[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 114 (Wednesday, September 2, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S9819-S9825]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                  UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--H.R. 2183

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think that we want to finish this 
foreign operations appropriations legislation, and I hope that we can 
do it. I hope we can do it sometime soon. I note there are a number of 
amendments that are left to be considered on this important piece of 
legislation. I commend our ranking member and the chairman for their 
efforts in resolving this important piece of legislation in a timely 
way. There are a number of other amendments that must be considered 
before we can come to closure.
  The question then comes as to what we take up next. Yesterday, we 
discussed on the Senate floor how important it is that one of the bills 
that we take up next be the Patients' Bill of Rights, managed care 
reform. The other piece of legislation, Mr. President, that ought to be 
taken up immediately is legislation that was already passed in the 
House, the Shays-Meehan bill, H.R. 2183, the campaign finance reform 
bill.
  Mr. President, the House deliberated on that bill for some time. 
House Members worked their will. They did a good job in dealing with 
all of the controversial aspects of campaign reform this year. They 
recognize, as many of us recognize, that we are not going to solve the 
problem with one piece of legislation. But they made a major 
contribution to solving the problems we face with regard to soft money 
and independent expenditures and reporting and enforcement.
  Whether or not we move this issue forward will be determined by 
whether or not we are willing to act in the course of the next 6 weeks. 
Time is running out. I applaud Senators McCain and Feingold for their 
news conference this week wherein they said they will press for this 
legislation, they will offer their bill as an amendment to another bill 
at some point in the future.
  Mr. President, whether it is the McCain-Feingold bill or the Shays-
Meehan bill, this Senate must not lose the opportunity to complete its 
work on campaign finance reform this year. We must have the opportunity 
to address the issue. We must take up that legislation.
  I will be propounding a unanimous consent request at some point this 
morning--in just a few moments--to ask that campaign finance reform be 
the next order of business, to ask, again as we did yesterday, that it 
be laid aside for other important appropriations bills simply because 
we recognize the urgency of passing appropriations legislation on time. 
We are way past due. We have not passed a budget. We have not passed 
any of the appropriations bills. Not one has been signed into law.
  Mr. President, to the extent we can do all that we can to resolve the 
remaining procedural and other related problems on appropriations, we 
must do so. But there is no question that, as we look to what must be 
completed prior to the end of this year, the two issues that have to be 
addressed are the campaign finance reform bill and the Patients' Bill 
of Rights that we discussed yesterday.
  We come to the floor this morning simply to focus attention on the 
need for expeditious consideration of this legislation, on how critical 
it is that we, as Republicans and Democrats, agree, as did Members in 
the House, to make it the kind of priority it deserves to be, to 
address the array of problems that we have.
  I cannot think of a more diverse philosophical body than the House 
today. We have the far left and we have the far right. We have the 
extremes on both sides. With all of the extreme positions that Members 
are capable of taking, they came together and passed the Shays-Meehan 
bill just before we left.
  Mr. President, now it is our turn. Now we have an opportunity to do 
the same thing. Now we can pass the legislation here. We had a debate 
earlier. We were disappointed that we were not able to come to closure 
on it. But now is the time. The House has acted. So must we.
  So far this cycle Republicans and Democrats have spent $37 million 
more than the last cycle--$37 million. Campaigns continue to escalate 
in cost and degrade in quality. More and more, there is a rush for 
dollars. More and more questions are asked about how money is raised. 
More and more, the people are turned off and tuned out by a political 
process that has gone awry. They ask that we react. They ask that we 
show some leadership. They ask that we take some steps to correct this 
situation before it gets even worse. The House heard; and the House 
reacted. The Senate now must do the same.
  There is no better time to do it than now. We all are cognizant of 
the fact that there are only 60 days left before the next election. 
Within those 60 days, there will be even more money raised, tens of 
millions of dollars raised, across this country. As we speak, I 
guarantee you, there are Senators and House Members and candidates in 
small rooms everywhere dialing for dollars--incessant dollar dialing 
that has reached an unprecedented threshold. And the implications of 
all that money become more serious, the implications for the 
legislative process, the implications for campaigns themselves, the 
implications for the democracy that we all treasure.

  Mr. President, there has to be an end at some point. We have to 
curtail this incessant effort to raise more and more money at the cost 
of the credibility of the American people as they view our campaigns in 
1998.
  Not all of us are on the floor right now, but if we were, I say with 
unanimity our Democratic caucus wishes to express the hope that we can 
pass the Shays-Meehan bill this week, next week, or certainly at some 
point before we leave. If we pass the Shays-Meehan bill as it passed in 
the House, which I am prepared to do, I will accept it. I will take the 
language that was passed in the House and I will send it off to the 
President. He has already indicated he will sign it. We don't have to 
go to conference. There is nothing we have to do that would complicate 
our actions once it passes in the Senate.
  So let's do it. Let's agree, as Republicans and Democrats, that it is 
important to do it now. The time is running out. I urge my colleagues--
urge my colleagues--to agree.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon the disposition of 
the foreign operations appropriations bill, the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of H.R. 2183, the House-passed campaign finance reform 
bill, that only relevant amendments be in order, that it be the regular 
order, but that the majority leader may lay the bill aside for any 
appropriations bills and appropriations conference reports.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Santorum). The objection is heard.

