Congressional Record, Volume 144 Issue 16 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)

[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 16 (Thursday, February 26, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1037-S1045]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are reaching another stage in the
campaign finance reform debate today. I certainly sympathize with the
Senator from Oklahoma when he is concerned about some ways in which his
bill has been characterized. I have had the experience here on the
floor this week of having the McCain-Feingold bill compared, first, to
a human rights violation and, also, as very similar to the Alien and
Sedition Acts.
So, clearly, sometimes the rhetoric gets a little carried away. But
what is really going on here today in the U.S. Senate just has to make
the American people shake their heads. How can they look at this and
not wonder what is going on? They can see a clear bipartisan majority
in favor of campaign finance reform; and the bipartisan majority isn't
for the majority leader's antilabor bill.
The majority support that has been demonstrated over and over again
this week is for the McCain-Feingold bill. I think people in Wisconsin,
in particular, have to be shaking their heads, because the one thing I
have learned in 15 years of representing the people of Wisconsin is
that they really dislike partisanship.
They understand the need for a two-party system. They like the two-
party system. They understand the fact that you talk as Republicans and
Democrats at election time, because you have to have parties and you
have to have an election, but they really, really do not like it when
you keep talking and acting like the whole issue is Republican versus
Democrat after the election. What they want is for us to work together.
What they like best is when we can come together as Republicans and
Democrats in bipartisan coalitions.
Mr. President, as I have gone to every county in Wisconsin every year
I've been in the Senate and have held town meetings, and when I just
mention the fact that I am working with a Republican, the Senator from
Arizona, before they even know what the topic is, people applaud,
because they crave bipartisan cooperation in this country.
Mr. President, the American people are shaking their heads because
they know this is a very unusual bipartisan coalition. The Senators
involved in this issue know the details of the bill in a way that maybe
many Americans do not know. So they did not just applaud when they
heard the title; they have looked at it very carefully and they have
considered it and shown this week that the majority of the U.S. Senate
wants this change in our campaign finance laws, and they want it now.
So, Mr. President, what we have is a bipartisan majority and a
partisan minority. We have Republicans and Democrats together, at least
52 of them, in favor of the bill and a smaller group from one party
opposing the bill. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan agreement on the
merits of the bill, and we have a partisan desire to kill it.
Mr. President, we have a bipartisan majority of the Senate that
understands that this issue obviously isn't just about union dues. This
is the most absurd proposition. The entire range of things we have seen
about the campaigns--the soft money, the coffees, the foreign
contributions, the labor unions, the independent groups, the
corporations--the majority of this body knows all of these things are
part of the big money problem. The partisan minority says the whole
problem is unions, and not even unions, just how they obtain their
dues.
The fact is, the bill that the majority leader brought forth is
nothing but a poison pill. Now, maybe that was not his intent. You
know, if you give somebody a poison pill by accident, it still kills
them. So, I am not suggesting this was the intent. It is the fact. If
that provision becomes the heart of this bill, it kills the bill. I am
happy to say it is almost irrelevant, because a majority of this body
has made it clear this week that it does not support having that be a
part of the McCain-Feingold bill. That is one thing we achieved this
week.
So, Mr. President, what we have here today is a bipartisan desire, a
passion for reform and for change, and a partisan insistence that we do
absolutely nothing, that we do nothing.
Now, one argument that has been made, Mr. President, is that, even
though there are obviously some Republicans in support of the bill, it
really isn't a bipartisan bill, that somehow, because of the nature of
the Republican cosponsors, it isn't a bipartisan bill. This has been
said over and over again.
It was said when they said we only had two Republicans; then they
said it when we only had three Republicans; and then they said it when
we only had four Republicans--it is not really a bipartisan bill. Now,
with seven Republicans and all the Democrats in unanimity, they still
say this is really not a bipartisan bill.
Well, who are these Republicans? Are they renegades? Are they
coconspirators with the Democratic Party? Are they secret allies of
organized labor? Who are these seven Republicans?
Well, one, the lead author, is the chairman of the Commerce
Committee, somebody who is often mentioned as a Presidential candidate.
Another is the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, who is
also mentioned as a Presidential candidate. There is a Senator from
Pennsylvania from the majority party who supports this, a distinguished
member of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the
Intelligence Committee who supports this bill.
There is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee,
the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, one of the most
distinguished Members of this body. He has indicated, by his votes this
week, that he supports change. The chairman of the Labor Committee
supports this bill. And, finally, two individuals who are not yet
chairmen but who are the two Senators from the leading reform State in
this Nation, the State of Maine, Senator Collins and Senator Snowe,
Republicans, but people who care about this country enough to join
together with the Democrats to try to pass campaign finance reform.
So let me just return to the first name--John McCain. John McCain's
name on this bill alone obviously makes it a bipartisan bill. But, more
importantly, the senior Senator from Arizona knows that, even though
this obviously must cause him partisan heartburn, he always does what
is best for this country. So, he has taken enormous heat on this issue.
This is surely a bipartisan effort and a strong one. Mr. President,
what we have shown this week is that we have a working majority, not
just on paper, but a group that will vote together as a block for
reform. We won vote after vote this week. The majority leader of the
U.S. Senate tried to table our bill once, twice, and three times, and
he lost every time.

How often does the majority leader of the U.S. Senate lose with 55
Members in his caucus? I do not think we have had this few Democrats in
decades in this body. How does the majority leader not win on any of
those votes unless there is a clear bipartisan majority in favor of
change? So my point, Mr. President, is we are winning and the
opposition is losing. To be sure, it is a long, hard road. The senior
Senator from Arizona has warned me about that time and again.

