[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 119 (Thursday, September 10, 1998)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10145-S10177]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 
                                  1999

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now 
resume consideration of S. 2237 which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department 
     of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
  Pending:

       McCain/Feingold amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing 
     of Federal elections.


                           Amendment No. 3554

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time between 10 a.m. and noon is to be 
equally divided between the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and the 
Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, on amendment No. 3554.
  Mr. McCONNELL.  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be allowed 
to control the time of Senator Gorton.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska such 
time as he may need.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kentucky, who 
has labored in the area of campaign finance for an extended period of 
time, whose expertise many of us depend upon because once again this 
Senate is being called upon to reform our campaign finance laws.
  As with many issues, the issue of so-called reforming the laws is 
somewhat in the eyes of the beholder. As a consequence, I ask my 
colleagues to consider this legislation in perhaps a different context. 
The issue before this body, in my opinion, is simply: To what extent, 
if any, should the Federal Government regulate political free speech in 
America? The campaign finance debate is not just about politicians and 
their campaigns. At the core of this debate are the values and freedoms 
guaranteed by the first amendment. As a consequence, I suggest when 
Government attempts to place limitations on speech, it has an 
overwhelming burden to demonstrate why such restrictions to our 
fundamental freedoms are necessary. Surely the Government can no more 
dictate how many words a newspaper can print than it can limit a 
political candidate's ability to communicate with his or her 
constituents, yet that is precisely what the sponsors of this 
legislation are proposing for candidates for office.
  The McCain-Feingold legislation bristles with over a dozen different 
restrictions on speech, provisions that I believe flagrantly violate 
the first amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I cannot 
overemphasize the point that was made by George F. Will in a Washington 
Post editorial. He stated, commenting on the McCain-Feingold bill:

       Nothing in American history--not the left's recent ``campus 
     speech codes,'' nor the right's depredations during the 1950s 
     McCarthyism or the 1920 ``red scare,'' not the Alien and 
     Sedition Acts of the 1790s--matches the menace to the First 
     Amendment posed by campaign ``reforms'' advancing under the 
     protective coloration of political hygiene.

  One of the most serious problems with this bill is that it contains 
restrictions on ``express advocacy'' within 60 days of an election by 
independent groups. And what is ``express advocacy''?
  Mr. President, if this proposal ever becomes law, we can change the 
name of the Federal Election Commission to the Federal Campaign Speech 
Police. Every single issue advertisement would be taped, reviewed, 
analyzed, and perhaps litigated. The speech police will set up their 
offices in all of the 50 States to ensure the integrity of political 
advertising. Is that what we in this Chamber really want? I don't think 
so. But that is what will eventually happen if we adopt McCain-
Feingold.
  I assure my colleagues, and hope they understand, that this wholesale 
encroachment on the first amendment would be immediately struck down by 
the courts as unconstitutional.
  Moreover, if a group of citizens decide to pool their money and 
advocate their political position in newspaper advertisements and 
television ads, what right does the Federal Government have to restrict 
their right of speech? Indeed, do we want to turn over the debate on 
political issues to the owners of the broadcast stations, the owners of 
the newspapers, and the editorialists during the 60-day period leading 
up to an election? Would my colleagues who are supporting this bill be 
ready to stand up and vote to ban election editorials in newspapers and 
on television in the last 60 days of a campaign?
  Many members of the public think we need fundamental changes to our 
election financial laws because in the 1996 Presidential election they 
witnessed the most abusive campaign finance strategy ever conceived in 
this country.
  There is an answer to those who abuse power. And the answer does not 
mean you have to shred the first amendment. The answer is a very simple 
one. It is that our current election finance laws must be strictly 
enforced, something that this administration has been extremely 
reluctant to do for obvious reasons.
  Mr. President, as grand jury indictments amass with regard to 
Democratic fundraising violations in the 1996 Presidential election, we 
learn more and more about President Clinton's use of the prerequisite 
of the Presidency as a fundraising tool. It is important to recall some 
of those abuses as we consider this debate.
  You recall, Mr. President, the Lincoln bedroom. During the 5 years 
that

[[Page S10146]]

