[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10719-S10731]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




         BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 1997--CLOTURE MOTION

  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I am making today one of those ``I did 
not intend to make a speech, but here I am making a speech'' speeches. 
I think most would agree that opponents of so-called campaign reform--a 
term, by the way, which should top the oxymoron list of the 1990's--the 
opponents of this ill-advised attack on free speech have just about 
worn everybody out, even in Washington where people actually talk about 
such topics over dinner.
  Some months ago, thanks to the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, I 
spoke on this issue and made what I thought was a pretty fair defense 
of free political discourse when the distinguished Senator from South 
Carolina proposed withdrawing first amendment protection from that same 
political discourse. Senator Hollings, by the way, was up front. He was 
candid in his approach, as opposed to the current proposals of so-
called reform.
  Having been through at least three campaign reform efforts in the 
House of Representatives as a member of the then Administration 
Committee and goodness knows how many campaign task forces, and having 
paid attention to the current debate, I have been hard pressed to 
figure out what can be said that has not been said. However, it appears 
as if there is a sure bet in regard to this topic. It is that those who 
insist that they propose reform, regardless of the consequences, and 
wave their reform banners from self-consecrated, high moral ground, 
they never seem to suffer from arm fatigue. When it comes to campaign 
reform, the high road of humility is not bothered by heavy traffic in 
this town.
  Despite the fact there is no clear consensus or a majority in the 
Senate regarding alleged campaign reform, there is no mercy from the 
proponents of the effort to further federalize the American electoral 
system, and we will apparently debate and vote, debate and vote and say 
the same things over and over and over and over again. I would surmise 
this is going to get a little tiresome, if not painful. But apparently 
the failure of past reforms does not deter or change the minds of 
current reformers.
  Well, when you know all the answers, you haven't asked all the 
questions.

[[Page S10720]]

 But in this debate, there is a new axiom: The fewer the facts, the 
stronger the opinions, and apparently the less a thing can be proven, 
the angrier we get when we argue about it.
  Nevertheless, I think we have an obligation to at least try to set 
the record straight in regard to this issue and, in that regard, I 
would like to make the following observations:
  First, the distinguished Democratic leader of the Senate, Senator 
Daschle, a good friend, stated on the floor that there should be no 
confusion--no confusion--that the question is, do you support 
meaningful reform in response to the hearings regarding all of the 
illegal campaign activities apparently conducted in the last 
Presidential campaign.
  The only problem with the Senator's statement is that the campaign 
finance reform bill is not reform. Let me repeat that, it is a reform 
bill that is not reform. It will not work. It again leads us down the 
road to a maze of election laws, rules, and regulations that favor 
incumbents, restricts desired political participation on the part of 
the American people, and would tripwire honest candidates and citizens 
into criminal acts. To make matters worse, the bill is fundamentally 
flawed and is what I hope--I hope--is an unintended attack on the most 
basic right of individuals guaranteed by our Constitution, and that is 
the right of free speech, the right written first, the right without 
which no other right can long exist.

  Well, I know that people who think they know it all often annoy those 
of us who really do, but for the life of me, how this concoction can be 
labeled or disguised as ``reform'' is beyond me.
  Senator McConnell said it best when he stated:

       My goal is to redefine reform, to move the debate away from 
     arbitrary limits and toward expanded citizen participation 
     and political discourse.

  He said McCain-Feingold is a failed approach. It is. We already have 
it in the Presidential system. It is a failure.
  So, for all the good press and good intentions, McCain-Feingold is a 
bad bill. Why? The basic premise of the bill is flawed, Mr. President. 
That premise is that too much money is corrupting politics. No, it is 
not.
  Oh, now, now, I realize that our opponents and all of the so-called 
special interest groups--those groups who do not agree with us--they 
have too much money, I know that. And I realize when they spend it on 
negative ads opposing me or positions that I favor, that spending 
should be banned or limited --boy, I'm for that--or at least capped.
  Too much spending? Compared to what? The Citizens Research Foundation 
has reported that campaign spending for all offices in 1996 added up to 
about $4 billion. All offices of the United States, $4 billion. That is 
a lot of money. But that compares to one-twentieth of 1 percent of the 
gross domestic product in our country of $7.6 trillion. One-twentieth 
of 1 percent is too much to set priorities on how those trillions will 
affect our daily lives and pocketbooks in the next generations of 
Americans? Compared to what?
  Americans spend $20 billion on dry cleaning and laundry. One 30-
second Super Bowl ad could finance three campaigns for Congress. 
Columnist George Will points out that millions of Americans gave $2.6 
billion to 476 congressional campaigns and still had enough left over 
to spend $4.6 billion on potato chips. We can apply the same thing to 
yogurt or almost anything the American people will spend their hard-
earned dollars on.
  While having the privilege of presiding in this body, I remember well 
the chart displayed by proponents of this bill. It showed the so-called 
dramatic increase in campaign spending since 1976. It did not show the 
causes--the increase in postage, radio, TV, newspaper ads, printing, 
phone banks, campaign workers, all of that. It did not show virtually 
everything else that Americans must purchase in this country has also 
increased--homes, education, automobiles, health care--not to mention 
the purchasing power of the individual citizen.
  Senator McConnell has pointed out that in 1996, we had a pretty high-
stakes election, a very important election. There was a fierce 
ideological battle over the future of this country. On a per eligible 
voter basis, the congressional elections cost $3.89. Every voter in 
America, dividing it up equally, is $3.89, about 4 bucks. The Senator 
pointed out that that is roughly the cost of a McDonald's extra value 
meal.
  The second major flaw I think in McCain-Feingold is that no matter 
how you try to regulate or cap the flow of money to campaigns, it 
reappears, most of the time in the murky and illegal shadows with 
little or no public disclosure. Witness the circumvention of current 
campaign laws in regard to the money laundering scheme among certain 
interest groups, the Democratic National Committee and the Teamsters 
Union.
  To make matters worse, McCain-Feingold compounds the felony. Instead 
of focusing on blatant violations of current law, the reformers want to 
place limits on money spent to support or defeat candidates for 
election.
  And therein, Mr. President, lies the ``Aha!'' of this current debate, 
what is really going on. As Paul Harvey says, the rest of the story. It 
is pretty simple, really. Just take the interest groups who are pushing 
for this so-called reform and then take a look at their legislative 
agenda. I wrote it down. I had a staff member go through it. All the 
interest groups that are for campaign finance reform and then their 
legislative agenda:
  Nationalized health insurance; status quo on Medicare and Social 
Security--this is my version; increased Federal role in education; 
opposition to liability and tort reform; opposition to tax cuts; 
increased Federal role in environmental protection. I might support 
part of that. Opposition to a balanced budget; reduced defense 
spending; opposition to current welfare reform.
  I am not trying to perjure these positions. They are honest 
positions. The AARP, AFL-CIO, Common Cause, and the many so-called 
nonprofit consumer groups have every right to express their views, and 
they do. These issues are bigtime stuff. How we decide these issues 
will affect the daily lives, pocketbooks, and future of every member of 
these organizations, every American.
  Organized labor should weigh in. Boy, they sure as heck did in the 
last election in my campaign. But so should the business community and 
farmers and ranchers and small business Main Street America, and all of 
the folks who might just disagree on how we get there from here on 
these issues. The truth of it is this reform is skewed to a particular 
political point of view. It is called unilateral retreat from the 
political playing field for those who have a political view different 
from you, but we will continue our vote, our vote buying, really, 
through the Federal budget.
  Take the proposal to ban so-called soft money. Ban soft money and all 
of the interest groups whose future is and will be decided in part by 
the decisions of those who propose the ban will simply bypass the 
Republican and Democratic Parties and will conduct their own campaigns, 
and we will have a further weakening of the two-party system. That is 
wrong. That is detrimental.
  I know soft money has become a pejorative, but, in fact, it is the 
only money spent today on campaigns by the American people that is not 
under control of the Federal Government. We haven't got our fishhooks 
into the regulations and redtape and all that goes with it.

  Are we really saying, Mr. President, are we really saying that in 
America citizens and various interests groups whose very economic 
future depends on the decisions we make in this Congress cannot support 
or oppose those candidates? Think about it. ``I'm sorry, you cannot 
invest in good government, you cannot express your point of view 
independent from the FEC.'' There are many countries in which that is 
the case--China, Iraq, Iran, North Korea. I do not think we want to go 
down that road.
  ``I am sorry, Farmer Jones, you cannot run an ad or distribute a 
handbill opposing Pat Roberts in his freedom-to-farm bill 60 days 
before the election. That's soft money. You can't do it.'' The same 
thing for farm organizations or commodity groups--unless, of course, 
you are a newspaper or a labor union.
  How do you define a newspaper, by the way? It used to be to be a 
newspaper you had a hatrack, and then you had a typewriter, and you had 
a letter press, and you had somebody run it. You had a list. You had 
advertisers.

[[Page S10721]]

 You had to get your printing equipment somewhere. You had the local 
printing contract for the county.
  Today, a newspaper is when you have a computer. You can manufacturer 
your own newspaper--Pat Roberts Weekly News, published every day. I do 
not know how you are going to define this. Who is going to be in 
charge?
  Finally, let me stress the most serious flaw in the McCain-Feingold 
bill, and that is money spent to express your views or the views of 
voters cannot be regulated or banned without being at odds with the 
first amendment. We simply cannot improve the integrity of any 
political system by restricting the political speech under the banner 
of reform.
  Speech controls in the last 60 days of a campaign envisioned in the 
bill represent the lawyer full-employment act. Just read the provisions 
exempting the voter guides and try to figure it out.
  Well, finally, I must say, with all due respect--this may be viewed 
as a little partisan on my part--but with all due respect, that the 
administration's position in regard to campaign finance represents a 
new threshold for what is political chutzpah. Here we have evidence 
presented before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee itemizing 
campaign malfeasance that includes everything from Buddhist nuns; 
unprecedented misuse of our Nation's intelligence agencies--let me 
repeat, unprecedented misuse of the CIA for campaign activities--that 
is unprecedented; money laundering in exchange for taking sides in a 
Teamsters election; a fugitive influence peddler bribing his way to the 
President's side--he did not get his way, thank goodness--soft money 
turned to hard, circumventing existing campaign limits; and now missing 
tapes of the White House coffees or fundraisers.
  In answer to all of this, Mr. President, the people who have been 
caught with their hands in the campaign violation cookie jar say we 
need a new cookie jar. President Clinton stating he will take the bully 
pulpit for campaign finance reform is like somebody charged with drunk 
driving insisting we lower the speed limit for everybody else.
  Mr. President, in regard to President Clinton, the administration and 
the proponents of reform that is not reform, the greatest of faults is 
to be conscious of none. In this regard, I do not mean to malign the 
President or my dear friends across the aisle, but this is not reform. 
I urge a ``no'' vote on cloture. Let us get on with the business of the 
Senate in the United States.

