[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 110 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8290-S8294]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have come to the floor 
this morning to briefly discuss the issue of campaign finance reform. 
It is our hope that during the August recess, discussions will progress 
and a plan developed to bring campaign finance reform before the Senate 
no later than the end of September.
  Almost daily I have approached the majority leader and told him that 
we must move forward on campaign finance reform. The leader has been 
exceedingly gracious and shown much patience in listening to my 
missives. I want to thank the majority leader for his time and hope 
that soon, we can come to an agreement for floor time to debate 
campaign finance reform.
  But I also understand that the leader is under great pressure to move 
many bills, and may feel constrained to commit at this time. I 
understand that situation. The leader has to deal with the wishes of 99 
other Senators. However, my colleagues and I feel compelled to put the 
Senate on notice that the time to act on this matter is rapidly 
expiring.
  We believe that we must begin the debate on campaign finance reform 
no later than the end of September, and therefore, if we cannot come to 
some agreement to bring the bill up freestanding, with an up or down 
vote on the bill itself, we will feel compelled to bring the bill to 
the floor by offering it as an amendment to some unrelated measure.
  This is not an approach we relish. But we realize that we may have no 
other choice.
  Delay no longer serves any purpose. Since before the last election, 
talk of campaign finance reform has dominated the American 
conversation. The public has a right to have this issue debated. 
Members have recognized this fact, and as proof of that recognition, 
have introduced over 70 campaign finance bills.
  I recognize that many of those bills have laudable features. I want 
to sit down and work with the sponsors of those bills. And I further 
recognize that McCain-Feingold is far from perfect. As I have stated on 
numerous occasions, we have only two fundamental principles that are 
nonnegotiable:

  First, we must seek to level the playing field between challengers 
and incumbents; and
  Second, we must seek to lessen the influence of money in elections.
  All else is negotiable.
  Some of our colleagues in the House have begun discussing a scaled-
down version of McCain-Feingold. I welcome those talks and want to 
state that if that is what is necessary to change our electoral system, 
then let's move in that direction.
  Fundamentally changing the electoral system in order to restore the 
faith of the American people in our Democratic Government is our goal. 
We are open to compromise and negotiation. But we must act soon. It is 
our duty.
  Last week the Economist published an editorial entitled ``The Fear of 
Foreign Cash.'' Although the title is slightly misleading, I would like 
to quote from this editorial.

       The answer, at least on the strength of the hearings so 
     far, is straightforward: foreign money is worse only because 
     it is not American. And two meanings can be read into that. 
     One is xenophobia: that century-old American fear of little 
     yellow mercenary men, scurrying round now at the behest of a 
     newly menacing power on the world stage. And the second 
     meaning is that foreign money provides a convenient 
     distraction. While it is being comprehensively investigated, 
     with CIA men parked behind screens and giant blow-up charts 
     of the destinations of Mr. Huang's telephone calls, 
     politicians can be left free to attend their dinners, go to 
     their fund-raisers, and continue in all the ways they know 
     best to let their consciences and their legislative proposals 
     be shaped, like warm wax, by the promise of a cheque.
       While Mr. Thompson's hearings have been getting into gear, 
     in other parts of Congress some 57 separate bills to reform 
     campaign finance have been dying for lack of interest. Should 
     anyone really care how good clean American money flows 
     through the machine of American democracy? Well, yes, 
     gentlemen: someone should.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this entire editorial be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                        The Fear of Foreign Cash

       For two drowsy weeks, Senator Fred Thompson's committee has 
     been conducting hearings into campaign-finance abuses during 
     America's recent election. As a result, Americans now know 
     that there was a Chinese plot to influence the 1996 campaign, 
     though not who masterminded it or how wide it went. They know 
     that John Huang, who once worked for an Indonesian bank with 
     ties to the Chinese government, was given a post at the 
     Commerce Department because he was such a good fund-raiser 
     for the Democrats; but they do not know quite what use he 
     made of his office and his fax machine. They are aware that 
     Bill Clinton appreciated Mr. Huang and his fellow-fund-
     raiser, Charlie Trie, at whose Chinese restaurant in Little 
     Rock Mr. Clinton often packed away the dim sum. But they are 
     not yet clear what orders, if any, came down from the White 
     House, beyond the sort that could be filled in small 
     aluminium trays.
       The largest question to be answered, however, is a simpler 
     one. It is this: why is foreign money, applied to elections, 
     so much worse than the American sort? When the Democratic 
     National Committee learned that this money was ``illegal, 
     inappropriate or suspect'', officials instantly returned it, 
     as if it would corrode their hands. Yet how much was involved 
     here? A mere $2.8m, out of $2 billion spent by both parties 
     on campaigning. Of that total, $250m was ``soft'' money, 
     subject to no limits, sent in by unions and corporations for 
     the nebulous purpose of ``party-building''. Mr. Thompson's 
     committee has undertaken to look into soft money later; but, 
     meanwhile, how much of it has been returned as suspect? None, 
     of course.


