[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 140 (Thursday, October 9, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10732-S10733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, a minority has prevailed for the moment in 
blocking campaign finance reform. They will not prevail forever. 
Sponsors of campaign finance reform knew from the outset that our 
legislation faced long odds. We knew that finding a supermajority of 
Senators to cut off debate would be very difficult. Not impossible, but 
difficult.
  What we had hoped might occur is that as the amending process on the 
bill proceeded, Senators from both sides of the aisle would begin to 
find common ground on this subject, and the basis for a fair bipartisan 
compromise would be discovered. That was not to be the case, however, 
because the rules of this debate were structured to prevent anyone from 
offering any amendment. No vote on any single aspect of campaign 
finance reform was allowed, and that's unfortunate.
  The chief opponent of our bill, the Senator from Kentucky, very 
forthrightly claimed that he would proudly cast a vote against any bill 
that sought to reduce the amount of money that currently soaks our 
Federal election system. I commend him for his candor and having the 
courage of his convictions.
  Mr. President, I wish all opponents of campaign finance reform were 
so forthright. I wish all Members of the Senate could have had the 
opportunity to unambiguously register their support for or opposition 
to campaign finance reform in all its forms so that the American people 
would have a clear public record of where we all stood on the subject. 
I can only assume that the public was denied a clear record because 
some of us are apprehensive about how the public would react to our 
votes. I cannot find any other explanation for the elaborate lengths 
opponents of the bill went to in order to prevent a single vote on any 
amendment to this legislation.
  I do not resent the use of the filibuster to obstruct reform. I 
regret it, but I do not resent it. It is a frequent roadblock to action 
in the Senate, and I and the other sponsors of the bill always 
understood that we must overcome it to prevail. Necessary to our 
efforts to overcome this institutional obstruction, however, is the 
amendment process. We believe that if Senators are obliged to vote yea 
or nay on various aspects of reform, the public's reaction to our votes 
might persuade 60 Senators to vote to limit debate. But as I have 
noted, we were precluded from offering and disposing of amendments.
  As I made clear to everyone before debate on this bill began, if the 
supporters of McCain-Feingold were denied an up-or-down vote on the 
bill or on amendments to the bill, we would exercise our rights as 
Members of the Senate to offer amendments related to reform on 
legislation subsequently considered by the Senate. Now we are 
confronting a parliamentary tactic that is intended to deny us the 
opportunity to offer amendments to the highway funding bill. I don't 
think that it is fair, even if it is sanctioned by Senate rules. Nor do 
I think the tactic will permanently preclude us from offering reform 
amendments to other legislation.
  Mr. President, no Member of this body can be permanently 
disenfranchised from the right to offer amendments. It is a practical 
impossibility. Unanimous consent is required for nearly all the work of 
the Senate, and Members who are denied their right to amend legislation 
are not likely to consent to moving that legislation forward. Every 
Senator knows that their colleagues who intend to offer campaign 
finance reform amendments will eventually succeed in doing so. At some 
point, the support or opposition of Senators will be a matter of public 
record. Therefore, I am at a loss to understand what purpose is served 
by attempting to temporarily prevent us from offering these amendments.
  We cannot be disenfranchised permanently, Mr. President, because to 
do so would disenfranchise the American people. The people have a right 
to know where their elected representatives stand on the issue of 
campaign finance reform so that they may render an informed judgment at 
election time

[[Page S10733]]

about how fairly we represent their concerns.
  The supporters of reform intend to offer amendments related to 
various aspects of reform, and as I have stated previously, I intend to 
offer an amendment banning soft money, the unregulated ocean of money 
which is drowning the integrity of our political system and which 
occasioned so much scandal in the last election. I am looking forward 
to the great debate on the first amendment that supporters of soft 
money will offer in opposition to the ban.

  I know that the Senator from Kentucky will enthusiastically engage in 
that debate, and I again commend him for having the courage of his 
convictions, for his clear willingness to have his opposition to reform 
recorded unambiguously for the people to judge. Will the other Senators 
join him? I don't know. I don't think support for unlimited soft money 
is quite so clear as his opposition to other reform proposals. I think 
we would win a vote banning soft money. I am not certain, but I am 
fairly confident, and I intend to find out.
  We will keep trying until the Senate agrees to provide the people we 
serve with an honest, clear record of our support or opposition to 
campaign finance reform. They will then make a judgment as to whether 
they approve of our position or not.
  Finally, again, Mr. President, I am hopeful that at some point, there 
will be sufficient requests by the American people, including a million 
signatories, 1 million Americans signing a petition asking us to 
address this issue of campaign finance reform. I hope that sooner or 
later that and the better angels of our nature will persuade us that it 
is time to sit down and work out a campaign finance reform which is 
fair to everyone and gives and restores the American people control of 
their Government.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BOND. Without objecting, may I say, we are trying to arrange for 
the expeditious consideration of the VA-HUD report.
  Mr. KERRY. I just ask for 3 minutes or so. I want to respond to 
Senator McCain.
  Mr. BOND. I have no objection.

                          ____________________