  Oh, and real campaign reform? As stated by Robert Samuelson in his 
column in Newsweek, ``The best defense against the undue influence of 
money is to let candidates raise it from as many sources as possible--
and most important--'' most important, do not infringe upon the first 
amendment, ``let the public see who is giving.'' They can figure it 
out. They are six jumps ahead of Washington and any proponent of reform 
we have in this body. ``That would be genuine reform.''
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I want to take a moment to thank my good friend from 
Kansas for really an excellent speech and important contribution in 
this debate. Not only was he right on the mark, he was fun to listen 
to.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I, too, commend the Senator from Kansas 
for his illuminating remarks and the Senator from Kentucky for enduring 
this process for now years.
  I want to come to the reference to the Constitution by the Senator 
from Kansas. The Constitution that says that: Congress shall enact no 
law to abridge speech.
  It does not say there are no exemptions. It says the Congress shall 
enact no law to abridge speech.
  Let us put this in context. This language is in the first amendment 
of the Bill of Rights which grants us the right to speak as we would, 
the right to worship as we would, the right to assemble, which is also 
part of this debate, and the right to petition our Government without 
fear.
  All of us would like to see the campaign process improved. There have 
been many who have mentioned transparency or disclosure, making sure 
that the American people know what is happening and when it is 
happening and trust in their judgment to make good decisions about 
whether they like it or do not.
  This legislation abridges the Constitution, begins to manage speech, 
picks winners and losers, and attacks the fundamental rights of 
assembly.
  You have to go back. In the early days, particularly 1775, before you 
could create a society or an association in the United Kingdom--which 
was the genesis of all the secret societies. The forefathers here knew 
of all of this activity. So that is why they framed the language that 
Congress shall enact no law to abridge freedom of speech or the right 
to associate. They had vivid memories of governments that prohibited 
and managed speech and threatened and intimidated people who spoke 
freely and forbid organizations from joining together for the purpose 
of petitioning or speaking out. The language in the Constitution is 
derived from the fear those people had of what goes on when governments 
tell people what they can say and when they can say it.
  This legislation picks corporations that can say anything they want 
and picks other corporations and says they cannot say anything. People 
up here in the gallery are represented by corporations that would have 
no prohibition whatsoever. Cox Broadcasting, one of the largest 
communications institutions in the world, could say anything it chose 
through all of its affiliates, the Atlanta papers, their cable 
television, whatever, could say anything they chose about any 
candidate, their motives for or against any vote as often as they 
wanted at any time they chose under this legislation, but Georgia 
Pacific, which grows trees, could not.
  I want to know, what is the difference between corporation A that 
happens to print a newspaper and corporation B that happens to grow 
trees? The forefathers said there shall be no difference. But this 
legislation says that we will manage the difference here. Cox 
Communications, say anything you want. Georgia Pacific, you're out. 
Shove off.
  It picks certain kinds of corporations that are at liberty to 
participate and others that are removed from participation. That is an 
abridgement of the Constitution.
  Let us come to this business of association, the right to associate, 
to say what you want, and what constitutes free speech.
  In those days there were pamphlets. Now it is television and radio, 
telecommunications and computers. This legislation says free speech is 
only given to certain kinds of institutions and it is denied others. 
You know, the basic right to assemble, it says to those people, you can 
assemble, but, boy, you cannot say anything about a campaign for the 2 
months before it. You cannot mention a candidate's name. You cannot 
participate. You cannot express your view, if you are for or against a 
candidate.
  So it is not only a violation of the principle of freedom of speech, 
but it is a violation of the principle of assembly. The forefathers 
envisioned people--the Farm Bureau--people coming together to make a 
case, to speak to an issue. This says, ``No; that's a deterrent in our 
society. We're going to have to manage you. And we're going to remove 
you from the political process.''

  The last point I will make, Mr. President, is this: After you have 
tried to manage these processes, and you have given some people freedom 
of speech and others not, some that can assemble and some that cannot, 
what have you ended up with, outside of abridging the Constitution? You 
have reinforced the power of incumbents. Because if the money can only 
flow to candidates, which candidate is it going to flow to? The 
incumbent in power or the challenger? The person that is more known and 
has access to the facilities of that power or the person that is on the 
outside?
  Well, you do not have to be a rocket scientist to know the money will 
flow to the incumbent. You can call this the Incumbent Protection Act. 
It will be a magnet. It will move money to power. And it intimidates 
and chills people

[[Page S10722]]

from speaking out, which has been--you know, the genesis of all 
American glory is our freedom. The genesis of all American glory is 
that we have been a free people, and it has made us behave in unique 
ways. We are bold. We are visionary. We are builders. And we are not 
afraid. This kind of legislation chills and separates and is not 
healthy to the Republic.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  This morning we have another opportunity to speak again about this 
issue, campaign finance reform, which many people wish would go away 
but it is not going to. Again, it is a chance to review sort of the 
kaleidoscope of arguments that have been used to condemn our efforts on 
the McCain-Feingold bill and other campaign finance reform proposals.
  Listening to the Senator from Georgia, we hear again the claim that 
what is really wrong with this bill is that it violates the first 
amendment--which, of course, we dispute and also find just a little 
amusing when you consider, first of all, that if there is any problem 
with this bill under the first amendment, we still do have nine people 
across the street who know how to handle that.
  But many of the same Senators who are condemning our bill from the 
point of view of the first amendment are some of the first in line who 
are ready to amend the first amendment. That is part of the agenda of 
many of the folks on the other side of the aisle.
  There is no compunction at all on the part of some of these folks to 
pass a flag-burning amendment to the first amendment, to make an 
exemption of free speech there. No concerns at all with regard to the 
first amendment and related rights in passing a school prayer 
amendment, which many of our opponents believe would not be a violation 
of the first amendment and which I think would be.
  Virtually every opponent of this bill had no problem at all coming 
out here on the floor of the Senate and voting for the Communications 
Decency Act, which to me was the most blatantly anticonstitutional 
censorship bill we have seen in a very long time, and every single 
Member of the Supreme Court agreed; 9-0 they ruled that this bill, the 
Communications Decency Act, was unconstitutional. Where were all the 
Senators out here talking about the first amendment when I came out 
here in a rather lonely manner and said, ``By the way, this on its face 
cannot possibly pass muster''? Where was the concern for the first 
amendment? It was not there.
  So I am puzzled about what the fear is. If it is so easy to play with 
the first amendment when it comes to school prayer and flag burning and 
the Internet, what is the problem with sending up a bill that 
reasonable people disagree about with regard to one aspect of its 
constitutionality? What is the threat to the Republic? Nothing, unless 
we have somehow eliminated the third branch.
  Then, of course, we have been treated again to my favorite argument 
in opposition to this bill, that there is not enough money in 
politics. We heard it again today.

  I have to tell you, that argument has proven to be the biggest loser 
of all with the American people. Does anyone really believe that the 
best thing that can happen in this society is that more money gets 
spent on election?
  Let's remember what Mr. Tamraz said before the Governmental Affairs 
Committee on September 18, 1997. He is one who certainly understands 
what to do and what it means if we are going to keep expanding the role 
of money in politics. This is what he had to say in response to a 
question from our colleague, the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. 
Lieberman].

       Senator Lieberman. So, do you think you got your money's 
     worth? Do you feel badly about having given the $300,000?
       Mr. Tamraz. I think next time I'll give $600,000.

  Our colleague from Michigan, Senator Levin, asked a very direct 
question:

       Senator Levin. Was one of the reasons you made these 
     contributions because you believed it might get you access? 
     That's my question.
       Mr. Tamraz. Senator, I'm going even further. It's the only 
     reason--to get access, but what I am saying is once you have 
     access what do you do with it? Is it something bad or is it 
     something good? That's what we have to see.

  Mr. President, this is a picture, a portrayal of the vision that some 
of my colleagues have. The more money, the merrier. The more Mr. 
Tamrazes, the more $300,000 contributions, the continuing buying of 
access.
  Their answer is to do absolutely nothing, to do nothing, to let this 
campaign financing arms race continue. Another tactic is to somehow 
pretend--this is the tactic of the majority leader--that the whole 
problem is just one group of people, the working people of this country 
as represented through unions. As if anyone in the United States of 
America honestly believes that the only group that has participated too 
much in the money aspect of the system is organized labor. As if it 
doesn't involve corporate spending. As if it doesn't involve the 
spending of ideological groups. I have to tell you I have absolutely no 
concern that even the most conservative antilabor person in America 
doesn't believe that the whole campaign finance system problems have 
been caused by labor. Nobody believes that. Yet that has been the 
strategy employed on the floor--to say unless you interfere with the 
basic rights of people that join together in a union on a voluntarily 
basis, that the whole issue isn't worth discussing.
  Then of course we heard again from the Senator from Georgia, this 
notion that our bill would protect incumbents. Well, it is rare I'm on 
the floor and I just laugh out loud, but how can a system that already 
exists and has a 90-percent reelection rate for incumbents get much 
more proincumbent? What are we going to do, force people to stay in 
office? Are we going to have instead of term limits, term 
requirements--you have to stay here? It is absurd to suggest that our 
bill would have any impact to protect incumbents. It is just the 
opposite.
  If we had a fair chance to raise the issue, we would have brought up 
what Senator McCain and I like to call the challenger amendment to 
provide incentives and opportunities for candidates who cannot afford a 
great deal to participate in the process by getting the benefit of 
reduced costs in their television time.
  These are some of the arguments that have been used that I think are 
pretty well worn. In fact, let me just illustrate how serious this 
ratification of the current system is by going back to one example. 
This is the example of the Federal Express Corp. This is what is being 
ratified, by the attempt to kill campaign finance reform. We are doing 
nothing to prevent the episode that I'm about to describe. In fact, we 
are telling Corp.s in this country if you are going to protect your 
shareholders and fulfill your fiduciary duties, you better play this 
soft money game and play it hard and fast or otherwise you will lose 
out in the competitive world.
  In other words, it is the opposite of what I thought the other party 
was about--free enterprise. This is the antithesis of free enterprise. 
This encourages the purchasing of access and power in Washington, not 
the fair, free-market competition that so many of us believe is the 
underpinning of our economy. This is the polar opposite of that.
  Now, the Federal Express Corp. wanted, for a very long time, to get a 
provision into the law that would prevent their unions from organizing 
in a way that would be meaningful and allow them to get the benefits 
that they need and the salaries they want from the Federal Express 
Corp. The record of FedEx with regard to employees and unionization is 
not a good one, and the Federal Express Corp. tried repeatedly to get a 
rider attached to various bills that would do this. They never had a 
hearing on a rider in the House Aviation Subcommittee; they tried to 
attach it to the fiscal year 1996 omnibus appropriations bill and 
failed; the House Republicans tried to attach it to the fiscal year 
1996 omnibus, another appropriations bill, and failed; they tried to 
attach it to the National Transportation Safety Board Authorization Act 
and failed; they tried to attach it to the Railroad Unemployment Act 
and failed; the Senate Republicans supported attaching the Labor-HHS 
Appropriations Act in the Appropriations Committee and failed; it was 
not included when the FAA Reauthorization Act passed the House; it was 
not included when it passed the Senate.