[[Page S9820]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am not surprised, but I am 
disappointed.
  We will continue to persist. We will continue to make the effort each 
day, either in the form of unanimous consent requests like this, or 
with amendments offered to bills that will be considered. We will not 
let this issue pass. It is essential that we consider this legislation 
before it is too late, before we run out of time, before we miss a 
golden opportunity to seize the moment and do what the Senate should 
have done earlier this year, should have done last year, should have 
done 10 years ago. This will not go away. We can do it either the easy 
way or the hard way, but we will continue to persist.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the minority leader yield for a question?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before coming back, I was at the 
Minnesota State Fair, which is quite a focus group--almost half the 
State's population comes there in 13 days. Without going through my 
conversations with people in Minnesota, I want to ask you whether or 
not back home in South Dakota or as you travel around the country, what 
kind of discussions do citizens have with you about the mix of money 
and politics and reform?
  Does the minority leader think that this is, in fact, a burning issue 
to people? We have been told for so long that people don't really care 
about campaign finance reform. What is the minority leader hearing from 
people in South Dakota? What is he hearing from citizens in our 
country? Why does he, as the leader of our party, put this at the very 
top of his priorities?
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Minnesota raises an important point.
  As I talked to South Dakotans all over the state this last month of 
August, I found it remarkable how many people simply said they don't 
want to have anything to do with the political process anymore. I had 
many, many Republicans who said they are just sick and tired of what is 
happening out there. Most of it, they said, relates to the money--the 
money chase, the implications of more money, the influence of big money 
on the legislative process. They are tired of it.
  I think without question they all understand that the rules, the 
laws, need to be changed.
  It was remarkable to hear the consistency with which people expressed 
that point of view to me--Republicans, independents, and Democrats; 
they all said it. They all indicated with increasing intensity that 
unless we change the system we could lose it, that unless we change the 
rules we will become victims of the current ones.
  That, to me, is the essence of why this is so essential, why it is 
important that we act now.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield to the Senator from Wisconsin for a 
question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, before I ask a question, let me thank 
the minority leader for his tremendous leadership on this issue and for 
maintaining the support of the entire Democratic caucus for reform--
whether it be the McCain-Feingold bill or the Shays-Meehan bill, which 
is very similar.
  One of the criticisms made of this bill consistently, which I 
obviously have never found very valid, is that it is a partisan bill. 
The fact is that seven Republicans have supported this bill out here on 
the floor, and the number in the House was overwhelming.
  I wonder if the minority leader is aware that a quarter of all the 
members of the Republican Party in the House supported this 
legislation.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I was aware of that, and I think the Senator from 
Wisconsin raises a very important point. I actually believe that there 
are at least 25 percent of the Republican caucus in the Senate who 
support campaign reform. I just wish they would express themselves, as 
I know the House already has, in that regard.
  As I talk to colleagues on the other side of the aisle, they tell me 
they are supportive of it. They tell me they understand we need to see 
some change. I just hope that some additional courageous Republican 
Senators will step forth and join us. All we need are 60 votes; we 
already have 45 Democratic Senators. As the Senator from Wisconsin 
knows, we already have several Republican Senators who have expressed 
support and are willing to continue to support our effort. So a dozen 
or so additional Republican Senators would put us over the top.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is precisely the reason the senior 
Senator from Arizona and I announced yesterday that we will be forcing 
the issue if your proposal is not agreed to, to bring this up, because 
we do believe that there will be Members on the other side of the aisle 
here who will support us. In fact, we are down, now, to only eight 
people.
  The fact is that originally people said, ``You only have several 
cosponsors. You only have two Republicans. It will never get through 
the House.'' That is just a series of what I regard as excuses.
  Mr. President, now it is very simple. The President has said he is 
ready to sign the bill. A majority of this body has indicated on the 
record they are for the bill and a majority of the other House is 
dramatically in favor of the bill.
  I just wonder if the leader would comment for a minute on the 
significance if we don't get this done this year. Unfortunately, we 
can't pass a bill that will affect this election, the one that will 
happen in 60-some days. That was an agreement we had. We worked hard 
and we would have loved to avoid the abuses that are going on right now 
as we speak. But there is another election coming up in the year 2000.
  I wonder if the leader would talk for a minute about what it means if 
we don't get the job done now.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Wisconsin probably knows better than 
anybody in this Chamber the implications of doing nothing. No one has 
worked harder, provided greater leadership, and engendered more respect 
on both sides of the aisle than the Senator from Wisconsin. He is 
running, as am I, this year. He knows the race for dollars. He 
understands the implications of that race. He understands, as well, the 
average cost of a Senate race right now is over $4 million. He knows, 
as I do, that we have already surpassed last year's record-breaking 
levels, last cycle's record-breaking levels in the amount of money 
required to be successful.
  He knows, as I do, we will be seeing double-digit figures when it 
comes to what it will take to wage a successful Senate race anywhere in 
the country. He knows the implications of that. I must say, Mr. 
President, you don't need any imagination to recognize just what a 
devastating effect that has.
  I was at two fundraising breakfasts this morning, neither for myself. 
That is exactly what is happening all over this city and across this 
country--fundraiser after fundraiser, more and more money generated 
with implications on the legislative and political process.
  Where does it end? How will we possibly recruit candidates in the 
future when we tell them: We want you to be a part of the Democratic 
process, but we want you to cough up $10 million to do so if you are 
going to be in the U.S. Senate?
  How can we do that? How can we recruit with a straight face--except 
for those who have the resources and the wherewithal? How many more 
millionaires should we have in a representative body of 100 people? We 
have some very good and diligent and hard-working people of wealth in 
this country, and I am glad they are here. But I want to make sure that 
working families are also represented, that we elect people who 
understand what it takes to earn a paycheck and make ends meet, to send 
a child to college. I want those people in the Senate as well. How do 
you do it when you have to raise $10 million? Who do you turn to? So 
the Senator from Wisconsin very appropriately raises the question, 
``What are the implications?'' There are many, many more. We can talk 
all day long about the implications. Those are just a few.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the leader for his statements 
and for his leadership on this issue. I was enthusiastic about coming 
back to work on this issue again after I have had conversations with 
people like the Senator from Michigan. I was very enthusiastic when I 
had a chance to meet with the senior Senator from Arizona.