[[Page S1038]]

But we will look for every opportunity today on these votes,
tomorrow, next week, and all the rest of this session, to get the
additional support that we need to pass this bill. Because in the end
Mr. President, can Members of the Senate go back home and tell the
voters, ``We had a terrible problem in Washington. There was
corruption. There was wrongdoing. There was the terrible abuse of big
money. And we decided to do absolutely nothing about it''? That is what
the partisan minority has decided is the end of the story.
Well, when people vote next year, they will not be shaking their
heads; they will be casting their ballots. And they will now know who
thought it is time to return the power to the people back home and who
decided to leave it all here in Washington with the Washington
gatekeepers. That is what is at stake today. And that is what is at
stake on these cloture votes.
So, Mr. President, with that, I will yield--could I ask how much time
remains for myself?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 19 minutes remaining.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished
Senator from North Dakota.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Dakota.
Mr. CONRAD. Thank you, Mr. President.
(The remarks of Mr. Conrad pertaining to the introduction of S. 1681
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')
Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is finally
discussing and debating the issue of campaign finance reform. I commend
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their diligent work and for
what has been a tireless effort on their behalf in forging a bipartisan
compromised legislation. I rise today not only to advocate my strong
support of the McCain-Feingold bill but to urge my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to pass this campaign finance reform proposal
that is so desperately needed to renew the trust in the political
process and our democratic institutions. At the same time, I know the
Senate leadership and the majority of those on the other side of the
aisle have decided there will be no campaign finance reform of any
kind. And so, they have killed a reasonable attempt at urgently needed
reform; an attempt to close greatly exploited loopholes.
Along with the support of all 45 Democrats and the seven Republicans
who support the effort of reform, the Senate Democratic Leader, Senator
Daschle, pressed hard to bring this important issue back to the Senate
floor for a vote. Despite the Republican leaders who oppose campaign
finance reform and who have for so many years tried vigorously to
thwart real reform, this legislation has strong support, including the
backing of President Clinton.
Last year when the Senate turned to campaign reform legislation, the
Majority Leader offered an amendment to block campaign finance reform
and followed through with a procedural motion to deadlock the Senate.
It was an effort to kill campaign finance reform without debate and
without a vote. However, later that year, the Majority and Minority
Leaders struck a unanimous consent agreement that would afford us with
the opportunity to once again debate and consider McCain-Feingold and
other issues related to reform legislation, or so we thought.
Mr. President, the Senate leadership this week has introduced the
same poison pill legislation that was introduced last year as an
amendment. Its sole purpose is to kill the cause of campaign finance
reform. Once again, this is a clear indication that from the other side
of the aisle that Republicans are not serious about reforming our
campaign laws.
Some of my colleagues may argue that campaign finance reform is not
an important issue to the American voter; I expect we will hear this
refrain from a number of my colleagues. But, is that really the case?
Or are they just hoping and trying to make us believe that is the case?
Because the polls tell us differently?
The polls show Americans do care about the way their political system
works. A full 83% of respondents to an October 1997 ABC News/Washington
Post poll believed that campaign finance reform should be a goal for
lawmakers. In a June NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 62% of those
questioned supported an overall reform package that called for reducing
contributions from political action committees, establishing spending
limits, and eliminating large contributions to political parties.
The truth of the matter is campaign finance reform is a very
important issue and the public does want reform. Yet, the polls also
tell us that many American voters have become deeply cynical about
whether their elected representatives will have the courage to check
their own self interest and summon the courage to enact real campaign
finance reform. In the ABC/Washington Post poll, when respondents were
asked whether reform will occur, 59% answered ``no.'' This poll tells
us that a large majority of Americans believe, once again, that
politicians' self-interest will trump the public will.
There is no reason to believe that the public's opinion is going to
change. And why should it? After watching the enormous amount of money
spent on the 1996 elections, the hearings held over the 1996 fund-
raising controversy, and the aborted effort to pass campaign finance
reform last year, it is likely that the public's cynicism will only
continue to grow.
Campaign finance reform is an issue that deserves our full
consideration. It is our underlying responsibility to keep our own
house in order, to begin to restore the integrity of the campaign
system and to renew our faith in our democracy. If we miss this
opportunity, and we do not heed the call to stem the ever-rising tide
of money in American politics, then the confidence of the American
public and the very fabric of our political system will only continue
to erode.
Mr. President, the time to begin the renewal is now, or last year
when we were stopped. It is past time to restore the public trust and
to pass campaign finance reform legislation. We could start by adopting
the McCain-Feingold compromise bill. The revised McCain-Feingold
legislation is a very modest but important proposal which was modified
to attract Republican support. McCain-Feingold no longer limits PAC
money. It does not establish spending limits. It does not impose free
tv time for candidates and it does not provide postage discounts for
candidates. The McCain-Feingold amendment that we are discussing today
has been stripped down to the bare minimum of what needs most to be
changed to stop the downward spiral of our political system.
The McCain-Feingold proposal addresses two important issues that
could begin to turn our campaign system around. The legislation
proposes to ban soft money contributions to our national political
parties and to curb the use of attack advertisements hidden behind so-
called ``issue advocacy'' campaigns.

Soft Money

We all know that political parties have raised enormous amounts of
money through soft contributions. In the 1996 election cycle, the two
major parties alone raised $263.5 million--almost three times the
amount raised in the 1992 election cycle. And unless we act now to stop
soft money from careening out of control, these contributions will only
climb higher and higher. There is simply no way to achieve real
campaign finance reform without ending the soft money machine that has
encouraged the exorbitant contributions that we have seen from
corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals. The McCain-Feingold
plan would put an end to the outrageous abuses of the soft money
system.
The Federal Elections Commission recently proposed a ruling to
address the issue of ``soft money.'' While I prefer that Congress take
the lead and pass McCain-Feingold, if we fail to do this then I will be
prepared to embrace the FEC's effort to ban soft money and hope that
they follow through. Sadly, that is not their track record.

Issue-ads

Mr. President, the recent explosion in the so-called ``independent
expenditure or issue ads'' also causes me great concern. Independent
expenditure ads are one of the very reasons the campaign system is out
of control. During the last election cycle, a large number of
television ads that saturated the media weeks before the elections were