[[Page S10723]]

  And only at the end of the road, with no positive vote in favor of 
this provision at any point, it was placed in conference committee and 
brought out to the floor. We remember well last year the fact that we 
had to actually keep the Senate a few days in session to make the point 
on this. This was not a technical correction, as was argued. In fact, 
what happened here was that at the very same time this effort was being 
made by FedEx Corp., some campaign contributions were being made.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. After I finish this.
  Mr. McCONNELL. About getting speakers in before 1 o'clock.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I will try to conclude quickly.
  Mr. President, at this time, the Federal Express Corp., according to 
Congressional Quarterly on October 2, 1996, had contributed, between 
October 17 and November 25, $200,000 to the Democratic Senatorial 
Campaign Committee and $50,000 to the national Republican Senatorial 
Campaign Committee. Specifically, the company also gave $100,000 to the 
Democratic National Committee and $100,000 to the Republican National 
Committee right before this provision was stuffed into conference 
committee.
  Now, this is the kind of democracy that we are ratifying.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an article from 
the New York Times dated October 12, 1996, entitled ``This Mr. Smith 
Gets His Way in Washington, Federal Express Chief Twists Some Big 
Arms.''
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 12, 1996]

This Mr. Smith Get His Way in Washington--Federal Express Chief Twists 
                             Some Big Arms

                           (By Neil A. Lewis)

       Washington, Oct. 11.--As the Senate rushed to adjournment 
     earlier this month, one odd and seemingly inconsequential 
     item stood in the way: the insertion of a few words in a 1923 
     law regulating railway express companies.
       It was not the kind of thing that would ordinarily seize 
     the attention of senators eager to go home barely a month 
     before Election Day. But they stayed in session until the 
     language was enacted, because the beneficiary of the arcane 
     language was the Federal Express Corporation, which has 
     become one of the most formidable and successful corporation 
     lobbies in the capital.
       Federal Express wanted the language change because it might 
     exempt its operations from the National Labor Relations Act 
     and, as a result, help it resist efforts by unions to 
     organize its workers. Despite passionate speeches by 
     opponents on behalf of organized labor, the company was able 
     to engineer a remarkable legislative victory, prevailing upon 
     the Senate to remain in session two extra days solely to 
     defeat a filibuster by its opponents.
       ``I was stunned by the breadth and depth of their clout up 
     here,'' said Senator Russell D. Feingold, a first-term 
     Democrat from Wisconsin who had opposed the change. In the 
     end, Mr. Feingold was one of 31 senators who voted against 
     Federal Express.
       Senators say the ingredients in Federal Express's success 
     are straightforward, distinguished from other corporate 
     lobbying by degree and skillful application: a generous 
     political action committee, the presence of popular former 
     Congressional leaders from both parties on its board, lavish 
     spending on lobbying, and a fleet of corporate jets that 
     ferry dozens of officeholders to political events around the 
     country.
       Mr. Feingold said that as he tried to rally support against 
     the Federal Express legislation, he was frequently and 
     fervently rebuffed by colleagues who said they had acquired 
     obligations to the company.
       ``The sense I got was that this company had made a real 
     strong effort to be friendly and helpful to Congress,'' Mr. 
     Feingold said.
       He would not identify the lawmakers but said that as he 
     approached them about the legislation, he discovered that 
     many just wanted to talk about how Federal Express had helped 
     them. ``In these informal conversations, people mentioned 
     that they had flown in a Fedex plane or gotten other 
     favors,'' he said.
       Senator Ernest F. Hollings, a South Carolina Democrat who 
     proposed the amendment to help Federal Express, said he did 
     so because he was grateful to the company for its willingness 
     to use its planes to fly hay to his state during droughts.
       But others say lawmakers benefit more directly. Senator 
     Paul Simon, an Illinois Democrat who is retiring this fall, 
     said that in a caucus of the Senate's Democrats just before 
     the recess, one senior senator refused to oppose the company, 
     bluntly telling his colleagues, ``I know who butters my 
     bread.''
       Mr. Simon would not identify the lawmaker except to say he 
     was a longtime member of the Senate.
       ``I know that I have ridden in their planes several 
     times,'' said Mr. Simon, who opposed Federal Express on this 
     bill. ``But what happened here was just a blatant example of 
     the power of their political efforts. If the John Smith 
     company came along and asked for the same thing, it wouldn't 
     have a prayer.''
       Federal Express, Tennessee's biggest private employer, 
     makes no apologies either for the merits of the legislation 
     it sought or for its efforts to establish relationships with 
     members of Congress.
       ``We play the game as fairly and aggressively as we can,'' 
     said Doyle Cloud, the vice president of regulatory and 
     government affairs for Federal Express. ``We have issues 
     constantly in Washington that affect our ability to deliver 
     the services our customers demand as efficiently as 
     possible.''
       For example, Mr. Cloud said, Federal Express regularly 
     seeks to make clearances through customs easier to increase 
     efficiency. ``To do things like that, it's absolutely 
     necessary that we are involved politically as well as 
     regulatorily,'' he said.
       In addition to its cargo fleet, Federal Express maintains 
     four corporate jets that when not used for company trips are 
     made available to members of Congress. Mr. Cloud said that 
     they were used mostly to ferry groups of lawmakers to a fund-
     raising event and only rarely for an individual lawmaker.
       Congressional regulations require that lawmakers using 
     corporate aircraft reimburse the company for the equivalent 
     of first-class air fare, and Mr. Cloud said that was always 
     done. Records maintained publicly by Congress do not show how 
     often members use corporate flights. Federal Express declined 
     to make the company's records available, but Mr. Cloud said 
     that during political seasons, Federal Express might fly a 
     group of lawmakers, about once a week.
       Two popular former lawmakers, meanwhile, serve on the 
     Federal Express board: George J. Mitchell of Maine, the 
     former Democratic leader of the Senate, and Howard H. Baker 
     Jr., the former Republican leader of the Senate.
       The company's political action committee is one of the top 
     five corporate PAC's in the nation. In the 1993-94 election 
     cycle it gave more than $800,000 to 224 candidates for the 
     House and Senate. According to the Federal Election 
     Commission, it gave $600,500 to candidates in this cycle 
     through August. The company has also donated more than 
     $260,000 this year to the Democratic and Republican parties.
       In the first six months of 1996, Federal Express reported 
     spending $1,149,150 to influence legislation, an investment 
     that included the hiring of nine Washington lobbying firms. 
     Typically, a company hires a number of lobbying firms because 
     each one has a relationship with an individual lawmaker who 
     may be important on particular issues.
       ``The sky's the limit for Federal Express when it wants to 
     get its own customized regulatory protection made into law,'' 
     said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizens, a 
     Washington-based government watchdog group.
       During the legislative debate last week, it appeared that 
     the company also used a United States Ambassador to press its 
     case, but the diplomat and company have denied that.
       When a lobbyist for organized labor sought to talk to 
     Senator J. Bennett Johnston about the Federal Express issue, 
     Mr. Johnston replied in the presence of several witnesses 
     that he already had made up his mind, because he had just 
     been successfully lobbied on the issue on behalf of Federal 
     Express by James R. Sasser, Mr. Sasser, a former Democratic 
     senator from Tennessee, is the current Ambassador to China 
     and would be prohibited from lobbying on behalf of Federal 
     Express.
       Mr. Johnston, a retiring Democrat from Louisiana, said 
     through his spokeswoman that his comment was a ``terrible 
     slip of the tongue.'' The spokeswoman said that Mr. Johnston 
     had just been lobbied by Frederick Smith, the founder and 
     chairman of Federal Express, and that he had meant to use Mr. 
     Smith's name.
       The spokeswoman, Audra McCardell, said that Senator 
     Johnston had lunch earlier in the week with Ambassador Sasser 
     and that the Federal Express matter had come up ``in 
     chitchat.'' She said that Mr. Johnston had merely told Mr. 
     Sasser how he was going to vote on the issue. For his part, 
     Mr. Sasser, who was retained as a consultant by Federal 
     Express before his confirmation as an ambassador, said in a 
     telephone interview that he did not lobby Mr. Johnston, 
     although they might have discussed the issue.
       Mr. Smith spends considerable time in Washington, where he 
     is regarded as Federal Express's chief advocate. It was Mr. 
     Smith who hit a lobbying home run in 1977 when he persuaded 
     Congress to allow the fledgling company to use full-sized 
     jetliners to carry its cargo, rather than the small planes to 
     which it had been restricted. Mr. Cloud said that was the 
     watershed event that allowed the company to grow to its 
     present dominating position in the industry, with almost 
     $10.1 billion in annual business.
       Federal Express has also been able to get other special 
     provisions written into the law. In 1995, for example, 
     Congress gave it an exemption from certain trucking 
     regulations. It has also won exemptions from noise abatement 
     requirements.
       The provision that Federal Express successfully sought last 
     week was insertion of the words ``express company'' in 
     legislation that designates companies that can be organized 
     by unions only under the Railway Labor Act. Under that law, 
     unions are allowed to organize only in national units,