[[Page S9821]]

 We decided definitely yesterday to move, and move soon, on this issue. 
I am even more excited and enthusiastic that we can finish the job. The 
excuses are over. The whole thing is down to eight Senators. It is time 
to do the job. I thank the leader very much.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator for his comments. I appreciate the 
contribution he has made. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from 
Massachusetts for a question, if he has one.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the leader. I will ask the leader, first of all, a 
series of questions. My first question is, I assume the leader has 
reached out to the majority leader of the Senate and suggested to him 
that there is a way in which the U.S. Senate could take an appropriate 
amount of time to properly deal with this effort. I wonder if the 
leader will share with the Senate and with the country what the 
response is of the Republican side of the aisle with respect to the 
ability of the Senate to carry out its responsibilities here.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts raises the question, 
``What is the response?'' We got it a few minutes ago. We asked very 
reasonably that we take up this bill next--that we finish the foreign 
ops appropriations bill, which is critical. We have to get these 
appropriations bills done.
  As I have noted, not one of the 13 appropriations bills has been 
signed into law. Here it is now September. The next fiscal year is less 
than 4 weeks away, and we have yet to pass one appropriations bill. So 
we recognize that we have to get our work done in that regard, but we 
also recognize that there will be gaps, that there are other needs out 
there, legislatively, and there can be no greater needs than the 
request we made yesterday about a Patients' Bill of Rights 
consideration and the request we make today on campaign finance reform. 
Why? Because the House has already acted on both bills.
  So the response we got today, as I noted, was disappointing because 
we are trying to be reasonable. We are suggesting that only relevant 
amendments be offered. We are suggesting that we lay the bill aside to 
finish our work on appropriations bills. We would be prepared to 
suggest other options. In fact, I would even go so far--and I haven't 
talked to my colleagues about this, so I am premature in making this 
offer, but just for the record I would be willing to accept a vote, up 
or down, on the Shays-Meehan bill--no questions asked; no amendments. 
Let's just have a vote, up or down, on Shays-Meehan and send it to the 
President if it passes. I would be prepared to do even that. Many 
colleagues might want to go farther than that.
  How much time does it take to have one vote? How much time does it 
take to consider something that has already passed in the House, such 
as the Shays-Meehan bill? I talked to the Senator from Wisconsin. He is 
not one of those who is so concerned about pride of authorship that his 
name has to be on it. He said he would be prepared to take whatever we 
would do here to get either bill passed. He has taken a very 
meritorious position on this issue. My point is, in answer to the 
Senator from Massachusetts, we have tried to be as reasonable about 
this as we know how to be.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask the leader further, what options, then, might be 
available to the minority at this point in order to try to make clear 
our serious determination to see this issue properly addressed in the 
U.S. Senate?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Well, the Senator from Massachusetts is as much of a 
legislative strategist as I am, and he and I and others have talked 
about what our recourse is given the intransigence on the other side. I 
suppose we have two options that I am aware of. There may be others, 
but there are two in particular. One we tried this morning--asking 
consent over and over that this legislation be scheduled. The second is 
to take it upon ourselves to schedule it by offering it in the form of 
an amendment to whatever bill may come along. I have noted already 
publicly, and the Senator from Wisconsin has noted yesterday in a news 
conference, that those options are available to us and we will use them 
as we see the need.
  I hope that will not be necessary. I hope that we can come to some 
agreement. I hope that we can be reasonable about this and recognize 
that the House has acted, and that having a vote on Shays-Meehan isn't 
too much to ask. But those are our options. We aren't going to lay back 
and just accept the fact that our Republican colleagues would prefer 
not to deal with this issue. It is too important not to deal with it. 
It is too much of a priority for too many Americans and for the 
political system, not to mention the Democratic caucus, for us to 
ignore it. So we will use those options and others, if they become 
available to us, because this is as important a bill and important an 
issue as there is pending before the Senate today.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer of the leader. I 
ask him further if he would agree that despite the fact that there is a 
great difficulty in the current atmosphere in this country and in the 
context within which our politics is being played out in Washington and 
in the national media--there is a great difficulty in conveying to the 
public the importance of an issue, but I assume that the leader would 
agree with me that all the great words that are spoken on the floor of 
the Senate, all of the meaning of this institution, all of the history 
that is wrapped up in this most watched and intriguing and certainly 
successful experiment in democracy on the face of the planet, that all 
of us really are facing a fundamental distortion that the American 
people understand today--in a process that has seen the cost of 
elections rise more than 100 percent; more and more millions of dollars 
are being spent and less and less Americans are able to access the 
system. Less and less people are able to take part, and more and more 
special interests are taking the system and defining it in terms of the 
money that they have available to them.
  I assume that the leader will share with me that this is not an 
ordinary issue that we are talking about. This is something that goes 
to the fundamental notion of what kind of democracy we market to the 
rest of the world, and that if we are not capable of changing our own 
house and putting in order this system, then we lose something, not 
just with respect to our democracy at home, but with respect to the 
rest of the world. I assume the leader will share with me and others 
here that, somehow, we have a responsibility in the next days to get 
this issue to rise to the full measure of importance that it has. I 
also assume the leader shares with me the view that, otherwise, what 
happened in the House becomes a sham, that the House may have taken a 
freebie vote, knowing that all they had to do was rely on the 
leadership of the Senate to say, ``We are not going to let it come up; 
we are going to let the parliamentary process kill this.'' I assume the 
leader will agree with me that that would do an enormous disservice to 
the full measure of what this issue is really all about.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Massachusetts puts his finger right on 
the question. What was that vote all about? Did they really hope, as we 
do, that it will be put on the President's desk for signature some time 
before we adjourn? Or was there some cynical ploy here to position 
themselves for election back home with the realization that it wasn't 
going anywhere? That is why this unanimous consent request is a test. 
That is why our continued persistence will continue to be the test as 
to how serious many of our Republican colleagues are, who publicly 
espouse campaign reform, when it comes to passing a bill. He is also 
correct in what he said about its implications.

  This isn't my desk. I am standing at the Democratic whip's desk. But 
this desk happens to be Henry Clay's desk. Henry Clay sat at this desk 
over 100 years ago. I must say that in all of the time since he sat at 
this desk I don't know that our democratic process has ever been in 
greater jeopardy than it is today. Henry Clay used to sit at this desk 
and would have incredible debates about the direction this country was 
going to take. People would stay here overnight. People would be here 
for days and weeks fighting the issues and the policies of the day 
because they believed so deeply in the direction our country was going 
to take.
  But do you know what happens? What happens is that we get told by our 
colleagues that ``I cannot be here on Monday. I have to go campaign. I

[[Page S9822]]