President Clinton has resided in the White House, an astonishing 938 
guests have spent the night in the Lincoln bedroom and generated at 
least $6 million for the Democratic National Committee.
  Presidential historian Richard Norton Smith stated there has ``never 
been anything of the magnitude of President Clinton's use of the White 
House for fundraising purposes * * * it's the selling of the White 
House.''
  The Presidential coffees: President Clinton hosted 103 ``Presidential 
coffees.'' Guests at these coffees, which included a convicted felon 
and a Chinese businessman who heads an arms trading company, donated 
$27 million to the Democratic National Committee.
  President Clinton's Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, gave the President 
weekly memorandums which included projected moneys he expected at each 
of the ``Clinton coffees'' and what they would raise. He projected each 
would raise no less than $400,000.
  In the area of foreign contributions, investigations by both the 
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and the Department of Justice 
into campaign abuses into the 1996 Presidential campaign have revealed 
that the Democrats recklessly accepted illegal foreign donations in 
exchange for Presidential access and other favors.
  A few examples: We recall John Huang. John Huang raised millions of 
dollars in illegal foreign contributions for the Democratic National 
Committee which the DNC has already returned.
  John Huang, despite being wholly unqualified according to his 
immediate boss, received an appointment to the Department of Commerce 
where he improperly accessed numerous classified documents pertaining 
to China.
  John Huang made at least 67 visits to the White House, often meeting 
with senior officials on U.S. trade policy. The committee had deemed 
that this was unusual because Huang's position in Commerce was at a 
very low level.
  Senator Specter stated that the activities of Mr. Huang at the 
Commerce Department had ``all the earmarks of * * * espionage.''
  Charlie Trie, a long-time friend of President Clinton, raised and 
contributed at least $640,000 in contributions to the Clinton, Gore 
Campaign and for the Democratic National Committee.
  Shortly thereafter, President Clinton signed an Executive Order that 
increased the size of the U.S. Commission on Pacific Trade and then 
appointed Mr. Trie to the Commission.
  On January 29th of this year, the Department of Justice indicted Trie 
on charges that he funneled illegal foreign contributions to the 1996 
Clinton-Gore reelection campaign in order to buy access to top 
Democratic Party and Clinton administration officials.
  Vice President Gore was present at an event in a Buddhist temple 
where $80,000 in contributions to the Democratic National Committee 
were laundered through penniless nuns and monks.
  Vice President Gore offered differing characterizations of the 
Buddhist temple event. First, the Vice President described the event as 
a ``community outreach.'' He later characterized it as a ``donor-
maintenance'' event where ``no money was offered or collected or raised 
at the event.''
  However, the Department of Justice determined otherwise. So on 
February 18, veteran Democratic fundraiser Maria Hsia was charged in a 
six-count indictment by the Department of Justice for her part in 
raising the illegal contributions for the Democratic National Committee 
at the Buddhist temple event.

  Mr. President, just the day before yesterday, our Attorney General 
ordered a 90-day inquiry into whether President Clinton circumvented 
Federal election laws in 1996. This investigation could lead to yet 
another independent counsel investigation. This 90-day inquiry is in 
addition to an inquiry focusing on Vice President Gore's statements 
about his 1996 telephone fundraising calls in the White House.
  Mr. President, our current campaign finance system has many flaws, 
but the point I want to make to my colleagues is that these flaws do 
not justify shredding the first amendment, especially because the 
current occupant of the White House pushed the envelope of legality in 
his search to finance his reelection campaign.
  Mr. President, as Floyd Abrams, a noted first amendment lawyer, has 
stated:

       First amendment principles should guide whatever 
     legislative solution we choose. The first principle is that 
     it is not for Congress to decide that political speech is 
     some sort of disease that we must quarantine.

  Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to reject this unconstitutional 
infringement on free speech.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his outstanding 
speech and his contributions over the years to this important first 
amendment discussion.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. There was some discussion yesterday on the floor with 
regard to the issue of advocacy about a case called Furgatch. And the 
supporters of McCain-Feingold spent a lot of time trying to interpret 
the Furgatch decision as allowing the kind of suppression of issue 
advocacy by citizens that I think clearly is a misreading of the case.
  Those who advocate McCain-Feingold and, for that matter, the Snowe-
Jeffords substitute regulatory regimes, have precious few court cases 
on which to base their arguments. Most prominent among these is the 
ninth circuit's Furgatch decision, dating back to 1987. It is mighty 
slim, Mr. President, the Furgatch limb upon which their issue advocacy 
regulation case rests.
  While Furgatch is not my favorite decision, it is certainly not the 
blank check for reformers who seek to shut down issue advocacy, either.
  Furgatch was an express advocacy case, nothing short. It was about a 
different subject. It was an express advocacy case, not an issue 
advocacy case. It hinged on the content of the communication at issue--
words, explicit terms--just as the Supreme Court required in Buckley 
and reiterated in Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
  The words in Furgatch were not those contained in Buckley's footnote 
52. Indeed, no one, least of all the Supreme Court, ever intended that 
the list--also known as ``footnote 52''--was exhaustive. That would 
defy common sense.
  Desperate for even the thinnest constitutional gruel upon which to 
base their regulatory zeal to extend their reach to everyone who dares 
to utter a political word in this country, the FEC leapt at Furgatch 
and won't let go. FEC lawyers misread it, they also misrepresent it, 
and are rewarded with loss after loss in the courts.
  In last year's fourth circuit decision ordering the FEC to pay one of 
its victims, the Christian Action Network's attorneys' fees, the 
Furgatch-as-blank-check-for-issue-advocacy-regulation fantasy was 
thoroughly dissected, debunked and dispensed with.
  The court in the Christian Action Network case puts Furgatch in the 
proper perspective. Let me just read a couple of parts of the Christian 
Action Network case.
  The court says:

       . . . less than a month following the Court's decision in 
     [Massachusetts Citizens for Life], the Ninth Circuit in FEC 
     v. Furgatch . . . could not have been clearer that it, too, 
     shared this understanding of the Court's decision in Buckley. 
     Although the court declined to ``strictly limit'' express 
     advocacy to the ``magic words'' of Buckley's footnote 52 
     because that footnote's list does ``not exhaust the capacity 
     of the English language to expressly advocate election or 
     defeat of a candidate . . .
       Curiously, the Ninth Circuit never cited or discussed the 
     Supreme Court's opinion in [Massachusetts Citizens for Life], 
     notwithstanding that [Massachusetts Citizens for Life] was 
     argued in the Supreme Court three months prior to the 
     decision in Furgatch and decided by the Court almost a month 
     prior to the Court of Appeals' decision. The Ninth Circuit 
     does discuss the First Circuit's opinion in [Massachusetts 
     Citizens for Life], but without noting that certiorari had 
     been granted to review the case. . . . Thus, the Furgatch 
     court relied upon Buckley alone, without the reaffirmation 
     provided by the Court in [Massachusetts Citizens for Life], 
     for its conclusion that explicit ``words'' or ``language'' of 
     advocacy are required if the Federal Election Campaign Act is 
     to be constitutionally enforced.
       . . . the entire premise of the court's analysis was that 
     words of advocacy such as those recited in footnote 52 were 
     required to support Commission jurisdiction over a given 
     corporate expenditure.


[[Page S10147]]