[[Page S1039]]

attack ads on candidates, challengers and incumbents. No one is
accountable for sponsoring the ad. There is no disclosure requirement
which is what I find most frustrating. We all know that these ads are
really intended to defeat a candidate and are often coordinated with
the opposition campaign. Simply put, these ads are not genuinely
independent nor are they strictly concerned with issue advocacy.
The ``issue advocacy'' provision in McCain-Feingold is designed to
provide a clear distinction between expenditures for communications
used to advocate candidates and those used to advocate issues. The bill
establishes a bright line test 60 days out from an election. Any
independent expenditure that falls within that 60-day window could not
use a candidate's name. If a federal candidate's name is mentioned in
any television or radio communication within 60 days of an election,
for example, then this candidate-related expenditure will be subject to
federal election law and must be disclosed and financed with so-called
``hard dollars.''
The Supreme Court has ruled that only communications that contain
``express advocacy'' of candidates are subject to federal disclosure
requirements and restrictions. If parties and groups want to run
``issue ads'' to promote an issue--they can, and they will not be
subject to federal election law so long as a candidate's name is not
mentioned in the ad within that 60-day period.
While I am a cosponsor and a strong supporter of the McCain-Feingold
legislation, I wish it included other important reforms. It does not
include what I believe is one of the most critical components of reform
which is overall spending limits. I have consistently supported
legislation to limit the amount candidates can spend and have been a
cosponsor since coming to the Senate of a proposal to limit spending
offered by my good friend Senator Hollings. I believe this should be
included in any effort to reform our campaign laws.
Last year, my distinguished colleague, the senior Senator from
Arkansas, announced on the floor of the Senate that he too would now
support Senator Hollings's constitutional amendment to limit campaign
spending despite his reservations about amending the Constitution. In
debating this issue in 1997, Senator Bumpers said:

I will do almost anything to change the way we finance
campaigns in this country, because I am absolutely convinced
that this system is totally destructive to our democracy.

I could not agree more with my colleague. I continue to believe that
we must ultimately address the issue of spending limits.
Mr. President, we have been provided a second opportunity to vote for
campaign finance reform this Congress. I urge my colleagues to do what
is right for the future of our campaign system and support the McCain-
Feingold legislation. Nothing less will begin to restore the American
public's waning confidence in its government.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, some years ago this body was graced by the
presence of an extraordinary woman from the State of Maine. Senator
Margaret Chase Smith came to be known by her trademark red rose, an apt
symbol for a woman who epitomized the bipartisan spirit that leads to
good legislation for our constituents and the country.
I supported the amendment offered by the current Senior Senator from
Maine [Ms. Snowe], which the Senate passed last night and added to the
McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform proposal, because, like much of
the bipartisan work of her distinguished predecessor, Margaret Chase
Smith, this amendment--if the Senate ever is allowed to vote on it and,
as I am confident it will, add it to the campaign finance reform
legislation the majority of Senators have demonstrated they want to
pass--can help to advance the cause of genuine campaign finance reform.
As I said on Tuesday, the McCain-Feingold legislation is by no means
a perfect bill. But the original version of that bill moved us
significantly in the right direction toward reforming our campaign
finance laws.
But among the many obstacles, procedural and otherwise, which are
standing in its way is a cynical bill, the Lott-McConnell bill, the so-
called, misnamed ``Paycheck Protection'' legislation, which is offered
to us under the guise of campaign reform. Mr. President, it is no such
thing. Make no mistake--the Lott-McConnell bill is not reform. It is a
devious device designed to divide the supporters of real reform in
order to defeat McCain-Feingold.
But the Lott-McConnell bill is not merely a poison pill, presented in
a cynical effort to destroy any chance for reform. It is also bad
legislation.
Let me explain why. First, McCain-Feingold already codifies the Beck
decision; it requires unions to notify non-members of the right to a
reduction in fees if they object to the use of those fees for campaign
purposes. Lott-McConnell, instead, covers only union members. It
constitutes an unacceptable intrusion into the right of free
association of union members which is guaranteed by the same First
Amendment its proponents profess to care so much about. It also is
grossly, transparently discriminatory, singling out only unions,
because the authors of this bill have concluded that unions more often
than not support their opponents, or the opponents of other candidates
from their party.
Like any members of voluntary organizations, those working men and
women who choose to join and receive the privileges of union
membership, such as voting for officers, running for office and
choosing the rules that guide the union, cannot pick and choose which
union expenses they want to fund. The union makes those decisions
according to its organizational procedures. Those who like what the
union does can choose to affiliate. Anyone who does not like what the
union does--in any respect, be it campaign involvement or otherwise--
can choose not to affiliate.
Just imagine the outcries from the National Rifle Association, or
from thousands of other organizations from one end of the philosophical
spectrum to the other, if they had to seek advance written approval
from their members each time they sought to take a position on an issue
or broadcast their views.
The Chamber of Commerce does not let a member cut its dues by the
amount spent lobbying against air pollution regulations if the member
happens to disagree with that position. The NFIB did not provide such
an option to its small business members when, although many of them
understood the need for the long-overdue minimum wage increase we
recently adopted, the organization spent its funds to fight the
legislation to increase the minimum wage. It is impossible to run any
organization that way--and the Senators from Kentucky and Mississippi
both know that.

Although this totally one-sided, anti-union provision does nothing to
curtail the freedom of giant corporations to play fast and loose with
our current campaign finance system, this unimaginative recycling of a
tired idea still has the potential to divide us. And that is why I
supported, and urged my colleagues to support, the Snowe Amendment, and
why I oppose and will vote against cloture on the Lott-McConnell
proposal.
I commend Senators Snowe, Jeffords and Chafee for their courage and
for their serious effort to keep hope for real campaign finance reform
alive. In the context of McCain-Feingold, it deserves our support.
Their amendment, offered to replace the Lott-McConnell proposal, would,
in essence, prevent both labor unions and for-profit corporations from
using their treasury funds to run any broadcast ads which mention
candidates within 30 days of a primary and within 60 days of a general
election. The Snowe-Jeffords-Chafee amendment thereby places
essentially the same limits on union and corporate spending as S. 25,
the McCain-Feingold bill--but it takes the added step of specifically
naming unions and corporations as the target of those limits.
It is important to note that the Snowe amendment would not restrict
unions or corporate PACs from using ``hard money''--that is, funds
regulated by federal campaign finance laws--to pay for such ads, but
these PACs would be subject to all the reporting and contribution
limits applying to all other PACs.
The ads which are the targets of this legislation are ads paid for
with union and corporate soft money, and which clearly identify
candidates and are