can't be here on Friday. I have to go raise money. In fact, I can't 
even be here on Tuesday mornings or Thursday afternoons because I have 
to go raise money.''
  Henry Clay must be turning over in his grave. That isn't the U.S. 
Senate. The money chase? That isn't what he fought his whole life to 
protect and preserve as one of our finest patriots. We have to live up 
to that standard. And I swear we are not doing it so long as we are 
bridled and enslaved by the incredible money chase that goes on day 
after day relentlessly and gets worse each political season.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the leader for that important connection to the 
real history and the reality of what we are talking about.
  In 1988, both parties--Democrats and Republicans--raised $45 million 
combined in so-called ``soft money''--$45 million only 10 years ago. In 
1992, that number doubled to $90 million. And in the last race in 1996 
when this Senator was running, that number rose to $262 million. 
Everyone knows that this time, in 1998, even more money will be spent, 
and everyone knows that money is being spent outside of the spirit of 
the law. It is being spent to directly impact candidacies to elect 
candidates even though it is so-called ``under the issue exception'' of 
the first amendment.
  We have a very, very fundamental challenge. I thank the distinguished 
leader for his persistence and for his commitment to the notion that 
this issue is going to find its footing, its honest footing; it is 
going to find a way to penetrate the cynicism and the skepticism; and 
we are somehow going to break through and let the American people know 
that a majority of the U.S. Senate wants campaign finance reform and is 
prepared to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill now. There is only one thing 
stopping us. It is called the Republican majority. They don't want this 
to happen. They don't want it to happen because they are in favor of 
incumbency protection.
  I am sure that the Democrat leader would agree with me that this 
really is one of the most fundamental and important changes we could 
make because how we can change health care, how we can affect 
education, how we can properly have all the disparate elements of 
American society represented is ultimately decided by the amount of 
money in our campaigns. I am sure that the leader will agree with me 
that if we are going to be a democracy representing all of America, we 
simply have to make this process more accessible and more available to 
the average person and to all Americans.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I agree completely with what the Senator just said. In a 
democracy, it is supposed to be of and by the people. But how can it be 
of and by the people when you need the millions of dollars it now takes 
to be a legitimate candidate anywhere in the country? How can you say 
to people from working families, ``Look, we want you to be engaged, and 
not only vote and participate, but we would like you to help lead,'' if 
all we can do in response to their question about what it is going to 
cost is to admit that it costs millions of dollars that he or she 
doesn't have? How is it of and by the people when it becomes even more 
problematic with each cycle of escalating costs, already $37 million 
more this cycle than last cycle? That isn't democracy. That isn't what 
the Founding Fathers and what Henry Clay thought about when he thought 
about this system and what they were going to do to protect it.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois for a question.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for 
making this unanimous consent request. I would like to ask him a 
question.
  Many people who are watching this debate are not quite sure it is on 
the square. Is it possible that incumbent Senators now standing on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate really want to change the system that brought 
them to this body? I think there is a healthy degree of skepticism by 
people who are watching this debate wondering how they could want to 
change the system that brought them to their political position in 
life, brought them to the U.S. Senate.
  Can the Senator from South Dakota tell us how close we are to 
enacting meaningful reform, whether it is the legislation by Senator 
Feingold, by Senator McCain, or by the Shays-Meehan bill from the 
House? How close are we to that moment where we could call a vote and 
actually produce a bill that would change the system dramatically? Is 
this a pipe dream? Is this a theory? Is this a political stunt, or is 
this a reality, a real possibility on the legislative side?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I like the way the Senator from Illinois poses the 
question because it really brings it down to the essence of what we are 
asking. He asks how close we are. I would suggest we are 1 hour and one 
vote close. That is how close we are. I would be willing to settle for 
an hour of debate on either side and have the vote on Shays-Meehan this 
afternoon and send it off to the President.
  What we get when we pass Shays-Meehan, or McCain-Feingold, is we 
finally get an end to ``soft money''; we finally get some constraints 
on this outrageous escalation of so-called independent issue ads. We 
get an array of additional improvements in our systems that constrain 
and further constrict the money-hungry process from continuing to 
escalate out of control. That is what we get with one vote and 1 hour.
  Mr. DURBIN. If I could ask the Senator from South Dakota a further 
question, anyone watching this debate has to be puzzled. If the Senator 
from South Dakota is truthful in what he says, as I believe he is, and 
if a majority of the Senate supports this reform, why isn't this bill 
on the floor? If a majority of the Senators are prepared to vote for 
it, why isn't this bill being brought up for consideration at this 
moment?
  Just a few minutes ago, the Senator from South Dakota made what is 
called a unanimous consent request to go to the bill. That is literally 
what it means. It takes unanimous consent of the Senate--not a majority 
vote--to bring it to the floor, and one Senator on the Republican side 
stood up and objected. So we were stopped in our tracks.
  But can the Senator from South Dakota explain to those who are 
watching this debate why we have to go to a unanimous consent request 
to bring a matter to the floor which we believe enjoys the support of 
more than a majority of the membership of the Senate.
  Mr. DASCHLE. The Senator from Illinois asks a good question. Why we 
have to ask unanimous consent is because even though it is in this 
calendar, the calendar of business--I could find the page very easily--
of Wednesday, September 2nd, it is an item of business to be taken up 
by the Senate. Why? Because it has already passed in the House. But we 
have to ask unanimous consent because the Republican leadership is 
unwilling to schedule it. Even though it has now passed in the House, 
even though there is a majority of Senators who are prepared to support 
it, there is intransigence on the part of our Republican leadership to 
bring this bill up.
  All we can do is hope that perhaps with some persistence and some 
repetition asking unanimous consent, or offering the bill as an 
amendment, we can take up what should be a normal course of business 
given the Senate Calendar.
  Mr. DURBIN. I would like to ask one more question. I see my colleague 
from the State of Connecticut is up for a question as well. I will make 
one last request of the Senator from South Dakota.
  The argument used most often by the critics of this campaign finance 
reform is an argument often used by the Senator from Kentucky, the 
Republican Senator who objected to this unanimous consent, which is 
that to reduce the amount of money being spent on a campaign will 
restrict free speech in America, will restrict the right of American 
citizens to express their views by spending their money in a political 
campaign.
  Would the Senator from South Dakota address this, because I think it 
is the core issue here. Are we in fact reducing the amount of money at 
the expense of restricting the constitutional right to free speech? 
That I think is the crux of this debate, at least the nominal debate 
that we hear, and I would like the Senator from South Dakota to address 
it.
  (Mr. STEVENS assumed the Chair.)