[[Page S10724]]

     rather than locally. Federal Express is fighting efforts by 
     the United Automobile Workers to unionize its drivers. Of the 
     130,000 domestic employees of the company, only its 3,000 
     pilots are unionized.
       Allen Reuther, the U.A.W.'s chief lobbyist, said that the 
     union found it ``especially outrageous for the Senate to 
     provide this special interest provision for just one 
     company.''
       Federal Express and its supporters in the Senate attached 
     the legislative language as a rider to an airport bill that 
     promised dozens of local airport improvements and enhanced 
     security measures. Many lawmakers who usually vote with labor 
     decided the bill had to pass, even with the Federal Express 
     provision.
       But the votes of 17 Democrats to help Federal Express by 
     ending a filibuster against the provision--including that of 
     Senator Thomas A. Daschle of South Dakota, the minority 
     leader--angered labor officials, especially John J. Sweeney, 
     president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O. Some union leaders said they 
     might withhold future contributions to the Democratic Senate 
     Campaign Committee.
       But after Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, who 
     led the filibuster, visited Mr. Sweeney on Thursday with a 
     note of thanks for his support, the tension eased and union 
     officials relented. President Clinton signed the airport 
     measure into law on Wednesday.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent a related article a year later 
in the New York Times, August 25, 1997, entitled, ``Face Time for 
Federal Express'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times Aug. 25, 1997]

                     Face Time for Federal Express

       When a big corporate political donor is invited to press 
     his company's case at the White House before the President, 
     he is probably going to expect results. But the attempt by 
     Federal Express to buy influence with the Clinton 
     Administration over an economic dispute with Japan, which was 
     disclosed last week, has not helped anyone.
       Instead of advancing his company's interests, Frederick 
     Smith, the Federal Express chairman, has probably set them 
     back. Thanks to the now well-documented tendency in this 
     White House to mix policy-making with insatiable political 
     fund-raising, a sensible objective for the United States has 
     been tainted and the 1996 Democratic fund-raising effort has 
     been revealed once again as structurally corrupt.
       President Clinton says he is proud of the fund-raising he 
     and his party carried out in recent years, and that there 
     were no direct quid pro quos for donors. But the episode 
     involving Federal Express, first reported in the Washington 
     Post, provides a case study in why the system he embraces not 
     only has polluted American politics but has actually damaged 
     American interests abroad.
       At issue is a long-running demand by Federal Express to fly 
     cargo through Japan to its new hub at Subic Bay, the former 
     American naval base in the Philippines. A 45-year-old 
     aviation agreement between the United States and Japan 
     clearly requires Tokyo to grant access to Federal Express, as 
     this page argued to years ago. Both the Bush and Clinton 
     Administrations have supported the company's cause, by 
     Federal Express wanted sterner action. Mr. Smith used his 
     meeting with Mr. Clinton to press for sanctions against 
     Japan. Federal Express also ponied up $506,000 in campaign 
     contributions to the Democrats last year, along with $540,000 
     to the Republicans.
       Federal Express has been a major success story in the 
     competitive global economy, and is worthy of American 
     support. Its gamble in setting up a hub at Subic Bay has 
     revitalized the area around the old naval base. It makes 
     sense in the new age of commercial diplomacy for the United 
     States to help American companies in their attempts to win 
     contracts and market access. But such an approach is simply 
     undercut in the eyes of the world when it looks like nothing 
     more than a payoff for a large political donation.
       In addition, the United States needs to be sensitive to the 
     risks of favoring one company's interests over another's, 
     however plausible that company's case. The appearance of 
     evenhandedness was undermined by Mr. Clinton's ill-advised 
     meeting with Mr. Smith. Until now, the United States has 
     refrained from the tougher approach of the sanctions 
     demanded by Federal Express. Though sanctions might well 
     be justified and certainly would be legal, there was good 
     reason to hesitate. Sanctions could well invite Japanese 
     retaliation, which, in turn, would almost certainly damage 
     other American companies doing business in Japan. In 
     negotiating with Tokyo, the United States has to weigh the 
     interests of everyone, not just Federal Express.
       The point is that the United States' bargaining position 
     with Japan has been weakened because of Mr. Smith's clumsy 
     intervention and the Administration's willingness to peddle 
     White House meetings. Even among those in the White House who 
     opposed the idea of sanctions, there was agreement that Mr. 
     Smith had a legitimate complaint. It will be understandable 
     now if Japan takes less seriously an American demand that 
     looks so obviously like a favor to a political contributor.
       Other airlines have reason to fear that Federal Express 
     will gain an upper hand over them. The way to remove such 
     suspicions is obvious. Enacting legislation banning open-
     ended contributions by individuals and corporations is the 
     only way to restore integrity to the process in Washington.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. That article details a similar series of activities 
that had to do with FedEx's desires with regard to trade and Japan. 
Here is the real conclusion of the story, and I want others to have a 
chance to speak, so let me continue by saying we all remember that the 
United Parcel Service had a strike not too long ago. It was the biggest 
news in America. Who is their competitor? The Federal Express Corp. The 
Federal Express Corp. used this process, this fundraising process, this 
access process, this soft money process, to get a special benefit so 
they don't have that kind of union. They don't have that kind of strike 
because their folks can't get together to do that because of Federal 
law.
  What happened? Apparently, as a result of the UPS strike, FedEx 
benefited. The Federal Express Corp., according to one report, is 
gaining market share because of its adroit handling of additional 
business during the recent UPS strike, analysts say. Some analysts 
estimate that the UPS market share slipped to about 70 percent of the 
U.S. package delivery market from 80 percent before the strike.
  Mr. President, there is a difference between FedEx and UPS, and the 
difference was the ability of campaign money to prevent FedEx employees 
from organizing the way they want. That is the kind of democracy and 
economy that we will have if the filibusterers prevail.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today along with my colleague from 
Vermont to express my disappointment and regret that the Senate has 
missed an opportunity today to coalesce around a middle ground that 
would allow campaign finance reform to advance.
  Together with Senator McCain, who deserves our gratitude for his 
courage and tenacity in bringing this issue to the fore, along with 
Senator Jeffords and Senator Specter, I have worked over the past week 
to forge a compromise that would address the two concerns that have 
emerged as the chief stumbling blocks to Senate passage of campaign 
fiance reform. Namely, the objection of Republicans to a package that 
does not address the issue of protecting union members from having 
their dues used without their permission for political purposes with 
which they may disagree. And the objection of Democrats to singling out 
unions while not providing similar protections for members of other 
organizations, or for shareholders in corporations.
  Last week, in response to concerns which had been raised by the 
minority leader, we proposed an alternative that would provide the same 
protections to members of organizations across the board, and to 
shareholders of corporations. Together with Senator Jeffords, Senator 
Specter and Senator McCain, we fine-tuned the proposal into a balanced 
approach with the potential to move this debate forward. It appeared 
our plan was the best hope of preventing a filibuster and advancing 
campaign finance reform.
  Unfortunately, our efforts to make the process work in this instance 
will not succeed today. Despite our willingness to forge a compromise 
which would address the concerns of both sides--we have not been able 
to secure an agreement to ensure passage of the compromise.
  The criticisms of our proposal from both sides are typical of the 
concerns when a proposal strikes a balance between two dies. Nobody 
really likes it. One side feels we go too far. The other side feels we 
don't go far enough.
  But in the legislative arena, when both sides are committed to moving 
forward and finding a solution, that is how we do it. Both sides give. 
While we have not been able to reach a conclusion today, given the 
artificially short time limits imposed by the nature of the 
parliamentary procedure under which we are forced to consider this 
issue, I believe if Senators are truly committed to campaign finance 
reform, then it is definitely dead in this session of Congress.

[[Page S10725]]

  I am saddened, because we have not only an obligation to provide 
legislative solutions, but to restore the public's faith in the 
integrity of the process. If we ultimately fail to coalesce around a 
middle ground, it would serve only to confirm the public's belief that 
we lack the will to address this issue in a fair and bipartisan manner. 
And it will certainly point to the consequences of a shrinking middle 
in American public life.
  Mr. President, I have worked hard over the last week with my 
colleagues on this compromise because I earnestly believe that's what 
people expect of us. They expect that the U.S. Senate will conduct 
itself as the deliberative body it was designed to be, and they have a 
right to that expectation.
  We should be putting our heads together, not building walls between 
us with intractable rhetoric and all-or-nothing propositions.
  I have been part of the legislative process in Congress for over 18 
years. I am here because I believe in finding solutions. That is our 
job, Mr. President: finding solutions. Now, I've been here long enough 
to know that that is not always possible. And I've been here long 
enough to know that it is always difficult. But then we were sent here 
to do a difficult job. So I say let's have the difficult conversations 
and really give thoughtful consideration to how we can hurdle our most 
challenging obstacles. That's the way it should be--that's how we end 
up with better legislation.
  The fact is, this issue will not go away. The public disillusionment 
with our campaign finance system will not disappear absent meaningful 
reform. It will come back again and again and again.
  I believe each and every time it will come down to the basic issue of 
enacting reform that does not unfairly disadvantage either party. As 
long as we have two-party government, no reform will ever pass unless 
it truly levels the playing field.
  This is an issue that need not be intractable, as we demonstrated 
with the proposal we put forward in this debate. It is my belief that 
eventually the basis for evenhanded reform is embodied in the middle 
ground approach we proposed. Unfortunately, that day will not be today.
  Finally, I want to issue a challenge to the majority leader and the 
minority leader. It is the duty of leaders to lead. I urge them to do 
just that by appointing a bipartisan working group of Senators who want 
to make the system work.
  I entered public service to help make Government work. It is a task 
made more daunting by the mounting chorus of partisanship that has 
engulfed our Nation's politics.
  The status quo, Mr. President, is unacceptable to virtually everyone 
except apparently to many Members of this body. There are, however, 
those of us on both sides who want to resolve this problem. What we 
need is the leadership to bring this spirit to life.
  We need to devote less energy to criticizing and judging each other 
and more to forging consensus and understanding. Only then can we come 
together and enact legislation that the majority of Americans feel is 
sensible and long overdue. Let's make, then, a historic statement that 
the old ways of doing business must be relegated to the annals of 
history. Let's return elections to the American people and restore 
confidence in our Government.