[[Page S1040]]

aired close to the election, despite the phony claim that they are
``issue ads.'' They are not now subject to federal election laws and
their greatly expanded use was a major new development in the 1996
elections. The Annenberg Center for Public Policy estimates that all
such soft money ads totaled at least $135 to $150 million. The
political parties spent about $78 million of this amount for such soft
money ads in the 1996 cycle. The AFL-CIO spent about $25 million. Big
business groups, including the Coalition, the Coalition for Change, the
Nuclear Energy Institute, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others,
spent nearly $10 million dollars. If we were simply to ban soft money
contributions to the parties, the soft money expenditures made by Labor
and corporations would increase exponentially.
The Snowe Amendment also makes it unlawful for corporations or unions
to launder their treasury funds by contributing to the costs of such
ads produced by outside groups, including the so-called non-profits
which took a much more active, and largely negative, role in the last
election.
Finally, and very importantly, the amendment addresses all other
radio or TV ads paid for by soft money that mention candidates during
the period 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general
election. It will require anyone making or contracting to run TV or
radio ads during those periods to disclose to the FEC all contributions
in excess of $500 which are used to pay for producing or airing those
ads if they name candidates, once any such person or group has spent
$10,000 or more on such advertisements.
In considering what this amendment can achieve, we should remember
that the McCain-Feingold substitute itself, with its soft money ban,
would prohibit the national party ads for which payment is made with
soft money (that is, contributions not subject to regulation under the
federal campaign laws) that attack candidates. The recent special
election to replace the retiring Congresswoman from the 13th District
of New York featured $800,000 of such ads paid for by the Republican
Party--and all of them were broadcast in the last ten days of that
election.
The greatest virtue of the Snowe-Jeffords-Chafee Amendment is that it
is a good faith effort to address this concern squarely but fairly.
Like the McCain-Feingold legislation it amends, it is not perfect. But
it enables the advocates of real campaign reform to defeat the grossly
unfair Lott-McConnell legislation, assuming the Republican leadership
ever permits it to proceed that far legislatively, and that, in turn,
keeps real campaign finance reform legislation alive.
I commend Senators Snowe, Jeffords and Chafee for their serious
effort.
Mr. President, we all know that the parliamentary machinations and
filibustering tactics of the Republican leadership that opposes real
campaign reform may succeed in preventing us from passing any
legislation containing this provision. But with this amendment, there
remains a possibility of success.
On Tuesday, the motion to table McCain-Feingold failed. Last night,
having been modified by Snowe-Jeffords-Chafee, another effort to table
it failed again. Now it is beyond dispute that there is a majority for
genuine reform in this body.
I hope the Republican leadership will acknowledge the bipartisan
support for McCain-Feingold, as amended by Snowe-Jeffords-Chafee, and
will permit this body to act decisively on the single most important
issue facing the Congress this year.
Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, I rise to express my dismay that, just
like last fall, the Republican leadership is preventing the Senate from
conducting a broad, thoughtful debate on the issue of campaign finance
reform.
Mr. President, the controversy surrounding our system of elections is
not a new phenomenon. I can recall the 100th Congress, during which
then-Majority Leader Byrd held a total of seven cloture votes in order
to effect reform in this critical area. Sadly, we were not able to
command a filibuster-proof majority then and this situation has not
improved under the current leadership.
It is my view that in order for our nation as a whole to be strong,
our public and private institutions must be strong--our schools, our
churches, and our governmental institutions must be vital instruments
of democratic participation, and must instill in the people a
confidence in and enthusiasm for our way of life. I am very concerned
that, to the contrary, the people are growing increasingly cynical
about public life. They are staying away from the polling place in
increasingly large numbers, diminishing the level of political debate
and the health of our public institutions. This is in large part due to
their perception that money, rather than the popular will, drives
electoral outcomes. Under these circumstances, meaningful campaign
finance reform becomes vital to the health of our system of government
and our way of life.
Mr. President, a majority in the Senate--all Democrats, including
myself, and a few courageous Republicans--agree with the American
public that our system of campaign financing needs repair. Regrettably,
however, an effective debate in the Senate on what should be done is
impossible, so long as the Republican leadership insist on using
parliamentary tactics to prevent Senators from offering and debating
amendments that will help us clarify the nature and gravity of the
campaign finance problem. These technical ploys are not simply designed
to determine the outcome of the campaign finance debate--they are
designed to preclude debate altogether, and to deny those advocates of
campaign finance reform even the opportunity to garner a filibuster-
proof majority in favor of reform.
Mr. President, these kinds of maneuvers formed the Republican
strategy last fall, when campaign finance reform legislation was
successfully blocked, and here they are again. Such measures violate
the Senate's reputation for thoughtfulness and deliberation, in which
it rightly takes such pride. If the Republican leadership has the votes
to defeat important and necessary campaign finance reform, so be it--I
would not agree with this outcome, but it would at least comport with
the way the Senate should conduct its business. To preclude altogether
the consideration of amendments and a full and fair debate on the issue
is something altogether different, and is inconsistent with the
Nation's needs and desires.
Therefore, Mr. President, I urge the majority leader and his allies
to recognize that a system of elections that commands the trust of the
American people is essential to the proper functioning of our
democratic system, and, at the very least, to allow the Senate to
conduct a full, fair debate on whether our current system needs reform.
No one can guarantee that the Senate will reach a result of which it
can be proud, but let us at least observe a process that will make the
American people confident that this issue has received thorough review
by their representatives in government. Anything less would simply add
to the public cynicism that already exists toward government, and that
brings us to this point today.
Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to praise my colleagues on both
sides of the aisle who have fought long and hard to get campaign
finance reform legislation on the Senate floor. Like them, I have
fought hard for progressive campaign finance reform legislation since I
have been in the Senate.
Regrettably, opponents of campaign finance reform are once again
using parliamentary tactics to try to block passage of the McCain-
Feingold campaign reform legislation. This is unfortunate because a
majority of the Senate favors the McCain-Feingold proposal.
Because of the steadily growing amount of money spent on political
campaigns and its adverse impact on public attitudes and governing,
achieving the goals of McCain-Feingold is of paramount importance.
McCain-Feingold would ban ``soft money,'' the very large, unregulated
contributions that individuals, corporations and labor unions have been
making in ever greater amounts to political parties. Under existing
election laws, these contributions are permitted to promote general
political party activities, such as voter registration, voter education
and efforts to encourage voters to turn out on election day.
However over the past several years, these large soft money
contributions