[[Page S9823]]

  Mr. DASCHLE. I think it is a sad commentary that anyone could 
actually subscribe to the proposition that freedom of speech is 
directly related to the freedom to spend. The freedom to spend actually 
blocks out the freedom of speech, because if we are spending more and 
that becomes in essence the cacophony of voices in a campaign, the real 
freedom of speech--that is, the substantive debate, the opportunity to 
conduct meaningful campaigns on the issues--is drowned out.
  So that in essence is what is happening. More and more money goes 
into 30-second attack ads, and less and less real speaking to the 
issues occurs. That in essence is the irony of this whole debate. That 
is the problem we are facing. We are reducing real freedom of speech 
with this unlimited freedom to spend.
  Mr. DURBIN. I might say to the Senator from South Dakota in closing, 
beyond our rhetoric in the Chamber, take a look at the facts, and in 
1996 we had more money spent on campaigns than any time in our history. 
We had the lowest percentage of eligible voters in American history in 
72 years cast a vote in the Presidential election between President 
Clinton and Senator Dole.
  That is an indication to me that the American people understand what 
the Senator from South Dakota is saying. They think there is something 
fundamentally flawed with this system and negative advertising, the 
money chase that the Senator from South Dakota addresses. If we do 
nothing else before we leave this year, I hope this Senate will address 
this important issue.
  I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his leadership.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his good 
questions. And I yield to the Senator from Connecticut for a question.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from South Dakota.
  If I may, before posing my question, I want to reflect upon an 
experience I had last year as a member of the Senate Governmental 
Affairs Committee which held extensive hearings into this subject 
matter of the 1996 campaign and how it was financed. And I must say as 
I look back to it, the mental image I have of it is being waist deep in 
muck and fighting our way through it. It was a stunning, mind-altering, 
ultimately embarrassing experience, to see what has happened to our 
great democracy and the extent to which, at a time when we question the 
public's trust in government, we have created a system that amounts to 
evasion of law clearly by lawmakers, by all of us in the lawmaking 
class, by those who are running for office.
  And why do I say that? What became clear in those hearings, we have 
laws, we have laws that limit the amount of money that individuals can 
give to campaigns--$2,000 per individual. We have laws that limit the 
amount that a political action committee can give--$10,000 in the whole 
cycle--to a given campaign. We have laws that prohibit corporations and 
unions from contributing to political campaigns. It could not be 
clearer. And then there is created this so-called soft money loophole 
through which is driven not a Mack truck, a whole division, a whole 
army which has obliterated the limits.
  So we have individuals giving hundreds of thousands of dollars, we 
have corporations and unions giving millions of dollars, we make a 
mockery of the law, and we have just the effect the Senator from South 
Dakota and the Senator from Illinois have just talked about, which is 
quite the opposite of reform here--restricting people's rights.
  The reality, the place we have come to, the sad place we have come 
to, limits individual rights and, even more underneath that, the 
individual American's confidence that he or she has the same ability 
roughly as every other American to affect their Government. Why? You 
don't have to be a rocket scientist or a political scientist to come to 
the belief that an individual or a group that can give hundreds of 
thousands of dollars has more access to their Government than the 
average American does.