  The point here is that in case after case after case the FEC has lost 
in court seeking to restrict the rights of individual citizens to 
engage in issue advocacy. There is no basis for this effort. And the 
courts have been turning them down and turning them down and turning 
them down. In fact, there have been three cases in the last few months: 
North Carolina Right to Life versus Bartlett, April 30, 1998, an issue 
advocacy case decided consistent with the observations the Senator from 
Kentucky has made; Right to Life of Duchess County versus FEC, June 1, 
1998 of this year, another decision consistent with the points the 
Senator from Kentucky has made; and Virginia Society of Human Life 
versus Caldwell, June 5 of this year.
  In short, there is no constitutional way--and importantly, we are not 
going to do that by passing this unfortunate legislation--but there is 
no constitutional way that the government can shut these people up at 
any point, up to and including the election. There is no legal basis, 
no constitutional basis for the assumption that there are any 
restrictions that can be placed upon the ability of citizens to 
criticize elected officials, or anyone else for that matter, up to and 
including the day before the election.
  Finally, let me say, as I mentioned yesterday, the institutions in 
America pushing the hardest for these restrictions on groups are the 
newspapers who engage in issue advocacy every day, both in their news 
stories and on their editorial pages, up to and including the election. 
Their issue advocacy would be totally untouched, and I am not arguing 
that we should touch it. I think they are free to speak. What bothers 
me about the newspapers, particularly the New York Times, the 
Washington Post and USA Today, they want to shut everybody else up. 
They want to have a free ride when it comes to criticizing political 
figures in proximity to an election. Fortunately, the courts would not 
allow that.
  This measure is not going to pass so we won't have to worry about it, 
but it is a flawed concept, and I think it is important for our 
colleagues to understand that.
  How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 39 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
control the time on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the time 
to point out that once again a case that the Senator from Kentucky has 
been discussing is a case that is appropriate in some situations but is 
not really applicable to the current provision of the McCain-Feingold 
bill that is before the body. The Senator can stand up and cite all 
kinds of cases about a lot of provisions, but the provisions are not in 
the bill at this time. So I hope those who are listening don't get 
confused about case law that has nothing to do with our actual 
amendment.
  Previous versions of the McCain-Feingold bill included a codification 
of the Furgatch decision, but with the passage of the Snowe-Jeffords 
amendment in February, the provision that we have before the Senate now 
simply doesn't include that approach. It takes a different approach to 
the issue advocacy problem. A number of constitutional scholars, 
including Dan Ortiz of Virginia Law School, believe this approach is 
constitutional.
  I understand the strategy--keep bringing up aspects of the bill that 
were concerns in the past, make people think those are still there and 
get people to be uncomfortable with the bill. I understand the strategy 
because we have 52 votes already for this amendment as it actually is 
being presented. So that everyone understands, these are arguments 
against a bill that is not before the Senate. I assume that is because 
they don't have very strong arguments against the bill that is, in 
fact, before the Senate.
  This afternoon we will vote once again on the McCain-Feingold 
campaign finance reform bill. Twice before we have debated this issue 
and twice we have been blocked by filibusters--I might add, not just by 
filibusters conducted after an amending process has occurred, but 
filibusters used to prevent the legitimate and normal process of 
allowing Members of the Senate to amend a bill.
  Some may ask, Why do you keep bringing us back to vote on it? The 
reason, quite simply put, is that this is a crucial issue. It is a 
defining issue for the 105th Congress. After all, we spent an entire 
year investigating the campaign finance abuses of the 1996 elections. 
That investigation, as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who led 
the investigation I am sure will tell us when he speaks today, showed 
beyond a shadow of doubt that reform is needed. Of course, in response 
to that, the House has passed a strong campaign finance reform bill, 
very similar to the amendment we have offered here.
  We owe it to the American people to finish the job. The American 
people elected us to be legislators, Mr. President, not just 
investigators. Investigations are fine and appropriate, but we will 
have failed in our duties as legislators if we do not enact laws to 
address the problems that our investigations uncover. With the House 
vote early last month, meaningful campaign finance reform is in sight. 
This Senate has an obligation to address the campaign finance issue, 
and the public expects us to act. We know that a majority here 
understands that obligation. The question is whether we can get closer 
now to the supermajority of 60 votes that we apparently will still need 
in order to end debate on this amendment and get to a vote on the 
merits.
  I hope that in the short time we have to debate this issue today we 
will actually debate our amendment, what is before the Senate. Again, 
yesterday we heard a number of opponents of the bill speak at length 
about cases that have nothing to do with the provisions that are 
actually in this bill. We heard a lengthy discussion of the history of 
campaign spending, with interesting, but really not very relevant, 
expositions about donors to an unsuccessful Presidential campaign 30 
years ago.
  I really hope we hear an actual justification from those on the other 
side today, an actual justification for voting against a ban on the 
unlimited corporate and labor contribution to political parties known 
as soft money. I hope that when they wax eloquent again about the first 
amendment rights of citizens, they will actually direct their criticism 
to our bill, to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment on electioneering 
communications, rather than severely exaggerating the effect and intent 
of those provisions.
  To no one's surprise, the headlines this morning in the newspapers 
are not about campaign finance reform. The scandal that has occupied 
the Nation's attention for the past 8 months has reached a new and 
critical phase with the delivery of the Starr report to the House of 
Representatives. Many Senators are understandably very much concerned 
about how the impeachment process will play out. But for now, the 
report is on the other side of the Capitol. We still have a job to do 
here. We have many things to do here. But first on the list has got to 
be to somehow address the scandals that occupied our attention for much 
of 1997. Of course, the matters of 1998 have to be addressed, but are 
we just going to leave the scandals of 1996 behind, let them be washed 
away as if nothing wrong was done?
  The biggest threat to our democracy still comes from this out-of-
control campaign finance system, notwithstanding the very serious news 
of the day. Let us not be distracted from our duty to address that 
threat.
  There are many Senators who support reform who would like to speak 
today, and our time is limited. So let me conclude by putting my 
colleagues on notice. The vote this afternoon on cloture will not be 
the end of the effort to pass campaign finance reform this year. I am 
sorry if this is an issue that is inconvenient or uncomfortable for 
some Senators to deal with. The American people didn't send us here for 
our convenience or for our comfort. They sent us to do a job, and we 
are going to do it.
  This amendment that is pending will continue to be pending. I hope it 
will become the subject of a legitimate legislative process. What I 
mean by that