[[Page S1041]]

have become a means of donors and parties circumventing limits on
campaign contributions to individual candidates. The two national
political parties and state parties have used these funds to purchase
TV ads that specifically mention candidate names and essentially amount
to advertising by political parties or groups on behalf of individual
candidates with money that the candidates cannot use themselves for
this purpose. Advocacy ads of this nature, fueled by large and
undisclosed contributions, are a means of circumventing campaign
finance restrictions on the size of contributions to individual
candidates.
I support limits on very large campaign contributions to candidates,
in order to prevent undue influence by special interests on those who
govern. The McCain-Feingold bill would uphold existing limits by
banning soft money and requiring that independent expenditures for so-
called issue advocacy advertisements by political parties or advocacy
groups deal exclusively with issues, rather than being designed to
persuade the public about a particular candidate. McCain-Feingold re-
defines ``express advocacy'' as any broadcast television or radio
communication that mentions the name of a Federal candidate within 60
days of an election. Parties and groups that meet the new guidelines
would be required to finance their ads in accordance with Federal
election laws.
This reform does not stifle free speech. It just closes a loophole
that has developed in our election laws which permits unlimited, soft
money expenditures to be made to buy advertisements for or against
specific candidates. The bill does not in any way prevent groups or
parties from publishing scorecards or voter guides.
Mr. President, I am and have always been a staunch advocate of free
speech and very protective of First Amendment rights. I agree with
legal scholars that the McCain-Feingold bill does not restrict free
speech, but is important for reducing the influence of big, special
interest money in our campaigns and political system. The amount of
money now flowing through our electoral system is enormous and breeds a
deep cynicism in the public. We need to break the choke of special
interest money on the nation's Capitol and restore America's faith in
our election system.
The McCain-Feingold bill will help cleanup American politics. It will
ban unlimited, unregulated soft money that is compromising our
electoral system. It will also make other improvements in our election
system. For example it will begin to regulate shell organizations that
exist to circumvent existing campaign laws. Many of these front
organizations claim that they are independent but they are not. They
are simply tools of the political parties and special interests and are
primarily engaged in electioneering.

In 1997, political parties raised $67 million dollars in soft money--
more soft money than ever before raised in a non-election year and more
than double what was raised in 1993. The largest single soft money
check written in the last half of 1997 was for $250,000 to the
Republican National Committee. And who wrote this check? Phillip
Morris.
Does anyone in the Senate believe that allowing tobacco companies to
write unlimited checks to political parties is a good idea? Especially
at a time when Congress is considering comprehensive tobacco
legislation?
Congress is now considering legislation that could mean that the
tobacco companies would have to forgo billions of dollars of profits.
Yet while we debate possible special legal protections for this outlaw
industry, our campaign finance system allows them to write unlimited
checks to our political parties. This is wrong.
Mr. President, last year, the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
held hearing after hearing about the problems associated with soft
money. We all witnessed the disturbing testimony and all of the abuses
that were prevalent in both parties during the 1996 election.
Now we have a chance to do something about soft money. Unfortunately,
some of the same Senators who were highlighting the problems associated
with soft money last year in Committee hearings, are now the ones
filibustering the McCain-Feingold bill that will get rid of soft money.
This is tragically ironic.
We must continue the fight to clean up our political system. The
American people believe that our political system is corrupt and we
need to clean it up.
Mr. President, I urge the Republican leadership to let us have a full
debate on campaign finance reform. Let us vote on McCain-Feingold and
the Senate will pass it and the President will sign it.
So, I urge my colleagues to reject these parliamentary tactics to
kill the McCain-Feingold bill and allow it to become law.
I yield the floor.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today to once again make the case
for comprehensive campaign finance reform.
Today, the Senate has a great opportunity. The McCain-Feingold
legislation is a step in the direction of campaign finance reform. Make
no mistake, despite what anyone here tells you today, the American
campaign finance system is broken. And the American people know it.
Spending in all levels of federal campaigns--from Congress to the
Senate all the way to the White House--increased from 1992 to 1996 by
over $700 million. With all that money, people should have known the
issues better, and had a clear sense of the candidates. They should
have received a comprehensive and well funded message why their
involvement in the political process was crucial. All that money helped
increase voter participation, right?
Wrong. Spending increased by $700 million and fewer people voted.
Down from 55 percent in 1992 to 48 percent in 1996. Less than half of
the American populace voted and some in Congress want to say the system
is fine, everything is okay.
Mr. President, the American campaign finance system is not okay. Over
and over Americans tell pollsters, elected officials, and their
neighbors that the system needs major repair. People are becoming more
and more cynical about government. People tell me they think that
Congress cares more about ``fat cat special interests in Washington''
than the concerns of middle class families like theirs. Or they tell me
they think the political system is corrupt.
I have simple tests on which to base my support of versions of
campaign finance reform. First, it must be strong enough to encourage
the majority if not all candidates for federal office to participate.
Second, it must contain the spiraling cost of campaign spending in
this country. Finally, and most importantly, it must control the
increasing flow of undisclosed and unreported ``soft-money'' that is
polluting our electoral system.
McCain-Feingold is not perfect. I have a long track record of voting
for bills that go further. I have voted for bills that took a closer
look at PACS, increased FEC enforcement capabilities, and regulated
both hard and soft money. But McCain-Feingold is a start.
I support this legislation because I believe it represents the right
kind of change. While not a perfect solution, it will help put our
political process back where it belongs: with the people. And it will
take power away from the wealthy special interests that all too often
call the shots in our political system.

WHAT'S RIGHT WITH THE BILL

While I must admit this bill is not perfect, it will take several
crucial actions to reign in campaign spending. First, this is the first
bi-partisan approach to campaign finance reform in more than a decade.
Second, the bill establishes a system that does not rely on taxpayer
funds to work effectively.
The McCain-Feingold substitute would prohibit all soft money
contributions to the national political parties from corporations,
labor unions, and wealthy individuals.
The bill offers real, workable enforcement and accountability
standards. Like lowering the reporting threshold for campaign
contributions from $200 to $50. It increases penalties for knowing and
willful violations of FEC law. And the bill requires political
advertisements to carry a disclaimer, identifying who is responsible
for the content of the campaign ad.
Let me spend a moment discussing the Paycheck Protection Act. Mr.
President, I oppose cloture on this bill