  I remember that during the debate we had--one of the earlier debates 
we had on this subject--one of our colleagues brought out a chart, and 
to me it told a lot of the story, and it responds to, I know, some of 
the conclusions made by Members of the Senate that the public doesn't 
really care about campaign finance reform. I disagree. When you ask 
people what problems they are most worried about, campaign finance 
reform is not going to come out on the top of that list, in part 
because I think there is a misapprehension. I read a quote last year 
from somebody who said, ``Oh, campaign finance reform. Well, I care 
more about how they spend my tax money than how they raise their 
campaign money.'' The reality is that how campaign money is raised, as 
we have seen here and the leader has spoken to quite eloquently--how 
campaign money is raised affects how their tax money is spent and who 
pays taxes.
  But look, we are leaders. We were elected to do what we think is 
right. We were elected to build confidence in our Government. So 
hopefully we will respond to more than just polls here.
  The chart that I referred to earlier that one of our colleagues 
brought out had two lines on it. One showed the trend line of 
contributions to American political campaigns. The other showed the 
trend line of the turnout of Americans in voting--startling difference. 
As the money goes up, the public participation in elections goes down 
because people don't think their vote counts anymore.
  I say to the Senator from South Dakota, as I think about the 
situation, as I know we got 52 votes for the McCain-Feingold bill here, 
and we were all raised to believe the will of the majority prevails in 
our democracy, it is not so in the Senate apparently. In the House, 
much to everybody's surprise--and I must say with some pride, due in 
good measure to the great leadership given by Congressman Chris Shays 
of Connecticut--the Shays-Meehan bill passed.
  We have another opportunity to right this wrong. The problem is not 
going to go away. Just in the last week, the Attorney General has 
commenced initial inquiries that relate to campaign finance practices 
in 1996. And I can't believe after all that we have learned, after all 
that the media has told us, after all that we know--because as the 
Senator from South Dakota has said, it is our lives; we are being 
pulled by the money chase away from what should be the focus of our 
interest, which is the people's business--I can't believe that we are 
going to end this 105th session of Congress without doing something to 
reform our campaign finance laws.
  So my question to the Senator from South Dakota, with thanks for his 
persistent leadership on this serious matter, is--well, two really. 
One, in the course of the Senator's career, if we are not able to pass 
campaign finance reform in this session, would the Senator not agree 
that this is one of the most grievous abdications of this Chamber's 
responsibility in a long time faced with a real problem? And second, I 
suppose, does the leader agree that part of what is needed here is for 
the public to speak to their elected leaders and plead with them, 
particularly in the Senate, those of our colleagues who can take us 
either to a vote or from 52 to 60 to break the filibuster, that it 
really matters to them that we adopt campaign finance reform this year?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut for 
his leadership and tremendous effort that he has put forth to bring us 
to this point.
  As to his first question, I hadn't raised until now the point that 
the Senator made so appropriately. I don't know if there are many 
Congresses that have spent more time investigating than this one has. 
This Congress has probably spent more money and more time investigating 
than any since the early 1970s. And as the Senator from Connecticut so 
appropriately points out, with all that investigation, there can be no 
question about the need for some reform. Obviously, there is a question 
about the need for enforcement and follow through after enforcement 
with regard to what may or may not have happened, the allegations, all 
of the information raised in these investigations. But then the 
question comes, What do we do about it? And we have been asking that 
question ever since the investigations here in the Senate have ended. 
What do we do about it?

  How tragic it would be for us to say, ``Look, we have now exposed all 
of

[[Page S9824]]

