthur Turner; C.D. Woodmore; Sammy Woodmore; Mose Alexander; James Harrison; Delmes Jackson. Thomas Tubbs; Honey Johnson; John Dockins; Charlie B. Hill; Thomas Hill; Joe L. Rhodes; Fred Clark; Ramond Roberts. President: Thelma ``Slick'' McAdoo. Secretary: Anna Mae Palmer. Managers: Roy ``Shorty'' Catron; Odell Dockins; P.J. Skeens; Tom Walker; Carl ``Bowchicken'' Rhodes.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator Lieberman and myself regarding the ``Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1999'' be printed in the Record. There being no objection the statement was ordered to be printed in

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to grant permanent resident status to Gabriela Salinas, 11, her mother Jacqueline, and her brothers, Alejandro, 11, and Omar, Jr., 4, all of whom currently live in Tennessee. Although I am aware that private relief legislation is enacted only in rare cases, I believe that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Salinas family merit consideration of this bill. In March of 1996, Gabriela, then seven, and her father Omar Salinas left their home in Bolivia and traveled to New York City to seek lifesaving treatment at Mt. Sinai Medical Center for Gabriela's rare bone cancer, ewing sarcoma. Gabriela, however, was denied treatment at Mt. Sinai because her family was unable to afford the $250,000 deposit required by the hospital. Days later, Gabriela and her father were flown into Memphis, Tennessee, for treatment at the internationally renowned St. Jude Children's Hospital. Actress Marlo Thomas, whose father founded St. Jude, after hearing of the Salinas family's misfortunes, arranged for Gabriela to receive pro bono treatment at St. Jude. Shortly after Gabriela's chemotherapy treatment began, her mother, Jacqueline, and her three siblings joined her and her father in Tennessee. The family received an outpouring of sympathy and support from the Memphis community and looked forward to returning to Bolivia once Gabriela's treatment was completed. Tragically, however, on April 14, 1997, prior to the end of Gabriela's treatment, Omar and Gabriela's 3-year old sister, Valentina, were killed in a car accident on their way back from Washington, D.C. to renew their passports. Jacqueline, seven months pregnant at the time, was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. This terrible tragedy generated national media coverage. As Jacqueline, who gave birth to a healthy baby boy two months later, had no other means of financial support, St. Jude Hospital generously stepped in to care for the family. The hospital, in fact, has made a commitment to provide full financial support for Jacqueline and her children to live permanently in the United States. Because they do not meet the requirements for permanent residence under current immigration law, however, the Salinas family will be forced to leave the United States following the expiration of their tourist visas. Although Jacqueline's son, Danny, nearly two years old, is a U.S. citizen, he will not be qualified to sponsor his mother for permanent residence until he reaches the age of twenty-one. Despite her background in teaching, Jacqueline does not qualify for permanent residence under any of the employment-based visa categories. Therefore, private relief legislation is the only means by which the family will be able to remain permanently in the United States. Gabriela and her family have suffered through a long and difficult ordeal. Yet, with the compassion, generosity, and support of the people of Tennessee and the nation, they have managed to start a new life. The family has settled into a new home in Memphis. The children attend school in the community. And Gabriela continues to be treated under the care of some of the best doctors in the world. With the expiration of their tourist visas approaching, it is my hope that we can act soon to prevent another tragic setback for the Salinas family. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator Lieberman and myself regarding the ``Office of Government Ethics Authorization Act of 1999'' be printed in the Record. There being no objection the statement was ordered to be printed in

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am pleased to recommend H.R. 1219, the ``Construction Industry Payment Protection Act of 1999'' to the full Senate for passage. This bill, introduced in the House by a bipartisan list of cosponsors, is intended to modernize the Miller Act, one of our oldest procurement laws. The Committee on Governmental Affairs, with jurisdiction over Federal procurement laws, recognizes and appreciates the broad and strong support for this measure. The Miller Act is a 1935 law requiring prime contractors with Federal construction contracts over $100,000 to provide bonds on those projects to protect those providing labor and materials. Currently, the Miller Act requires two types of bonds on Federal construction contracts: A payment bond to guarantee that subcontractors get paid, limited under the 1935 Act to $2.5 million and never adjusted for inflation; and a performance bond to protect the Federal government and ensure that the project gets finished. This bond is equal to the value of the project. H.R. 1219 would amend the Miller Act to require that the payment bond be at least equal to the performance bond. It also establishes standards by which subcontractor rights under the Miller Act can be waived, and it provides for more modern methods by which claims can be noticed. This bill represents an impressive consensus and several years of hard work by all the interested parties: the general contractors, the subcontractors, and the surety firms who supply the bonds. In addition, the Administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy in support of the measure. Earlier this week, H.R. 1219 passed the House by a roll call vote of 416-0. I respectfully urge my colleagues to support this measure.

Mr. THOMPSON

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to grant permanent resident status to Gabriela Salinas, 11, her mother Jacqueline, and her brothers, Alejandro, 11, and Omar, Jr., 4, all of whom currently live in Tennessee. Although I am aware that private relief legislation is enacted only in rare cases, I believe that the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the Salinas family merit consideration of this bill. In March of 1996, Gabriela, then seven, and her father Omar Salinas left their home in Bolivia and traveled to New York City to seek lifesaving treatment at Mt. Sinai Medical Center for Gabriela's rare bone cancer, ewing sarcoma. Gabriela, however, was denied treatment at Mt. Sinai because her family was unable to afford the $250,000 deposit required by the hospital. Days later, Gabriela and her father were flown into Memphis, Tennessee, for treatment at the internationally renowned St. Jude Children's Hospital. Actress Marlo Thomas, whose father founded St. Jude, after hearing of the Salinas family's misfortunes, arranged for Gabriela to receive pro bono treatment at St. Jude. Shortly after Gabriela's chemotherapy treatment began, her mother, Jacqueline, and her three siblings joined her and her father in Tennessee. The family received an outpouring of sympathy and support from the Memphis community and looked forward to returning to Bolivia once Gabriela's treatment was completed. Tragically, however, on April 14, 1997, prior to the end of Gabriela's treatment, Omar and Gabriela's 3-year old sister, Valentina, were killed in a car accident on their way back from Washington, D.C. to renew their passports. Jacqueline, seven months pregnant at the time, was permanently paralyzed from the waist down. This terrible tragedy generated national media coverage. As Jacqueline, who gave birth to a healthy baby boy two months later, had no other means of financial support, St. Jude Hospital generously stepped in to care for the family. The hospital, in fact, has made a commitment to provide full financial support for Jacqueline and her children to live permanently in the United States. Because they do not meet the requirements for permanent residence under current immigration law, however, the Salinas family will be forced to leave the United States following the expiration of their tourist visas. Although Jacqueline's son, Danny, nearly two years old, is a U.S. citizen, he will not be qualified to sponsor his mother for permanent residence until he reaches the age of twenty-one. Despite her background in teaching, Jacqueline does not qualify for permanent residence under any of the employment-based visa categories. Therefore, private relief legislation is the only means by which the family will be able to remain permanently in the United States. Gabriela and her family have suffered through a long and difficult ordeal. Yet, with the compassion, generosity, and support of the people of Tennessee and the nation, they have managed to start a new life. The family has settled into a new home in Memphis. The children attend school in the community. And Gabriela continues to be treated under the care of some of the best doctors in the world. With the expiration of their tourist visas approaching, it is my hope that we can act soon to prevent another tragic setback for the Salinas family. I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.