  Mr. President, I would like to yield to my colleague and friend, the 
Senator from Vermont, who has worked so hard on the compromise that we 
try to put forward today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for a very eloquent statement on 
where we are and where we ought to be.
  I think it is incredibly important that those of us who are as 
dedicated as she is and as I am--perhaps those of us in the middle, as 
so often happens in this body--have to take a look at what we can do to 
pull things together.
  Now, I am personally convinced, having talked with a number of 
Democratic Senators and a number of Republican Senators, that there are 
at least 60 Senators who want meaningful campaign reform. However, we 
have postured ourselves at this time and particular moment in a 
situation where that will not occur. I am pleased in a way that we are 
going into a brief period of recess. I am dedicated, as I know the 
Senator from Maine is, to using that period of time to try to find, if 
we can, a common ground.
  I think it is important for us to take a look at what we really need 
to do and where the real stumbling blocks are. We are two political 
parties, Republicans and Democrats. Some things advantage one and some 
things advantage another. So we have to find ways to reform the 
campaign finance system and do whatever is necessary to make sure that 
we can find something that both sides can--not willingly, but certainly 
with the public pressure out there now--do something. We can find a way 
to do that.
  What needs to be done? The Senator from Maine has done superb work in 
trying to find a middle ground on one issue with the Democratic Party, 
and that is how to handle the situation with unions--and we would say 
all groups--to make sure that the people that are involved, that have 
to contribute the money, or do contribute the money, have a say in how 
that money is spent; first, so that they know how it has been spent in 
the past so they can better judge what happens in the future, but also 
that they have full disclosure and the ability to say no, or the 
ability to at least say ``not my money,'' which is what our amendment 
does. I think that is a very big step forward.
  Now, there have been all sorts of technical problems raised with 
this, that, and the other thing. But the substance of it is one in 
which all America can agree. When you are in the situation where you 
have money taken from you, you ought to have at least a say as to where 
it is going and, even more important, to say ``not my money.'' ``You 
can spend your money and the rest of the money, but not mine.'' I think 
that is a pretty simple philosophy with which many Americans would 
agree.
  The next area we have to take a look at--and this is critical for the 
Republicans and it is also the center of debate nationwide--is what 
happened at the White House with all this money pouring in, hundreds of 
thousands over here, and all that so-called soft money. We have to do 
something about that. But to say that, especially under the 
Constitution, we can just ban it, or we can set up rules where you 
can't use any of it, that is not going to work. It is not going to work 
because people have the right under our first amendment to be able to 
spend money on political campaigns, but how much and for what purposes, 
that can be controlled, as we have found.
  I will tell you, the money will find a way, some way, to be spent. If 
we don't have it spent for ``party building'' as ``soft money,'' it 
will be in ``issue advocacy'' or ``independent expenditures.'' So the 
best thing to do is to make sure that there are limits placed on it, 
that there is full disclosure, and that there are ways to make sure 
that these funds are not abused or become dominant in the process. 
There are ways to do that. They are not ones that everybody is going to 
readily agree upon. But on the other hand, from a first amendment 
perspective, the way people want to help a political party ought to be 
something that we can find a solution for. So I hope now that we are in 
this situation where it is obvious that no final decision can be made, 
no way will be found in the next few hours for us to solve this, that 
we step back and work together. The Senator from Maine and I are both 
dedicated to finding those Senators in the middle that are willing to 
help us pull something together so that we can get at least 60 votes.
  I hope now that we can move back to the regular legislative process 
in the interim, to move legislation along which is necessary to be 
moved along, and, hopefully, as the Senator suggested, the leaders will 
get together and we can find a way to pull that middle together. There 
may be kicking and screaming in order to do that, but possibly we can 
find a way to let this Nation know that we want campaign finance 
reform, we want the process to be one we can be proud of, one which is 
acceptable to the American people, and one which allows everybody to 
know what is going on. I thank the Senator for her statement. I am 
sorry that we are in this situation, but I think it is important that 
we take a breath of fresh air and come back in the next week or so and, 
hopefully, make some progress.

[[Page S10726]]

  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine still has the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, under the regular order, the Senator from 
Maine cannot yield the floor.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, for several days now the Senate has debated 
campaign finance reform legislation. Advocates of the so-called McCain-
Feingold proposal deserve credit for advancing the issue. 
Unfortunately, in the view of a majority, they have been unable to 
construct a bill that does not violate the first amendment to the 
Constitution. There are other proposals for reform that I believe can 
address the problems without compromising the Constitution. Therefore, 
I will vote to bring at least one of those proposals--the Paycheck 
Protection Act--to a vote but not yet support consideration of McCain-
Feingold.
  Some have argued that details are less important than the general 
principle of reform. But reform to one is not necessarily reform to 
another. For example, most Republicans believe that all contributions 
to politics should be voluntary. Most Democrats, on the other hand, say 
they agree but they are unwilling to give up compulsory union dues that 
are then contributed to candidates. Thus, reform to us is not reform to 
them.
  Recognizing that we approach the need for reform from different 
perspectives, I have tried to evaluate the issue by applying some basic 
principles that I think most of us would agree with. For example, our 
laws should be clear, simple, and enforceable. They should insist on 
full and timely disclosure. They should place constituent interest over 
special interest. They should ensure voluntary participation for all. 
And, they should protect our right to free speech--unregulated by the 
government. This last principle is significant because our 
constitutional rights to free speech, free assembly, and the right to 
petition our Government were specifically established to protect our 
political expression. The Supreme Court has confirmed this, declaring 
that political expression is ``at the core of our electoral process and 
of the first amendment freedoms.'' (Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 44 
(citing Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968))).
  The McCain-Feingold proposal incorporates some of these important 
principles. For example, the bill requires more timely and detailed 
disclosure of campaign spending. This allows people to make more 
informed decisions regarding contributions made to their elected 
leaders. The bill calls for tougher penalties for campaign violations. 
This might make people think twice about breaking the law. The bill 
attempts to tighten the restrictions on fundraising on federal property 
and strengthen the restriction on foreign money ban. Both of these 
provisions would address some of the Clinton-Gore campaign finance 
improprieties. The bill prohibits those under 18 from contributing to 
campaigns, ensuring that only those who vote can contribute, again 
addressing a problem with the Clinton-Gore campaign. The bill also 
extends the ban on mass mailing by House and Senate Members from 60 
days before an election to January 1 of an election year, thereby 
reducing an incumbent advantage.
  I support the intent, if not the exact language, of each of these 
provisions. I also believe that any reform legislation should include a 
requirement that candidates raise a majority of their campaign 
contributions from within their respective States and that all 
political activities be funded with voluntary contributions and not 
extracted in the form of compulsory union dues. The first of these 
proposals is not included in the McCain-Feingold legislation, and I 
believe it is necessary to meet the principles of putting constituent 
interest over special interest. The second proposal is not adequately 
dealt with because of opposition from Senator McCain's Democratic 
cosponsor.

  The most extensive provisions of the McCain-Feingold proposal address 
so-called soft money and issue/express advocacy. While these provisions 
are well intentioned, I believe they would dramatically restrict party 
building activities and free speech for individuals, associations, and 
citizens.
  The McCain-Feingold approach to so-called soft money contributions is 
to completely prohibit them. These are contributions of citizens and 
organizations to political parties and cannot be spent for individual 
candidates. Hard money, on the other hand, is contributed directly to 
candidates to be spent by them.
  Unlike hard money, soft money can be contributed in unlimited amounts 
to support political party organizations by helping them to engage in 
grassroots volunteer activities. The bill's total ban on soft money 
contributions would restrict State and local campaign committees from 
supporting the following election activity: voter registration activity 
within 120 days before a Federal election; voter identification, get-
out-the-vote activity, or general campaign activity conducted in 
connection with any election that includes a candidate for Federal 
offices--generally referred to as party building activity; and a 
communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
office and that is made for the purpose of influencing a Federal 
election. Thus, if the law were to completely ban soft money, it is not 
the candidates, but the political parties that would suffer the most. 
Is this the type of political activity we really want to get rid of?
  The McCain-Feingold proposal also explicitly forbids so-called issue 
ads, ads that mention a candidate's name within 60 days of a Federal 
election. Issue advocacy can best be defined as any speech relating to 
issues and the policy positions taken by candidates and elected 
officials. It can be as simple as a statement such as, ``Senator 
Smith's position on school vouchers is dead wrong.'' Or it can be as 
involved as a multimillion dollar campaign of broadcast and print 
advertisements that spreads the same message. The Constitution protects 
the right of any group or individual to engage in issue advocacy. It is 
the essence of free speech.
  Attempts to regulate and require disclosure of issue advocacy 
expenditure through statute and through FEC regulation have repeatedly 
been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and lower Federal 
courts. The Court has always viewed issue advocacy as a form of speech 
that deserves the highest degree of protection under the first 
amendment. Not only has the Court been supportive of issue advocacy, 
the justices have affirmatively stated that they are untroubled by the 
fact that issue advertisements may influence the outcome of an 
election. In fact, in Buckley versus Valeo, the court stated:

       The distinction between discussion of issues and candidates 
     and advocacy of the election or defeat of candidates may 
     often dissolve in practical application. Candidates, 
     especially incumbents, are often intimately tied to public 
     issues involving legislative proposals and governmental 
     actions. Not only do candidates campaign on the basis of 
     their positions on various public issues, but campaigns 
     themselves generate issues of public interest. Buckley v. 
     Valeo, 424 U.S.1, 42 (1976).

  Moreover, defenders of the first amendment know that the freedom to 
engage in robust political debate in our democracy will be at risk if 
the Congress or the FEC is given the authority to ban issue ads close 
to an election, or evaluate the content of issue ads to determine if 
they are really a form of express advocacy. The Supreme Court 
recognized this danger long before Buckley versus Valeo. In 1945, in 
Thomas versus Collins, the Court states:

       . . . the supposedly clear-cut distinction between 
     discussion, laudation, general advocacy, and solicitation 
     puts the speaker in these circumstances wholly at the mercy 
     of the varied understanding of his hearers and consequently 
     of whatever inference may be drawn as to his intent and 
     meaning. Such a distinction offers no security for free 
     discussion. In these conditions it blankets with uncertainty 
     whatever may be said. It compels the speaker to hedge and 
     trim Thomas v. Collins 323 U.S. 516 (1945).