these problems but we choose to do nothing. We choose to ignore the 
fact that reform is so critical.'' What does that say to the American 
people? Look, here are the problems. But, look here, we are not going 
to do anything about them.
  So, the Senator from Connecticut raises, I think, the essence of what 
it is that we, as Senators, need to confront in our minds, in our 
hearts, about what is important before we close in a mere 6 weeks. We 
have investigated. We now know without any question, with great 
authority, there are some serious problems that have to be addressed. 
To wash our hands of the matter now would be a tragedy of an order that 
I do not think we have seen in this country.
  As to what those of you who are watching may do, I hope Senators will 
receive mail and phone calls and comments from every constituent who 
has any interest in the democratic process, who understands that 
without some contact with your Senators there is a real chance they may 
not change their minds. So, contact is of the essence. I think it ought 
to be done as soon as possible.
  I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I will be happy to yield to the 
Senator from Michigan for a question.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the leader for yielding. I do have a number of 
questions.
  First, let me say I think we have never been closer to enacting 
comprehensive campaign finance reform than we are at this moment. The 
majority of the Senate favors it. The House, through a very courageous 
act on the part of many of its Members, has overcome the opposition of 
the House leadership to pass Shays-Meehan.
  It was said earlier this year that there would be no way of passing 
Shays-Meehan against the will of the leadership of the House of 
Representatives. But a very stalwart, gutsy coalition of Democrats and 
Republicans in the House found a way to have the majority rule in the 
House of Representatives. It was not easy. It took incredible energy 
and willpower. They exercised it and they prevailed, and the majority 
prevailed over the wishes of the leaders of the House of 
Representatives. So, now we are in a situation where the majority of 
the Senate favors comprehensive reform and the House has passed 
comprehensive reform.
  The leader has spoken earlier as to what it is that is stopping us 
from trying to get comprehensive reform adopted in the Senate this 
year. The majority of the public clearly favors it. All public opinion 
polls show it. They are skeptical that we will do anything about it--
the polls show that as well--but they favor it. Now we are going to 
come down, it seems to me, to a test of wills, a great and a historic 
test of wills in the U.S. Senate. The opponents of campaign finance 
reform have the right to filibuster. They have used that right, and 
they have the right to filibuster. But the proponents, the supporters 
of campaign finance reform, do not need to withdraw simply because 
there is a filibuster on the floor. If that were done, we would not 
have civil rights legislation. The people who supported civil rights 
legislation did not always have 67 votes going in. You can start with a 
majority and offer an amendment, or offer a bill, and just because the 
opponents filibuster the bill does not require us, those of us who 
support campaign finance reform, to give up our right to offer the 
amendment and to have the amendment disposed of by the Senate. And if 
the filibusterers want to tie up the Senate and prevent the Senate from 
voting, that is their right. But the supporters of campaign finance 
reform are not obligated to withdraw an amendment simply because the 
opponents use their right to filibuster.
  That is why what we are now facing, given the opposition to the 
unanimous consent request this morning, is a historic test of wills 
between the majority that favors campaign finance reform, a bipartisan 
majority that now has seven Republicans and all the Democrats, and 
those who oppose campaign finance reform. We must not withdraw in the 
face of a filibuster. The stakes are too huge. They have been 
illuminated here this morning eloquently by the Democratic leader. The 
stakes are whether we are going to restore public confidence to a 
campaign finance system which is in tatters. We are supposed to have 