                      Perils, yellow and otherwise

       Democrats and Republicans alike will insist that the cases 
     are not the same. Foreign contributions are illegal for good 
     reason: outside powers may well be trying to weaken America, 
     steal its secrets, compromise its security. Yet the supposed 
     Chinese plot appears to have had nothing to do with national 
     secrets, nor with persuading America to treat it kindly over 
     trade. China just seems to have wanted to make friends in 
     high places, as all lobbyists do; and it may well wonder why 
     election money was so evil, when American congressmen have 
     happily, and legally, availed themselves of $400,000-

[[Page S8291]]

     worth of free trips to China over the past 18 months.
       Is democracy hurt by this? Possibly; but no more than when 
     a party or politician accepts money from any source with an 
     interest to promote. Suppose that the Chinese government gave 
     money in the hope of winning concessions in Asia-Pacific 
     trade. Is this worse than the trade distortions and higher 
     domestic prices already caused by years of election 
     contributions from America's own sugar and peanut farmers? Or 
     perhaps China thought an election contribution would 
     encourage a blind eye to its abuses of human rights. Is this 
     worse than the contributions that have won, for years, 
     indulgent treatment for America's cigarette companies?
       The answer, at least on the strength of the hearings so 
     far, is straightforward: foreign money is worse only because 
     it is not American. And two meanings can be read into that. 
     One is xenophobia: that century-old American fear of little 
     yellow mercenary men, scurrying round now at the behest of a 
     newly menacing power on the world stage. And the second 
     meaning is that foreign money provides a convenient 
     distraction. While it is being comprehensively investigated, 
     with CIA men parked behind screens and giant blow-up charts 
     of the destinations of Mr. Huang's telephone calls, 
     politicians can be left free to attend their dinners, go to 
     their fund-raisers, and continue in all the ways they know 
     best to let their consciences and their legislative proposals 
     be shaped, like warm wax, by the promise of a cheque.
       While Mr. Thompson's hearings have been getting into gear, 
     in other parts of Congress some 57 separate bills to reform 
     campaign finance have been dying for lack of interest. Should 
     anyone really care how good clean American money flows 
     through the machine of American democracy? Well, yes, 
     gentlemen: someone should.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Economist is exactly right. ``Should 
anyone really care how good clean American money flows through the 
machine of American democracy? Well, yes, gentlemen, someone should.''
  Yes, we should and must. And we will have the opportunity to 
demonstrate our understanding of this issue when we return from recess.
  Finally, I would like to thank my friend, Russ Feingold, my friend 
Senator Collins, Senator Cleland, and so many others who have been 
involved in this issue and have made this a bipartisan issue, and one 
that I think deserves the attention of the Senate, and I think clearly 
deserves an answer for the American people.
  Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Feingold.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require.
  Mr. President, it is truly a pleasure to be here on the floor with my 
friend and colleague and fellow campaign finance reformer from Arizona, 
the senior Senator, Mr. McCain, as well as our other colleagues who 
join with us today, including the junior Senator from Maine, Senator 
Collins, and shortly expected the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. 
Levin, and, of course, my good friend, the junior Senator from Georgia, 
Mr. Cleland.
  We are all among a group of 33 Members of this body who have already 
cosponsored the McCain-Feingold legislation. As the Senator from 
Arizona said, we are here today to announce that we will be seeking 
consideration of bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation during 
the month of September.
  We will continue our discussions, as the Senator from Arizona 
indicated, with the majority leader. And I am hopeful that we will be 
able to reach a compromise that will allow us to have an open public 
debate on this issue, and allow all Senators the opportunity to 
participate in offering amendments to our proposal.
  However, as the Senator from Arizona has just indicated, if such an 
agreement with the majority leader cannot be reached, we are prepared 
to use other legislative proposals as a vehicle for campaign finance 
reform. That is not our preference. But we are committed to having a 
discussion of this issue and making sure there are votes on campaign 
finance reform during the month of September.
  We have said for some time now--and the Senator from Arizona just 
reiterated--that our bipartisan proposal is far from perfect. We have 
repeatedly told Senators on both sides of the aisle that we are open to 
making changes for modifications to this package. We do have some 
fundamental issues, however, that we will not waiver on.
  First, this proposal will ban soft money. The days when corporations, 
labor unions, and wealthy individuals could make unlimited 
contributions to the national parties will be over.
  Second, the proposal must try to level the playing field between 
incumbents and challengers. Currently, we have a system that provides 
incumbent Senators with a reelection rate of 90 to 95 percent and 
provides virtually no assistance to legitimate challengers who are 
essentially being shut out of the democratic process.
  We must provide an opportunity for candidates, particularly 
underfunded challengers taking on well-entrenched incumbents, to run a 
competitive campaign without having to raise and spend millions of 
dollars.
  Finally, Mr. President, whatever package of reforms we consider and 
whatever modifications we are willing to make, those reforms must be 
balanced and bipartisan.
  I am pleased at this point, Mr. President, to insert into the Record 
a statement today from the President of the United States, William J. 
Clinton, with regard to the campaign finance reform legislation.
  Mr. President, I would now like to read from the President's 
statement, which he asked us to present as a part of this presentation.
  The President says:

       In my State-of-the-Union Address, I called on Congress to 
     enact bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. I said 
     that delay could be the death of reform, and urged Congress 
     to move forward quickly. I strongly support the decision by 
     Senators McCain and Feingold to bring campaign finance reform 
     legislation to the floor of Congress in September for a vote.
       The problem with the role of money in presidential and 
     congressional elections are plain. Since the campaign finance 
     laws were last overhauled two and a half decades ago, the 
     system has been overwhelmed by a flood of campaign cash. Both 
     political parties are now engaged in an ever-escalating arms 
     race for campaign funds. The consequences for our political 
     system are clear; there is too much money in politics, and it 
     takes too much time to raise.
       To make sure that ordinary citizens have the loudest voice 
     in our democracy, we must act to change the campaign finance 
     laws. This year, I have asked the FEC to ban so called ``soft 
     money'' to parties; I have asked the Federal Communications 
     Commission to require broadcasters to provide free TV time to 
     candidates; and the Justice Department has indicated it will 
     defend spending limits in the courts. But these steps, 
     however important, are no substitute for legislation. America 
     needs--and the American people demand--strong, comprehensive 
     campaign finance reform legislation. As the new century 
     approaches, we have an opportunity and an obligation to 
     restore the trust of the American people in their politics--
     and this is our chance to do it.
       For years, the special interests and their allies have 
     blocked reform. This year, those who seek to continue special 
     interest influence as usual will filibuster again. But this 
     year, we have an opportunity to come together across party 
     lines to act and pass reform that cleans up the campaign 
     finance system. September will be the time for members of the 
     Senate to stand up and be counted for reform. I will do what 
     I can to see to it that 1997 is finally the year that it is 
     achieved.
  Mr. President, we welcome the support and enthusiasm of the President 
of the United States for our effort.
  The Senators who are here on the floor today have joined together 
across party and ideological lines to produce a compromise package that 
I like to refer to as moderate, mutual disarmament.
  We have already heard the top 10 excuses for why we can't pass 
campaign finance reform. And frankly, I am amazed at some of the absurd 
arguments we have heard from opponents of reform.
  We have been told, ridiculously enough, that there is not enough 
money flowing through our campaign system. That argument, incidently, 
is greeted with laughter every time I tell my constituents in Wisconsin 
that there are some folks in Washington who actually believe we need 
more money in our political system.
  We have been told that our proposal is somehow inconsistent with the 
first amendment--a giant red herring given that a number of the leading 
nonpartisan, first amendment scholars in the country, including the 
nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have all said otherwise.
  We have been told that reform is not possible without a 
constitutional amendment, an argument all too familiar to those of us 
who were told that we could not have a balanced budget without a 
constitutional amendment.