[[Page S1042]]

today because it simply doesn't go far enough. Instead of
comprehensively reforming campaign finance laws, it does very little.
It doesn't deal with soft money, or PACS, or the costs of campaigns.
Nor does it help to identify negative, attack ads that do nothing for
the process except to drag it down.
Instead, the majority alternative attempts to regulate only union
contributions, a clear case of political payback. I believe we should
look at union contributions, Mr. President, if we also look at
corporations, non-profits, and independent expenditures. But just
targeting one piece to the puzzle won't solve the problem. That's why I
will vote to oppose this measure.
To close, Mr. President, America needs and wants campaign finance
reform. The Senate should pass comprehensive legislation right now.
Let's be clear of our goal today: we must ensure that political
campaigns are a contest of ideas, not a contest of money. We need to
return elections to the citizens of states like Montana and allow them
to make their own decisions, rather than letting rich Washington DC
groups run attack campaigns designed to do nothing but drag down a
candidate.
I remain committed to this cause and will do everything in my power
to ensure that the Congress passes meaningful Campaign Finance Reform,
this year.
Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I have stated before that I believe there are
many things Congress should do to reform the way campaigns for federal
office are financed.
Last year's hearings by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee,
chaired by Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson, confirmed that the first
thing is to ensure enforcement of existing laws. The Committee
investigated what appear to be an orchestrated campaign in the last
Presidential election to evade restrictions on foreign contributions,
and an apparent effort by Communist China to illegally influence our
electoral process. It is already illegal to ``launder'' contributions
and accept campaign contributions from foreign sources. The first step
Congress should take, therefore, is to ensure that current campaign
finance laws are vigorously enforced.
But we can--and should--do more. I believe any reform of our
electoral process should be based on some key principles. Specifically,
our laws should: be clear, simple, and enforceable; maximize disclosure
of who contributed what to whom; place public interest over special
interest; ensure voluntary participation for all; and most importantly,
protect our constitutional right to free speech--unregulated by the
government. Politicians must never be able to define the times, methods
or means by which their constituents can criticize them.
Specifically, I support the following campaign finance reforms in the
McCain-Feingold bill: requiring more timely and detailed disclosure of
campaign funding and spending; toughening the penalties for violations
of campaign law; tightening the restrictions on fundraising on federal
property; strengthening the restriction on foreign money; prohibiting
campaign contributions from minors (which often mask attempts at
``double donations'' by adults); and, curbing the advantages of
incumbents by prohibiting mass mailings at taxpayer expense during an
election year.
Additionally, I support several reforms not included in the bill,
such as: requiring candidates to raise a majority of their campaign
contributions from within their state, ensuring local support over
national special interests; insisting that all political activities be
funded with voluntary contributions and not coerced through mandatory
union dues.
The two primary reasons I have not supported the current version of
McCain-Feingold are (1) its failure to ensure that all political
contributions are voluntary, and (2) its provisions unconstitutionally
limiting free speech.
Concerning free speech, the McCain-Feingold bill in the view of many
constitutional experts would effectively prohibit so-called ``issue-
ads'' that mention a candidate's name within 60 days of a federal
election. The bill would force groups that now engage in issue advocacy
such as non-profit entities organized under 501(c)(3) and (c)(4) of the
IRS Code to create new institutional entities--PACs--to be able to
``legally'' speak within 60 days before an election. Separate
accounting procedures, new legal costs, and separate administrative
processes would be imposed on these non-profit groups, merely so that
their members could preserve their First Amendment rights to comment on
a candidate's record. I believe this violates free speech guaranteed by
the First Amendment. Elected politicians should not be given the right
to regulate or forbid criticism by constituents during a campaign.
While there was an attempt to modify certain provisions of the
McCain-Feingold ``speech specifications'' during the debate on campaign
finance reform, the proposed compromise still placed unconstitutional
restrictions on free speech about politicians by allowing congressional
control over the timing and funding sources of communications merely
because they contained the name of a member of Congress. In short, the
compromise was not truly a ``compromise'' but rather a constitutional
infirmity infringing on free speech about politicians.
While I believe McCain-Feingold is motivated by the best of
intentions, and I have commended my colleague John McCain for his
effective leadership on this difficult issue, I cannot support
legislation that in my view does not protect our constitutional rights
nor guarantee voluntary participation in the political process for all.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New
Jersey.
Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding.
Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, the debate before the Senate is about
campaign finance reform but, indeed, it is really about something much
more fundamental. It is about the credibility of the U.S. Government.
It may even be about the long-term stability of our system of
government.
The United States will enter the 21st century as the only industrial
democracy in the world where only a minority of the people of our
country choose our government. In the Presidential elections of last
year, only 49 percent of eligible Americans participated in choosing
our government. It is a record of shame. That shame does not belong
only to those who do not participate.
Upon leaving the Continental Congress, the Founding Fathers were
asked, what form of government have you chosen? It was replied, ``A
democracy--if you can keep it.'' This legislation is about campaign
finance reform. But much more fundamentally it is about a democracy--if
you can keep it.
For more than 20 years we have tried to evade the central truth of
this problem. We told ourselves that people didn't vote because it
wasn't convenient, so we gave them time off from work; that it wasn't
possible to go and register in person, so we passed motor-voter. We
have done everything we can think of to address a new excuse of why
people do not participate in the process. The truth is those 51 percent
of Americans who do not vote are participating in the process. By not
voting they are speaking volumes about their belief and their
confidence in this system of government.
Central to this eroding of confidence in our 200-year political
system is money and people's perception of what it buys and how it
undermines our system of government. I participated in the 1996
elections as a U.S. Senate candidate. The record of those elections can
be a source of pride to no one. Congressional candidates raised $765
million, culminating a 700 percent increase in campaign spending since
1977. We are not the first Congress or the first generation that
recognized there was a problem of confidence in governing America.
Those before us, in 1974, after Watergate, passed comprehensive and
meaningful reform. But like that generation, in this Congress it is
time to recognize that the governing laws are not working. The 1974
reforms are being observed in the exception. A series of Federal court
decisions, changes in technology, changes in the political culture,
have left them meaningless. I think, indeed, the 1974 reforms did not
envision, therefore did not even address, the issue of soft money which
is now so prevalent and even governing the system.
This Senate has not been blind to the problem. We have not been
without our