  McCain-Feingold would impose regulations on issue advocacy in 
violation of Court declarations. Advocacy groups such as the National 
Right to Life, Sierra Club, and National Taxpayers Union, to name just 
a few, would be severely circumscribed in the exercise of their first 
amendment rights. The FEC has a poor track record of trying to broadly 
interpret current election statues to encompass issue advocacy speech.
  In fact, as recently as October 6, 1997, the Supreme Court let stand 
a circuit court decision striking FEC regulations because they 
infringed upon a

[[Page S10727]]

group's right to characterize a candidate's position on abortion 
rights. Maine Right to Life v, FEC (1997WL274826, 65USWL3783) (October 
6, 1997) (Case number 96-1818).
  The result of the McCain-Feingold 60-day ban on issue advocacy before 
an election will be that associations or groups of citizens could not 
characterize a candidate's record on radio and television during that 
period. It would, thus, severely limit citizen involvement and speech.
  The only recourse would be for such associations--nonprofit 501(c)3 
and 501(c)4 organizations--to create new institutional entities--
political action committees [PAC's]--to legally speak within 60 days 
before an election. Such groups would, thereby, also be forced to 
disclose all contributors to the new PAC.
  Not all members of nonprofit organizations want to become members of 
PAC's. Separate accounting procedures, new legal costs, and separate 
administrative processes would be imposed on these groups, merely so 
that their members could preserve their first amendment rights.
  It is noteworthy that none of these proposals seek to regulate the 
ability of the media to exercise its enormous license to editorialize 
in favor or against candidates at any given time.
  Finally, as noted, McCain-Feingold does not ensure that American 
citizens have the right to voluntarily participate in the political 
process. I am specifically referring to the protection from mandatory 
withdrawals of dues from a worker's paycheck for political activities 
without prior approval. Contrary to the claims of its supporters, 
McCain-Feingold does not provide such protection.
  As written, the McCain-Feingold legislation applies only to nonunion 
member employees. These are workers who choose not to join a union, but 
who under a collective bargaining agreement must pay dues--that is, 
agency fees--to support the costs of union representation. McCain-
Feingold covers only 10 percent of the roughly 18 million dues-paying 
employees nationwide. I support Senator Lott's Paycheck Protection Act, 
which covers all 18 million.
  McCain-Feingold also requires labor unions to notify these nonunion 
members that they are entitled to request a refund of the portion of 
their dues or agency fees used for political purposes. The effect of 
this proposal is to place the burden on the worker--after the fact--to 
petition for a refund of these automatically withdrawn dues. By 
contrast, Senator Lott's Paycheck Protection Act requires unions to 
obtain union and nonunion employee's written permission first before 
using any portion of his or her dues for political activities.
  Simply put, I believe all contributions to political activities 
should be voluntary. No one should have automatic political withdrawals 
from his or her paycheck unless consent is first given. The Paycheck 
Protection Act codifies this right. McCain-Feingold does not.
  To conclude, I strongly believe certain aspects of our campaign 
finance system need reform. But reform that is consistent with the 
principles I outlined earlier. Although well intentioned, McCain-
Feingold layers more regulation on top of current regulation and also 
infringes upon the constitutional rights to free speech and 
association. And it does not guarantee voluntary participation in the 
political process. For these reasons I cannot support it in its current 
form.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
campaign finance reform legislation sponsored by Senators McCain and 
Feingold.
  The McCain/Feingold bill is a beginning, and is an important step 
towards reforming how we finance campaigns. It ends soft money 
contributions to national parties, expands disclosure requirements, and 
strengthens election law. It puts guidelines on hard money 
contributions and begins to address the problem of so-called ``issue 
advocacy'' advertisements that may be designed to persuade the public 
about a candidate instead of educating the public about an issue. It 
also requires labor unions to notify non-union members that they are 
entitled to request a refund of the portion their agency fees used for 
political purposes. Make no mistake about it--one bill cannot end the 
spiraling cost of campaigns or stop the coercive influence of money in 
our government. But it is a beginning.
  I am more convinced than ever that our current approach to funding 
political campaigns is broken and desperately in need of repair. My 
good friend, Senator Ford from Kentucky, cited the great cost of 
campaigns and the immense time needed to raise money as the reason for 
his retirement from the United States Senate. He explained that to run 
for re-election in 1998, he would need to spend the next two years 
raising $100,000 per week. Today, a run for the Senate may require over 
$5 million. On average, a Senator needs to raise $16,000 per week 
during their six year term to accumulate the funds needed to run a 
credible campaign.
  Not only are distinguished elected officials leaving public service 
due to the daunting cost of running for office, but many Americans have 
decided not to seek office because it simply costs too much money. This 
robs us of leaders with new ideas and diverse backgrounds, and it 
threatens to undermine our country's participatory democracy.
  Our democracy rests upon the fundamental principle that every 
person's vote is equal. A citizen walks into a voting booth, casts his 
or her vote, and the majority rules. But only fifty percent of 
Americans vote and only four percent of the population contribute to 
campaigns.
  The American people worry that those who wrote the checks now expect 
to write the laws. They see powerful lobbyists working to turn back the 
clock on 25 years of environmental protection, and to unravel laws that 
keep our workplaces safe and protect the food we eat. This appearance 
of undue influence supports the public's cynicism.
  Incredibly, those who defend politics as usual are not concerned 
about the amount of money in our political process. These leaders 
insist that the political process is fine, even though a record $765 
million was consumed on House and Senate campaigns in 1996. In fact, 
Speaker Gingrich and other leaders in his party complain that too 
little, not too much, money is spent today on political campaigns.
  We all know that the Government Affairs Committee is, even as we 
speak, holding extensive hearings on the campaign finance practices of 
the last Presidential election. Yet, as we have seen here on the floor 
this week, the Majority Leader and most of those in his party would do 
nothing. However, there are a few Republicans, including one of the 
leaders on this issue Senator McCain, who have voted the responsible 
way and I commend them. It is now time to come together in a bipartisan 
manner and focus on the future of elections in America for all 
Americans.
  Since I was elected to Congress as part of ``Class of 1974,'' I have 
consistently fought for campaign finance reform. Since 1985, I have 
cosponsored seven campaign finance reform bills to remove the influence 
of money in elections and bring democracy back to the people of this 
country. In an attempt to curb the threatening influence of money, I 
have supported prohibitions in ``soft money'' in federal elections, and 
as the General Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, I 
challenged my counterparts to do the same. In another effort to limited 
the influence of money, I have supported caps on PAC contributions to 
candidates and limits on the total amount Senate candidates can accept 
from PACs. To level the playing field, and help challengers gain 
exposure, I have agreed to proposals for free or reduced response 
advertisement costs for candidates attacked by independent 
expenditures. I have supported requirements that Senate candidates 
raise most of their money from their home states in an attempt to bring 
elections back home to the people. Finally, I voted for a 
Constitutional amendment allowing Congress to set campaign spending 
limits. I know many of my fellow colleagues share my commitment to 
reform.
  As we debate reform, I am concerned that we stand behind the Federal 
Election Commission, which is charged with monitoring and watching 
campaign finance violations. The FEC must have the finances and 
resources it needs to promptly and effectively enforce the laws that 
govern our campaigns. Between 1994 and November

[[Page S10728]]

1996, the FEC's caseload rose 36 percent, and because complaints 
related to the 1996 election are still being filed, the FEC expects the 
caseload to ultimately rise by 52 percent. Of the 262 complaints filed 
with the FEC in the latest election cycle, only 88 are currently under 
active review.