[[Page S8292]]

  We have been told that the Senate does not have enough courage to 
pass meaningful reform and that, once again, we should delegate 
responsibility to some sort of commission.
  We have been told by some that this bill goes too far, and 
interestingly, by others that it does not go far enough. Some might 
point to that as the working definition of a moderate proposal.
  We have been told that the American people do not care about this 
issue, despite numerous public opinion polls demonstrating 80 to 90 
percent of the American people in support of these reforms.
  We have been told that this issue requires further study, despite 29 
sets of hearings, 76 CRS reports and 522 different witnesses testifying 
on this issue over the last decade.
  We have been told that the outrageous fundraising practices that we 
witnessed in the last election and which have spawned congressional 
investigations, a Justice Department investigation, an FBI 
investigation, and a CIA investigation, and have led to charges of 
espionage, corruption and undue influence were ``a healthy sign of a 
vibrant democracy.''
  In short Mr. President, we have heard more phony excuses than are 
heard by a high school vice-principal's office.
  Fortunately, no one is buying these excuses. Not the Senators who are 
standing here on the floor today and certainly not the American people.
  I look forward to having a public discussion during the month of 
September about the role of money in our political system. And I look 
forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in 
passing meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform in 1997.
  Mr. President, I want to conclude, as the Senator from Arizona did, 
by just mentioning the folks that are here on the floor with us today. 
Obviously, I have already talked about my great feelings about working 
with Senator McCain on this, but I know that the other three Senators 
we are going to hear from--Senator Collins, Senator Levin, and Senator 
Cleland--who are all members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, are 
intimately aware of what is wrong with our system. They have taken the 
time to come down here today to put forth a message, as Senator Cleland 
has done so well at the hearings. He has asked a number of witnesses, 
``Would these things have happened had McCain-Feingold been enacted?'' 
The answer in every case was, ``No.''
  So that is the challenge before us.
  Mr. President, at this point I would like to yield such time as she 
requires to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues, particularly 
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, in announcing our intent to bring 
bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation to a vote in September. 
At the State level, Maine has led the Nation on this issue, and the 
people of my State think the time has come for Congress to step up to 
the plate and enact meaningful reform.
  As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have spent the 
past month listening to testimony about illegal campaign contributions. 
It is not a pretty picture. In my opening statement at the hearings, I 
observed that our political system suffers from a mania for money. If 
anything, the hearings have demonstrated that I underestimated just how 
intense that mania is.
  Mr. President, we should be embarrassed by how our political system 
is viewed. Listen to the judgment rendered by Johnny Chung, one of the 
individuals alleged to have laundered foreign political contributions. 
``I see the White House is like a subway--you have to put in coins to 
open the gates.'' What Mr. Chung did not say, because he did not have 
to say it, is that the vast majority of hard-working and honest 
Americans do not have enough coins to make the gates open.
  This is not a partisan observation. All of us in this Chamber--
Republicans and Democrats alike--should be embarrassed at the 
perception that the leaders of the greatest Nation on earth are 
accessible only to those with enough coins.
  Mr. President, we should be embarrassed that the American people are 
convinced that we will never reform the system, that we will never put 
the integrity of our political system ahead of our self-interests.