[[Page S1043]]

advocates, like Senator Feingold, who sought to change the system. In
the last decade, this Senate has voted on 116 occasions for campaign
finance reform, 321 different bills, all of which have left the system
fundamentally unchanged.
What is it now that brings this opposition by the Republican
majority? What is it that would lead potentially a majority of this
Senate to participate in a filibuster on a bill which fundamentally
prohibits foreign money, enhances prompt disclosure of contributions,
helps the FEC in enforcing the law, and banning the soft money which
for most of the last year attracted the attention of the country and
the focus of the Governmental Affairs Committee on which I serve as an
abuse of the system? Which of these provisions so disturbs Members that
they would stop this reform legislation? Or is it simply that they like
to discuss the problems but fear that any change to the current system
would rearrange control of this institution?
The irony of the opposition is that the principal problem of the
reform legislation is not that it does these simple and self-obvious
changes but that it does not go far enough. Indeed, if given the
opportunity, as the Senator from North Dakota, I would like to offer
amendments to take this process further, because the principal change
in the political culture since 1974, and obviously in the last
election, has been the use of unregulated issue advertising by third
party advertisers. We no longer have contests between candidates or
Democrats and Republicans, but unregulated, third party institutions,
where no one knows the source of the money or even who they are, that
sometimes drown out the candidates, change the agenda of people and
political parties. This legislation doesn't deal with that issue, and
it should. It doesn't go far enough.
So in my amendment I go further with these tax-free organizations in
making them choose. If you want to be tax free, you will not
participate in electioneering; if you do want to participate in
electioneering and change your status, you will disclosure your
contributors. We did not do that here.
Finally, the Senator from North Dakota indicated the principal reform
that is required is reducing the cost of television times. The public
airwaves, licensed by this Government, owned by the people of the
United States, are being sold for millions of dollars and are
essentially driving the cost of these campaigns. Mr. President, 82
percent of the election in New Jersey was raising money for television
advertising. The average across the country is 70 percent. Until we
force the television networks to reduce the cost of the public
airwaves, we will never stop the upward spiral of these campaigns.

So I rise to endorse the efforts of the Senator from Wisconsin to
urge the Congress to allow its consideration, to allow a majority of 52
Senators in this institution to work their will, to do the work that
every Senator knows must be done--not simply to reforming the financing
of campaigns, but much more importantly, much more fundamentally, to
make this part of the effort, indeed, the foundation, of restoring
confidence in this system.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. McCONNELL. We come to the end of the most recent round of debate
on whether to put the Government in charge of political speech of
individuals, candidates, and parties. I think it is important to talk a
little bit about the philosophy that divides us on this issue.
My good friends on the other side of the aisle look at America as a
seething caldron of people who are trying to make us do bad things. We,
on the other hand, take the approach to this that James Madison did.
James Madison, the author of the first amendment, Mr. President,
understood that America would, in fact, be a cauldron, a cauldron of
special interests, but special interests in Madison's views, or
factions, as he put it, would be people who would be guaranteed a right
to have some influence; that it was totally American--expected,
anticipated and necessary--in a democracy to allow people to have
influence.
After all, who are we trying to wall ourselves off from, Mr.
President? People who want to contribute to our campaigns, limit and
disclose amounts of their hard-earned money because they believe in
what we are doing? What could conceivably be wrong with that? In fact,
it is as American as apple pie. Not only is it the right thing for our
people, it is the constitutionally protected thing for our country.
The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear, abundantly clear that
unless you have the ability to amplify your voice in a country of 260
to 270 million people, you don't have much speech. Dan Rather has a lot
of speech, Tom Brokaw has a lot of speech, the editorial page of the
Washington Post has a lot of speech, but your average American citizen,
unless that person can amplify his voice, doesn't have much speech. So
the Court said spending is speech and the first amendment applies to
individuals, groups, candidates and parties, as well as applying to the
press. A stunning thing for the press to observe, that we have free
speech rights as well. They don't like it. They would like to have more
power, not less. They would like to control our campaigns, control the
discourse in the course of the campaign that goes on, and control the
outcome with their editorial endorsement. But the first amendment
doesn't allow them to control the political process. It also doesn't
allow the Government, through some statute we passed here, to be put in
charge of regulating either the quality or the quantity of political
speech.
The great conservative Thurgood Marshall summed it up in the Buckley
case: ``The one thing we all agree on is that spending is speech.''
The Court made the point that if you say somebody is free to speak
but then say they can only speak so much, they are not very free to
speak. They said it would be about like saying you are free to travel,
but you can only spend $100. How free are you?
I wonder how our friends at the Washington Post and New York Times
would feel if we said: You are free to say anything you want, but your
circulation is now limited to 2,500 or 10,000. They would say: You are
interfering with our speech because we can't amplify our speech.
Of course, they would be correct. I say that somewhat tongue in
cheek, but the principle is the same whether it's the press or an
individual candidate or a group or a party.
Mr. President, I don't feel that people participating in our
campaigns is in any way inappropriate. It should not be condemned; it
ought to be applauded. We don't have a problem in this country because
we are speaking too much in political campaigns. Our good friends on
the other side of the aisle say, well, we are spending too much.
Compared to what? It's about what the public spent on bubble gum last
cycle.
There was an increase in spending because the stakes were big. A lot
of people cared about what happened in the 1996 election. There was a
struggle for the White House and a struggle for the Congress and a
struggle over the future of America. A lot of people cared about that
and they got involved. They wrote their checks out and gave it to their
favorite party or candidate. Some groups came out and said how they
felt about it, which they have a constitutional right to do, as well,
under the first amendment. Many of our colleagues on the other side of
the aisle were appalled; all this speech was polluting the process,
they said.
Mr. President, I think all that speech was invigorating the process.
When there is not much speech in a campaign, not much spending in a
campaign, it is a sleepy campaign with no competition. Typically,
statistically, it is a lower turnout election when there is no
interest. So there is nothing offensive, nothing improper, and nothing
to be condemned when you look at a heavily contested election in which
large quantities of money are spent on behalf of the candidates because
people think the stakes are big.
Now, why would people care, Mr. President? We have a huge Government
that affects every American. It is naive in the extreme to expect that
people don't want to have some impact on a political process which
takes 30 to 40 percent of their money every year--paying taxes is not
exactly a voluntary act--and spends it on what it wants to.
What kind of country would we have if all of these people in our land
were

[[Page S1044]]

unable to influence the political process? We would have an
unresponsive democracy, a Government run by elitists who want to shut
everybody up. Fortunately, Mr. President, the courts are never going to
allow that to happen. This Senate is never going to allow it to happen,
because we are not going to go down the road of regulating people out
of the political process because we don't like either the quantity or
the quality of their speech. I have heard it said off and on over the
last few days about these polluting issue ad campaigns, these sham
campaigns. Who is to decide, Mr. President, whose speech is worthy and
whose speech is not? The Supreme Court made it clear that the
Government is not going to allow us here to decide whose speech is
worthy and whose speech is not. The first amendment doesn't allow us
the latitude to categorize certain kinds of speech as offensive and
other kinds of speech as laudable. So that is at the core of this
debate.
I want to say to my colleagues in the Senate and to those who may be
following this debate, the supporters of McCain-Feingold-type
proposals--which was called, when the Democrats were in the majority,
Boren-Mitchell--say they are always going to come back.
Let me make sure that everybody understands that we will always be
back, too. We will fight efforts to undermine political discourse in
this country wherever they may arise. There are some multimillionaires
who are funding campaigns around the country. George Soros, a
multibillionaire who funds a variety of things, including referenda to
legalize marijuana, has taken an interest in this subject. Jerome
Kohlberg, a former financier from Wall Street, has taken an interest in
this subject. These are people who think everybody else's money in
politics is bad except theirs. They have been trying to fund an effort
to pass so-called campaign finance referenda.