  To address the effectiveness of the FEC, earlier this year I authored 
the FEC Improvement Act. I am pleased that most of the proposals from 
my bill--including electronic filing, authorizing the FEC to conduct 
random audits, and stiffer penalties--have been incorporated into the 
McCain/Feingold legislation.
  Time after time, Congress has talked about reform but in the end done 
nothing. Over the past 10 years, Congress has produced over 6,742 pages 
of hearings, members have made over 3,361 speeches, committees have 
produced more than 1,063 pages of reports, the Senate has recorded over 
113 votes and formed one bipartisan commission. Yet in the end, it's 
just been business as usual, while the voice of the average American in 
our democratic process grows fainter, quality candidates say no to 
public service, and our democracy withers.
  I regret that the Senate this week has again missed an opportunity to 
pass comprehensive reform. The Senate missed another opportunity even 
though 53 Senators voted to fully consider the bill. I am saddened that 
the majority leader, along with the majority of his Republican 
colleagues, deployed procedural tactics that thwarted real reform. I 
lament this maneuver.
  It saddens me that the Republicans have chosen to sabotage this 
bipartisan bill. It saddens me even more that this procedural sabotage 
occurred after concerted efforts to accommodate Republican concerns. 
Important provisions including voluntary spending limits, free or 
discounted television and advertising time, and curbs on contributions 
to PAC's have all been modified in the spirit of bipartisanship. 
However, the Senate now may not even have a clean vote on campaign 
finance reform legislation this session.
  I have voted against Senator Lott's amendment because it was not a 
bipartisan effort. The Lott amendment was a partisan maneuver to end 
efforts for comprehensive campaign finance reform. I will continue to 
vote against any amendments that lack solid bipartisan support and harm 
a constructive effort for real reform. Conversely, I will consider 
supporting any amendments to the current legislation that have 
bipartisan support and would improve this bill. I will also continue to 
support any positive efforts by both sides to have campaign finance 
reform considered by the Senate for a full and complete debate this 
session.
  I call on all my colleagues to chart a new course, to put aside our 
differences, and to put first and foremost in our deliberations the 
good of the Nation. As leaders, we must not shirk our responsibility to 
do all we can to the reform campaign finance system. The McCain-
Feingold bill begins that process, and I believe that as a body we have 
a solemn responsibility to embrace this legislation.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, S. 25, the Campaign Finance Reform 
Act of 1997 does not represent my ideal package of reform. In fact, S. 
25 is far from it. I believe, however, that this legislation does bring 
us one step closer to getting the kind of real, comprehensive campaign 
finance reform we so desperately need.
  We need to get Americans back into the system and get them involved 
in decisions that affect their lives. We need campaign finance reform 
to restore the American people's faith in the electoral process. 
Americans are frustrated; many believe that the current system cuts 
them off from their government. A League of Women Voters study found 
that one of the top three reasons people do not vote is the belief that 
their vote will not make a difference. We saw the result of this 
cynicism in 1994 when just 38 percent of all registered voters headed 
to the polls. And we saw it again in 1996 when only 49 percent of the 
voting age population turned out to vote--the lowest percentage of 
Americans to go to the polls in 72 years.
  I have noticed a difference in voter turnout since my own election. 
In 1992, I won with 2.6 million votes, which was 53 percent of 
Illinois' total vote. In 1996, Senator Durbin won with a vote total of 
2.3 million, which was 55.8 percent of the total vote. Senator Durbin 
won by a greater margin but with fewer total votes cast.
  Unfortunately, the effort needed to raise the average of $4 million 
per Senate race decreases the time Senators need to meet their 
obligations to all of their constituents. According to recent Federal 
Election Commission figures, congressional candidates spent a total of 
$765.3 million in the 1996 elections, up 5.5 percent from the record-
setting 1994 level of $725.2 million. That figure does not include the 
huge amounts of ``soft money'' spent by political parties.
  Furthermore, when voters see that the average amount contributed by 
PACs to House and Senate candidates is up from $12.5 million in 1974 to 
$178.8 million in 1994--a 400 percent rise even after factoring in 
inflation over that period--there is a perception that lawmakers are 
too reliant on special interests to make public policy that serves the 
national interest. More and more voters believe that Members of 
Congress only listen to these special interest contributors, while 
failing to listen to the very constituents who put them into office.
  That is part of the reason why there is overwhelming public support 
for reform. And make no mistake, there is a real public consensus that 
reform is needed--now. Ordinary Americans want--and deserve--government 
that is responsive to their needs and problems. The way to do that is 
through spending limits. Spending limits will make our system more open 
and more competitive. Spending limits can help focus elections more on 
the issues, instead of on advertising.
  We must be sure that we don't have a process that only further 
empowers political elites that are already empowered. We want campaign 
finance reform that allows candidates more time to talk to voters. 
Voters want to know that the system works for ordinary Americans and 
not just those few who can devote substantial time and money to 
politics. They deserve better than the present system.
  S. 25 addresses some of these needs. This bill prohibits soft money 
contributions to national political parties, increases the amount of 
``hard'' money individuals may contribute to State parties for use in 
Federal elections, and increases the amount of ``hard'' money an 
individual may contribute in aggregate to all Federal candidates and 
parties in a single year.
  In addition, S. 25 expands disclosure requirements and strengthens 
election law violations to lessen the influence of ``big money'' in 
campaigns.
  I believe that these are vital first steps toward addressing the 
problems of the current system. Campaign finance reform cannot work for 
every American, however, unless it also works for every candidate, 
including minority candidates and women. Minority and women candidates 
currently have less access to the large sums needed to run for office 
than other candidates. That financial inequity is one of the primary 
reasons both women and minorities have long been under represented in 
both the Senate and House. The increased occurrence of big money 
candidates feeding their own campaigns and driving up the costs of 
campaigns overall only adds to the barriers keeping women and 
minorities out of public office.
  Unfortunately, S. 25 does little to stop or control these upward 
spiraling costs, and that is disappointing, because self-financing 
candidates continue to be a rapidly growing phenomenon in our current 
political system. While it is true that these millionaires don't always 
win, no one can honestly deny that these individuals contribute to the 
increasing campaign costs that turn so many voters off. In 1994, for 
example, one candidate for the Senate spent a record setting $29 
million, 94 percent of which was his own money. And during the last 
election cycle, a presidential candidate spent $30 million of his own 
money for just the primary elections.
  Even more appalling is the fact that self-financing candidates do not 
have to demonstrate broad financial support to either launch or support 
their candidacies. Allowing these self-financing candidates to avoid 
having to show a broad range of support is, I believe truly 
undemocratic. In fact, I believe

[[Page S10729]]

that every candidate should be able to demonstrate that they have the 
support of a broad range of individuals and organizations, that their 
candidacy has, in fact, come about as a true desire of the ``people.''
  If we could prove that spending exorbitant amounts of money on 
campaigns increased voter turnout, we would have an excuse for allowing 
the costs of campaigns to continue escalating. But we cannot. While the 
total amount raised for the 1996 election by both Democrats and 
Republicans increased by 70 percent over the same period during the 
1991-92 cycle, voter turnout has plummeted to its lowest point since 
1924. What's more, these funds are often used to finance negative, 
nongermane, and personally distasteful ads that do nothing more than 
turn off the voters and take attention away from issues of vital 
importance to all Americans, such as retirement security, education, 
and children's health. If we continue this trend, the wealthiest 
Americans will be the only ones who will be able to afford to 
participate in our political system, leaving the rest of us to only 
dream about contributing to this democracy.
  If candidates were required to seek and demonstrate support from a 
broad range of individuals--an important component of the democratic 
process--the Supreme Court might see the First Amendment issue somewhat 
differently. An appropriate analogy would be the laws that require 
candidates to obtain a certain number of signatures as a requirement 
for access to the ballot. In other words, the reason for this limit 
would not be to equalize resources, but to ensure that the amounts 
candidates spend have some relation to breadth of support. This 
proposal may be at least arguably consistent with Buckley, since the 
Court in that case recognized that the government has ``important 
interests in limiting places on the ballot to those candidates who 
demonstrate substantial popular support.''
  In fact, it is that statement by the Court which demonstrates the 
flaw in the Buckley versus Valeo decision. In the not too distant past, 
a candidate had to have the endorsement of a political party, or have 
his or her own strong, grass roots organization in order to have the 
large number of people it takes to gather sufficient petitions to be 
put on the ballot. Now, however, it is actually possible to hire people 
to collect petition signatures, so petitioning does not necessarily 
demonstrate broad support the way it used to. In fact, a wealthy 
candidate, under the current state of the law, doesn't have to have any 
broad support at all to gain access to the ballot, only enough money to 
hire enough petition collectors. If the important government interest 
the Buckley Court acknowledged is to be protected, therefore, some 
limits on the use of money by wealthy candidates is required. The use 
of money by wealthy candidates has to be brought into the bill's 
reforms.

  This bill could have only been strengthened by a provision that would 
have created some mechanism to control this form of campaign financing. 
It is unfortunate that this bill does not have such a provision, as I 
have no doubt that, ultimately, unregulated financing will have no 
result but to drive voters, and talented but less wealthy candidates, 
out of the electorate.
  Despite this shortcoming, I fully support the goals and the spirit of 
S. 25. It is a solid bill, and a firm step toward the type of 
comprehensive campaign finance reform that our nation needs to ensure 
that our electorate becomes involved and has more faith in the people 
they send to Congress to represent them. S. 25 has the potential to 
reduce some of the cynicism many Americans feel toward the electoral 
process, and therefore has the potential to ignite in many Americans 
the type of desire to become more involved in debates on fundamental 
issues like retirement security, healthcare security, and education.
  Voters, and not money, should determine election results. The money 
chase has gotten out of control, and voters know that big money stifles 
the kind of competitive elections that are essential to our democracy. 
S. 25 is a crucial first step in bringing campaigns back to the people. 
I urge my colleagues to support S. 25, and I urge my colleagues to 
continue considering ways in which we can encourage the American people 
to continue playing a role in our democracy.
  Mr. ABRAHAM. Mr. President, I rise today to explain my vote against 
cloture on the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform legislation.
  As a supporter of campaign finance reform, I have previously outlined 
the standards which any reform legislation MUST meet in order to gain 
my support. In addition, I insist that there be some objectives which 
should be evident in any reform bill. The McCain-Feingold bill, 
unfortunately, falls short of reaching both of these standards, thus I 
voted against cloture.
  First in the ``must'' category is that any reform legislation must be 
consistent with the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United 
States. Mr. President I could not support McCain-Feingold because some 
provisions of the bill would establish prior restraint on political 
speech. Specifically, section 201 of the bill which seeks to redefine 
``express advocacy'' raises serious constitutional questions and would 
in my judgement fall short of the constitutional standard established 
in Buckley Valeo (1976), the landmark case on campaign finance reform.
  Second in the ``must'' category is that the legislation must not 
impede or intrude on the prerogatives of the states and local units of 
government with respect to how they conduct political campaigns. Mr. 
President, there are provisions in the McCain-Feingold legislation that 
will limit the ability of the state and local political party 
committees to conduct legitimate election activity. Moreover, I feel 
that as presently constituted, McCain-Feingold would set in motion a 
process which ultimately would result in even further intrusion of 
state and local government election law.
  Any campaign finance reform legislation must also, in my judgement, 
maintain a proper balance between the first amendment rights of the 
actual candidates and the political parties they represent and the 
rights of those who are not directly in the arena. Unfortunately, 
McCain-Feingold tilts the balance strongly in the direction of special 
interest groups. As these special interest groups grow in dominance, 
they simultaneously diminish the roles of the candidates and political 
parties. This, Mr. President, is not the way our founding fathers 
envisioned that our democratic electoral system would conduct itself. 
Candidates, political parties and interest groups should all be able to 
participate in the electoral system under the first amendment, however 
one entity should not be able to dominate the political speech arena. 
Otherwise, Mr. President we will end up with a system in which the 
candidates themselves are more bystanders than participants and in 
which the various interest groups on all sides of all the issues are 
doing all of the talking.
  Furthermore, any campaign reform legislation we pass must be 
balanced. I believe that McCain-Feingold was not balanced and clearly 
contained provisions that would protect and enhance the ability of the 
Democratic Party to raise funds from its traditional sources, while 
disproportionately limiting the ability of the Republican Party to 
conduct itself.
  Finally Mr. President, to have my support, any new campaign finance 
legislation must address what I find in my state to be the most 
disturbing aspect of the way American federal elections are funded: 
namely, the increasing extent to which the campaigns of candidates for 
the House and Senate are financially supported by people who are not 
even constituents of the candidates themselves. McCain-Feingold does 
not even address this problem. There was no attempt in this bill to 
limit out of state or non-constituent contributions to a candidate.
  As I mentioned previously, I do support reforming the method by which 
our federal campaigns are financed. Any campaign finance reform bill I 
support must be consistent with the Constitution, not impede on local 
and state government prerogatives, affect both parties fairly and 
equally, and address the problem of special interest, out-of-state 
money. Unfortunately, the McCain-Feingold legislation failed to meet 
these tests and, therefore, did not have my support.
  While Congress will continue to work on this issue, I feel it is 
unnecessary to