limits on contributions. It is supposed to be $1,000 per person per 
campaign. Corporations are not allowed to contribute to campaigns, and 
neither are unions. Yet, we have corporations and unions contributing 
huge amounts of money which, for all intents and purposes under any 
reasonable interpretation, support or oppose campaigns. That is what is 
now happening because of the soft money loophole.
  We have a chance this year, better than we have ever had, to close 
that soft money loophole and to restore public confidence in the 
campaign finance system. We have a chance to do it. If we will show the 
same courage on a bipartisan basis as was shown in the House of 
Representatives, down that hall just a few weeks ago, we can pass 
campaign finance reform in the Senate. But what it will take is a 
determination on the part of the supporters not to withdraw our 
majority view in the face of a filibuster. The filibusterers have their 
rights to tie up the Senate. We have our rights to offer an amendment 
and seek a vote on that amendment. And, in the face of a filibuster, we 
need not withdraw and give in to a filibuster.
  My question of the Democratic leader is this: Was it his hope this 
morning, and intent this morning in offering this unanimous consent 
proposal, that we have a course of action which would allow the Senate 
to work its will, to permit amendments to Shays-Meehan providing they 
are relevant? As I read the unanimous consent request and heard the 
unanimous consent proposal, relevant amendments would be in order. Was 
it the Democratic leader's proposal this morning that we have an 
opportunity to resolve this issue in a way which would allow us to do 
all of our other business and to avoid the kind of filibuster which we 
now very clearly see is going to be forthcoming from the objection to 
this unanimous consent agreement?
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will respond to the Senator from Michigan. Before I 
do, let me say I wish the entire Chamber had heard what he has just 
said with regard to what it is we are trying to do and what the 
implications of this really are. I don't know of anybody in the Senate 
who has put more force, personally, and more of his own personal 
credibility, behind this issue than has the Senator from Michigan. I 
appreciate deeply his commitment.
  The Senator poses a very understandable question. What is it we are 
asking here? What do we want? We simply want the opportunity to reflect 
the will of the majority of the Senate on an issue for which there is a 
moment of opportunity, from a historical perspective. This is our 
moment. If we fail in the next 6 weeks, we start all over with a new 
Congress, with all of the odds stacked as much against us, if not more, 
than they were this Congress. So what we are saying is let's seize the 
opportunity, let's seize the moment here and do what the House has 
already done. On a bipartisan basis, let's work with Republicans and 
Democrats to pass the Shays-Meehan bill. We will take it in any shape 
or form we can. I offered, as I know the Senator from Michigan heard, 
to simply take up the bill that was passed in the House and, on a 1-
hour, one-vote basis, let's move it on to the President.
  Obviously, I recognize the complexity of this legislation. I would be 
more than happy, as the request suggests, to consider entertaining 
relevant amendments because there are differences of opinion. Just 
yesterday, we argued for the need for relevant amendments to the 
Patients' Bill of Rights. So we are consistent in our request here. 
Let's have relevant amendments on the Patients' Bill of Rights. Let's 
have relevant amendments on campaign finance reform, if the minority 
chooses--the minority in this case being those who oppose campaign 
reform--to have them. So we are not asking for much. We are simply 
saying let's seize the moment, as the Senator from Michigan so 
appropriately described, and let's get on with doing what we were 
elected to do before it is too late.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the leader for his leadership and for his 
comments.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Michigan. I yield the floor.

[[Page S9825]]



                          ____________________