Let me assure our colleagues, the Members of the Senate, that there
will always be somebody there. For example, there is the James Madison
Center, a new group that has been established to fight for first
amendment political speech, a group of public interest lawyers who will
be involved in these cases, striking them all down one after another.
Their record in court has been excellent. The California referendum was
struck down last month; the Maine referendum was struck down last
year--all of these efforts, even though they may be well-intentioned,
to push people out of the political process and put the Government in
charge of how much we may speak, when we may speak, whether or not we
have to disclose our membership lists as a precondition as to whether
or not we can mention a candidate or not mention a candidate.
Who are we kidding? What reformers want to do is shut everybody up.
They want to shut down the discussion. It isn't going to happen, Mr.
President. There will be somebody there to fight in every court in
America, State, local or Federal, to preserve the rights of all
Americans to speak without Government interference in the political
process.
This is a very important debate. This is not a little issue. There
isn't anything more fundamental to our democracy--nothing--than the
ability to discuss issues, to support candidates, either as individuals
or in banding together as groups, and to express yourself without
Government interference or limitation in this great country. This is
the core of our democracy.
Now, Mr. President, I might mention that in Europe, England in
particular, they have had restrictions against issue advocacy, which is
something we have talked about a good deal here in the last 3 or 4
days. Issue advocacy is not complicated. It is a group banding together
to express themselves about us or an issue or anything else they choose
to at any time they choose to, without Government interference. Over in
Europe, the British in particular, basically didn't allow citizens to
band together and express themselves. Last week--it is kind of
interesting--a group in England took a case to the European Court of
Human Rights, which ruled that laws banning ordinary citizens from
spending money to promote or denigrate candidates in election campaigns
was a breach of human rights. The court was right. For the Government
to say you can't go out as a citizen or as a group of citizens and
criticize candidates any time you want, that is a breach of human
rights. They struck down that British prohibition. The independent
newspaper in London says that ruling opens up the way for American-
style election battles.
Well, it is about time they had some American-style election battles
in which citizens have an opportunity to band together and express
themselves without government interference in Europe. So I commend that
court for its ruling. It looks to me as if the Europeans are heading in
the direction of having a real democracy. In a real democracy, Mr.
President, the candidates don't get to control all the discussion in
the election. We would love to. We would really like that because then
we could have our campaigns and the other guys could have theirs. The
press always has a campaign, and, of course, that would go on. But we
would not have any of these groups out there messing up our campaigns.
Mr. President, we don't own these campaigns; we don't control them.
It is not our right to shut these citizens up, no matter how much it
may irritate us. The good thing about what is going to happen in a few
minutes is that those people's ability to participate is going to be
preserved. We are not going to take that away. We are going to kill a
bill that richly deserves to be killed. We are going to do it proudly
and unapologetically.

There is also another vote we are going to have, an opportunity to
introduce an American principle as old as the founding of the country
into the labor movement in this country. No one ought to be required to
support political causes with which they disagree. The Supreme Court
has, in fact, already ruled that way in the Beck case. But, as a
practical matter, the Beck decision is not being enforced. There is a
bill called the paycheck protection bill, of which Senator Nickles was
the original author and which Senator Lott has offered, which would
guarantee that there has to be written permission by a union before it
takes money from its members for political purposes.
Everybody else in the American political process operates on that
principle. Everybody else. It's high time that our good friends in
organized labor raise their money voluntarily, from willing donors,
like everyone else. I don't want to shut up the unions. I defend their
right to engage in issue advocacy. It has always been directed against
members of my party. I would not, for a minute, support anything that
would take them off the playing field. But they ought to raise their
resources from voluntary donors like everybody else.
This issue is going to be out in the States, Mr. President--a
referendum in California in June, in Nevada, in Colorado, and in other
States. It has already been passed in the State of Washington a few
years ago. This is the real campaign finance reform that I urge our
colleagues to vote for. If you want to vote for a real change in the
American election system that would move us in the right direction,
then let's introduce democracy into the workplace by making certain
that no one's dues are taken against their will and spent on causes
with which they disagree.
So, Mr. President, I urge a vote for cloture on the paycheck
protection bill and a vote against cloture on McCain-Feingold, which
would wreak great harm upon the first amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 1 minute
remaining.
Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains on the other side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They have 1 minute 45 seconds.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remainder of our time to the distinguished
Senator from Oregon.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak up to 5
minutes at this time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

[[Page S1045]]

Mr. McCONNELL. I object. I will be happy to give the Senator what
little time I have remaining.
Mr. WYDEN. That is very gracious.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized.
Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, we now have a seemingly permanent political
campaign in America. We have an election the first Tuesday in November,
people sleep in on Wednesday, and it starts all over again on Thursday.
The money chase simply does not stop. I came to the Senate after a
hard-fought and, frankly, less than pleasant campaign against an
individual I am proud to call both a friend and a colleague, Senator
Gordon Smith. In the final weeks of that campaign, we made a decision
to unilaterally take off the air all television commercials about
Senator Smith. I thought it was time to talk about issues, time to
focus, with the voters, on the real questions that were important to
their future.
I am of the view that the American people need to know that today is
the day when reform will be passed or defeated. The cloture vote on
McCain-Feingold is the vote on campaign finance reform. It is the vote
for a Senator who wants to address this problem of independent
expenditures. It is the vote on the proposition that we need to have
more time spent with voters, less time with raising money.
Mr. President, I urge passage of the bill. I thank the Senator from
Kentucky for the additional time.

____________________