  Some argue that the relative quiet of the people means they are 
satisfied with the status quo, but that is wrong. In this case, silence 
sends a stronger message of disapproval than the loudest shouts of 
protest. The message that it sends is that people have given up on us. 
Look at the reform efforts at the State level, and you will see that it 
is not that the voters do not believe in campaign finance reform. It is 
that they do not believe in the U.S. Senate.
  We all know that if left untreated, the disease that afflicts our 
political system will only grow worse. With the high cost of television 
ads, the money frenzy can only grow. Indeed, the television ad race has 
become the political counterpart of the nuclear arms race characterized 
by the same insecure feeling that one can never have enough.
  None of us involved in this effort has all of the answers. We 
recognize that reforming our campaign finance laws raises difficult 
issues of public policy and thorny issues of constitutional law. Our 
approach is not set in stone. We are open to other ideas. We are open 
to compromise, but we are not open to letting the Senate duck this 
issue. Like my colleagues, I look forward to working with the 
leadership of this body to bring this matter to a vote. We have an 
obligation to the American people to ensure that such a vote comes 
about, and we are determined to make that happen in September.
  Mr. President, the American dream has undergone some changes, not all 
of which are for the better. We are now living in a country in which 
any millionaire can dream of growing up to be a United States Senator. 
That may be an acceptable state of affairs during a time of peace and 
prosperity, when the Government does not need to call upon the people 
of this Nation to make sacrifices. But the unhealthy mix between money 
and politics may produce far more worrisome consequences during periods 
when America is tested. As with all reforms, the time to make them is 
before they are urgently needed.
  I look forward to a vigorous debate and vote on this issue in 
September. I thank my colleagues for working with me on this important 
issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely grateful for the work of 
Senator Collins on this issue.
  I now yield to the Senator from Michigan such time as he may require.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wisconsin and 
congratulate the great Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin for their 
steadfast leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to join their 
cause and to join with others, Senator Collins and Senator Cleland, in 
the Chamber this morning to speak on behalf of this bill.
  Mr. President, I have in my hand here a copy of the current Federal 
campaign finance law. It says that individuals cannot contribute more 
than $1,000 to any candidate or political committee with respect to any 
election for Federal office. It says corporations and unions cannot 
contribute at all. In Presidential campaigns you are supposed to be 
financed with public funds.
  That is the law on the books today. So how is it that we hear about 
contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, 
corporations and unions? Why do Presidents and Presidential candidates 
spend long hours fundraising for hundreds of thousands of dollars? How 
is it possible, we ask? We thought there was a law.
  Well, there is, but in the race to compete and win elections, 
candidates and parties have found a way around the law, and that way is 
what we refer to as soft money. It is called soft money as opposed to 
hard money, which is the money regulated by the campaign finance laws, 
because soft money is easier to raise. You can get $500,000, say, from 
just one corporation or individual. You do not have to go to 500 
different people and raise $1,000 each as you do with hard money. You 
can find one person who is rich enough and willing enough to pay a 
half-million dollars or more and you can then accept that contribution.

[[Page S8293]]

  There is another part in current law which says that if you spend 
money in an election in support of a candidate or opposed to a 
candidate, you have to spend only money that is raised the hard way, 
following the limits. But here is a TV ad, and there are dozens like 
this one, and here we have a transcript of this TV ad, and anyone who 
would see this ad would think that it was opposed to a particular 
candidate. But this ad was produced and aired not with hard money, as 
the law requires, but with soft money, and here it is. It reads this 
way:

       Who is Bill Yellowtail? He preaches family values but he 
     takes a swing at his wife. Yellowtail's explanation. He only 
     slapped her, but her nose was not broken. He talks law and 
     order but is himself a convicted criminal. And though he 
     talks about protecting children, Yellowtail failed to make 
     his own child support payments, then voted against child 
     support enforcement. Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him you 
     don't approve of his wrongful behavior.