[[Page S10730]]

wait for legislation before those of us who are concerned take action. 
In fact, during my campaign in 1994, I voluntarily imposed my own 
limits on the flow of PAC and out-of-state dollars to my campaign. 
Instead of simply waiting around for Congress to act, I will continue 
to observe voluntary caps and encourage other Members to act themselves 
in ways they might choose to address concerns they have with our 
system.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in an effort to try to accommodate the 
Senators here, we have about 9 minutes; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would it be agreeable to the Senator from 
Massachusetts and the Senator from Wyoming that they each take 4 
minutes, and I will have the last minute, as I have not spoken in this 
hour? Would that be fair?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is it possible to get an extra 2 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. It is 9 minutes until the vote. I say to my friend 
from Massachusetts, if we quit talking about it and enter into an 
agreement, you will have 4 minutes, Senator Enzi will have 4 minutes, 
and I will have 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has 4 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me speak rather quickly as to where we 
find ourselves. Notwithstanding the comments just heard with respect to 
the desire for campaign finance reform, there is one simple fact that 
the country is about to witness. The U.S. Senate is about to see 
campaign finance reform stay off the calendar and only come back, not 
as a matter of automatic debate on the floor of the Senate, only come 
back if the majority leader decides he wants to bring it back.
  Effectively, we are witnessing 45 Democrat U.S. Senators prepared to 
vote today for McCain-Feingold, for campaign finance reform, and we 
have at least 4 Republican Senators prepared to vote for it today, and 
we are being denied the ability to be able to have that up-or-down vote 
on campaign finance reform. That is the bottom line. That is what is 
happening here.
  The fact is that we have had an awful lot of straws sort of put up as 
the reason for doing this--people hiding behind the first amendment, 
people hiding behind the notion that incumbency is at stake. Incumbents 
get most of the money today. The current system protects incumbents.
  Under McCain-Feingold and under the Supreme Court, both have said you 
can't limit issue advocacy. There is nothing in this bill that 
restrains the capacity of any American to go out and talk about an 
issue. There is something in this bill that tries to say we are going 
to draw a distinction between that which is really advocacy for an 
issue and that which is trying to elect or defeat a candidate.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is here is what this fight is about. 
We have a group of people who believe that their hold on power and 
their ability to be elected is dependent on the money that they spend. 
They are seeking a partisan political advantage in whatever structure 
they try to form as campaign finance reform. Now, that is not new here. 
I have seen that on this side of the aisle, too. My colleagues are 
fairly--and I underscore ``fairly''--concerned about whether or not, if 
they are limited in some regard, people who oppose them--in some 
instances labor--are going to have an unfair advantage. We ought to 
have a fairer playing field.
  But what Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords offered us as we tried to 
negotiate was not a fair playing field. We wound up with labor having 
to have its members give their written consent as to what they would 
allow their dues to do. But a member of the National Rifle Association, 
a stockholder of AT&T whose money also winds up going into political 
purposes, would not be treated the same.
  So, in effect, we will see a failure today because the Republicans 
decided they wanted to try to legislate an unfair advantage to 
themselves. We are simply not going to allow that to happen. It is a 
tragedy for the American people that partisan efforts are going to take 
precedence over what is an overwhelming desire by the American people 
to see their democracy protected and not to have it increasingly become 
a dollar-ocracy or whatever you want to call it. Increasingly, this 
system is broken. Everybody knows it. For the Senate simply to sort of 
fall prisoner to a parliamentary process of partisanship rather than a 
genuine effort to try to come to agreement, I think, does not serve any 
of us well here. I regret that. I regret it for the institution. For 
the 13 years I have been here, we have been trying to deal with 
campaign finance reform. One side or the other is always trying to find 
that advantage. We have shown how you can do it fairly. Everybody in 
the country, I think, has a pretty good definition of that fairness. I 
hope my colleagues will recognize as they go home that their citizens 
and constituents are really fed up and want change.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I rise in favor of campaign reform, but not 
the proposal before us. I resent that we must apparently be for this 
bill before us or we are pictured as being opposed to reform.
  This bill has gone through somewhat of a transformation, but not 
much. Rather than reform the way campaigns are financed, this 
legislation would infringe on the first amendment rights of millions of 
American citizens and place enormous burdens on candidates running for 
office. We must ensure the enforcement of the current law before we 
build a whole new bureaucracy. That is what we are talking about.
  I believe this debate over changes in campaign laws is especially 
timely in light of the recent discovery of the video tapes of the White 
House coffees. It is illegal to campaign, it is illegal to raise money 
on Federal property. They are more suspicious since the White House 
withheld the critical evidence from the investigative committee for 
over 8 months. They just found the tapes? They just found part of the 
tapes--44 out of 150? How hard can tapes be to find? Don't they have a 
procedure for storing tapes? If they are important enough for history 
in the first place, should there not be a mechanism for finding them?
  While it's not clear what took place, it calls out for a serious 
investigation and the appointment of a special prosecutor.
  Now we want to add extra criteria. If we just add them, will Congress 
be the only ones who have to abide by them? Will an acceptable defense 
be that everybody is doing it, even if that is not true? One of the 
lessons I learned in my 18 years in elected office is that you don't 
increase compliance with existing laws by increasing the complexity. We 
haven't talked about truth in advertising. We haven't talked about how 
much money is being spent and a way to disclose and to get accurate and 
complete disclosure from all groups that are involved in the process. 
We are only touching on campaign finance reform, and we are calling it 
the whole ball of wax, the whole answer to everything.
  Mr. President, while the McCain-Feingold legislation claims to clean 
up elections, it does so by placing unconstitutional restrictions on 
citizen's ability to participate in the political process. For the past 
few weeks, we have heard Members of this Senate bemoan the fact that 
various citizen groups have taken out ads criticizing them during their 
elections. Having just run my first statewide campaign last year, I can 
sympathize with my colleagues who have been the object of often pointed 
and critical campaign ads. I've said frequently that campaigns need a 
good truth in advertising law. That's not restriction of free speech. 
That's requiring honest speech. Yes, there are fine lines of spin, but 
we haven't even tried to clean up the blatantly wrong ads. Instead we 
want to restrict the right to even tell the truth. I believe that in a 
free society it is essential that citizens have the right to articulate 
their positions on issues and candidates in the public forum. The first 
amendment to our Constitution was drafted to ensure that future 
generations would have the right to engage in public political 
discourse that

[[Page S10731]]

is vigorous and unfettered. Throughout even the darkest of chapters in 
our Nation's history, our first amendment has provided an essential 
protection against inclinations to tyranny. Our political future relies 
on the protection of free speech.
  The Supreme Court has consistently held that the first amendment 
protects the right of individual citizens and organizations to express 
their views even through issue advocacy and even if its aimed at an 
individual. The Court has consistently maintained that individuals and 
organizations do not fall within the restrictions of the Federal 
election code simply by engaging in this advocacy.
  Issue advocacy includes the right to promote any candidate for office 
and his views as long as the communication does not in express terms 
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate. As 
long as independent communication does not cross the bright line of 
expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, individuals 
and groups are free to spend as much as they want promoting or 
criticizing a candidate and his views. While these holdings may not 
always be welcome to those of us running campaigns, they represent a 
logical outgrowth of the first amendment's historic protection of core 
political speech. We talk about how much money is spent that way for 
advocacy, but we are just guessing. We are jumping to the step of 
precluding that right of free speech talking about how much the cost of 
campaigns have gone up, but we don't even have a mechanism for 
reporting that in any meaningful way. That should be the first step. We 
need quick and complete disclosure of all funds spent in a campaign, 
directly and indirectly. That means hard money and soft. We need to 
know from where and whom it comes and for what it was spent. Obviously 
we need to know how the money got there. We need to know that the laws 
on collecting it apply to everyone. That's a simpler step than what is 
proposed and more constitutional too.
  These unconstitutional restrictions of this bill would increase the 
power of the media elites at the expense of the average American voter. 
Our Founding Fathers drafted the first amendment to protect against 
attempts such as these to prohibit one segment of our society from 
entering into public discourse on issues that greatly affect them.
  I commend the sponsors for eliminating from the most recent version 
of their legislation the provision that forced businesses to give away 
their product in the form of free broadcast time. I also appreciated 
them taking out the complicated funding formulas. Nonetheless, I still 
cannot support legislation that stifles the free speech of the American 
citizens and gives expanded new powers to a Washington bureaucracy. For 
these reasons, I must oppose the revised McCain-Feingold legislation. I 
ask my colleagues to join me in paying trouble to the first amendment 
and opposing the McCain-Feingold legislation.
  I thank the Chair and yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Wyoming for his important 
contribution to this debate. We have 25 speakers in opposition to 
McCain-Feingold, and a growing number of our Members want to speak out 
in opposition to this piece of legislation.
  I think a very encouraging thing happened this morning that I would 
like to report to my colleagues right before the vote.
  I had an opportunity to attend an announcement of a new organization 
called the James Madison Center for Free Speech. What the James Madison 
Center for Free Speech is going to do is handle litigation all across 
the country in cases involving political speech. We have heard it 
announced that the forces of reform who want to shut Americans out of 
the political process and being frustrated in Washington are taking 
their cases out around America. There have been various State laws and 
referenda that have passed--all of them, so far, struck down in the 
Federal courts. But the James Madison Center is going to be there to 
represent litigants all across America who stand up for first amendment 
free speech.
  I think that is an important announcement. The proponents of campaign 
finance reform have said they are not going to go away. The opponents 
are not going to go away. The James Madison Center is going to be there 
every time free speech is threatened anywhere in America.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call 
under rule XXII be waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________