  Now, there is no doubt that that ad, which was bought and paid for by 
an organization called Citizens for Reform, was designed to defeat Bill 
Yellowtail, but because it doesn't use any of the seven so-called magic 
phrases like ``vote against'' or ``defeat,'' it is not governed by our 
campaign finance laws.
  Why? Because it is viewed as an issue ad, at least up until now, and 
not a candidate ad, and it can be paid for with soft money. Now, nobody 
really believes that fiction, but that is what the law currently 
allows.
  So, Mr. President, you have the vicious combination under the current 
campaign system and outside of the control of our campaign finance laws 
of contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from one 
individual or corporation funding campaign ads that go directly for or 
against a particular candidate. The net result is that the exceptions 
to our campaign finance laws have swallowed up the rules. Our campaign 
finance laws are a sham and a shambles. Now we face the daunting task 
of trying to plug those loopholes, to make the law whole again and in 
making it whole to make it effective.
  I am pleased to be here today to announce our intention, Mr. 
President, to get the Senate, one way or another, to take up the 
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in September. We are 
hopeful, of course, that we can work out an agreement with the majority 
leader to allow us to have an up-down vote on the bill. But if that 
cannot be arranged, we are committed to getting this legislation before 
the Senate in spite of the absence of such an agreement. It is not our 
preferred way to approach this legislation, but it may be the only way 
we can get it before the Senate. I hope not, but it may prove to be the 
only way.
  Some will argue that we should first complete the campaign 
fundraising investigation into the 1996 elections currently being 
conducted by the Governmental Affairs Committee. But they know that we 
do not need more evidence to prove this crime. And the current state of 
our campaign finance system is a crime. What is already unlawful, of 
course, must be prosecuted, but too much of what is currently lawful 
should be unlawful. The McCain-Feingold bill is a comprehensive 
bipartisan bill supported by over a majority of this Senate. The 
President has said in a letter read by Senator Feingold that he 
welcomes the opportunity to sign it. There is strong support in the 
House of Representatives. We are determined to bring this bill to the 
floor of the Senate and to keep it before the Senate until we get an 
up-down vote, and we are determined to do that in September.
  The Fourth of July was supposed to be the date by which this 
legislation was to be considered. This year July comes in September, 
and we will act to get this legislation considered in an up-down vote 
by the Senate in September.
  Again, I commend the leaders of this effort. It is going to take 
great strength and great energy to overcome the opposition, but we are 
determined to use our full energies to do just that.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will advise the Senator 
from Wisconsin he has 4 minutes and 40 seconds remaining on his time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. We are delighted to have the persistence and expertise 
of the Senator from Michigan on this effort.
  I yield all but 30 seconds to my friend from Georgia.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, hearing the discussion in this Chamber 
today gets my juices flowing. I appreciate the comments of everyone 
here. It reminds me that back in my great State of Georgia there is a 
little town called Waycross that has adopted as its mascot a little 
comic strip character called Pogo. Pogo was a little possum that lived 
on the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp, and he was famous for one 
statement, which is, ``We have met the enemy and he is us.''
  There is no question, Mr. President, that the enemy of campaign 
finance reform is us, and yet the friends of campaign finance reform 
are us. We have to resolve this issue. It is not going to be left up to 
anyone else, any one other body. We have to do it and no one else is 
going to do it.
  I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues from 
Arizona and Wisconsin and Maine and Michigan to discuss this critical 
issue that I think is one of the most important issues we face 
certainly this year.
  Now, my friends, Senators McCain and Feingold, have indicated we will 
be voting on this issue in this Chamber this September. I certainly 
hope so. Three of us here also have the distinction, and I guess it is 
an honor, of serving on the Governmental Affairs Committee which is 
investigating a series of illegal and improper activities in connection 
with the Federal elections of 1996. All three of us--myself, Senator 
Collins, and Senator Levin--are recently veterans of the campaign 
finance wars, each of us having won election or reelection in the 1996 
elections. I think that is one of the reasons why we have a burning 
desire to change the very system under which we ran.

  While the Governmental Affairs Committee has more work to do in 
uncovering the full story of the 1996 elections, it is already 
abundantly clear that the atrocious current system of Federal campaign 
finance laws has made our country vulnerable to efforts by foreign as 
well as domestic sources to improperly influence our electoral process. 
As Georgia's secretary of state and certainly as a U.S. Senator, I have 
been aware for a long time of the domestic abuses of big money and 
special interests, and that concern has helped fuel my longstanding 
interest in significant campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, these Governmental Affairs proceedings have been an 
eye-opener for me. They have indicated to me the incredible 
vulnerability that this country and our political system experience in 
terms of foreign special interests. As the preceding speakers have 
indicated, we as a group are not wedded to any one plan. We will be 
working with other Senators to come up with the best legislation we can 
possibly put together. But we will insist that the final legislative 
language we will support and force a vote on in September be truly 
bipartisan, must be real reform and not a sham, and in my view to 
constitute real reform at a minimum we must reduce the role of big 
money in our political process, help level the playing field for less-
financed candidates and must ban soft money altogether at the Federal 
level. One of the unifying threads of the Governmental Affairs 
investigation to date has been the very concentration virtually of all 
the fundraising abuses in both parties in the realm of soft money.
  So I look forward to taking our case back home to our constituents in 
August and in forging a bipartisan compromise which does incorporate 
the necessary elements of real reform. We are not going to terminate 
our effort. We intend to terminate these abuses.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for an excellent 
presentation this morning. We are very much looking forward to 
September.
  Let me include, because know various Senators have to go to 
Governmental Affairs Committee, one last anecdote. The chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, the other day heard 
reference to the McCain-Feingold bill, and he corrected it saying it's 
actually

[[Page S8294]]

been called the McCain-Feingold-Thompson bill. I think that is a good 
sign for the future of our legislation.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

                          ____________________