[[Page S10148]]

is, when there is an amendment that has a majority of support in this 
body, at the bare minimum Senators should be allowed to offer 
amendments, offer their ideas and their concepts about how to make it 
better. I understand the argument that you need 60 votes to pass it 
anyway. That has a lot of truth to it. But this process has repeatedly 
and cynically denied us the chance to simply amend the bill. That is 
how they passed it in the House. Everybody didn't love the bill right 
away. They adopted a number of amendments. They were allowed to offer 
their ideas and vote on them.
  We have been prohibited from improving this bill beyond the Snowe-
Jeffords amendment. Of course, we know why. When we did Snowe-Jeffords, 
lo and behold, we got three more votes and we had a majority. Then the 
game was declared over. That is not a legitimate legislative process. 
That is not a fair process. That is the intentional denying of the 
majority of both Houses their right to fashion a bill that they can 
send on to the President. So I am not denying the right to filibuster. 
But denying the right to amend this amendment is well beyond the norm 
in this body, especially when we have demonstrated that 52 Senators are 
already committed to this amendment as it currently stands. So they 
continue to deny the majority even the right to make a reasonable 
change, to ask each other, ``What change would you like in order to 
make this bill acceptable to you?'' I think that is highly 
inappropriate.
  So the only way to avoid this discomfort is for Members to vote for 
cloture and let the majority do its will on this issue.
  Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine is interested, I will yield 
to her. How much time does the Senator need?
  Ms. SNOWE. I need 15 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator 
from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the McCain-
Feingold campaign finance amendment before us. It is often said that 
when it comes to the important things in life, we don't get a second 
chance. Well, today, we are presented with such a second chance this 
year to pass comprehensive, meaningful campaign finance reform. We have 
a third chance this Congress, for which I thank Senators McCain and 
Feingold for their unflagging determination. I also want to thank the 
majority leader for allowing us an opportunity to have another vote on 
this issue on the Interior appropriations bill.
  Indeed, it seems, to paraphrase Mark Twain, that reports of campaign 
finance reform's demise have been greatly exaggerated. I hail authors 
of the House bill for their tenacity and the Members of the House who 
defied conventional wisdom and passed a comprehensive reform bill along 
the lines of McCain-Feingold.
  We are back here to attach this legislation to this appropriations 
bill because the House of Representatives courageously chose to do 
their part to dispel the cynicism that hung over the Capitol like a 
cloud. They have brought this issue out into the light of day, and it 
is long past time that we here in the Senate do likewise.
  When you consider the veritable mountain, indeed, the sheer cliff 
wall of legislative obstacles the Shays-Meehan bill had to overcome, it 
is unthinkable that we cannot overcome our hurdles in this Chamber. It 
was truly a ``long and winding road'' for the Shays-Meehan bill which, 
at first, wasn't even going to be considered. Finally, when the 
drumbeat for the Shays-Meehan bill would not die, a process was devised 
that would allow for the consideration of 11 different plans and more 
than 250 amendments.
  The so-called ``Queen of the Hill'' contest played itself out from 
May 21 through August 6. But in the end, when the smoke finally 
cleared, the Shays-Meehan bill remained standing in what has to be one 
of the most remarkable legislative victories in recent memory.
  By a vote of 252-179--including 61 Republicans--Shays-Meehan was 
passed in the House in the face of overwhelming odds and, thus, our 
mandate was handed to us here in the Senate.
  Like the House, we, too, have a majority who are already on record in 
favor of reform--52 Senators--thanks to the leadership of Senators 
McCain and Feingold in bringing this legislation to the floor earlier 
this year. Unlike the House, we have twice failed to pass a bill. We 
have twice failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to defeat a 
filibuster. But for the very first time, as a result of the McCain-
Feingold vote we had earlier this year, we received a majority in 
support of that legislation--the very first campaign finance reform 
bill to receive a majority vote here in the U.S. Senate.

  Mr. President, I cannot believe there aren't eight other Senators in 
this body who understand the fundamental issue we are faced with: the 
very integrity of this institution, as well as the process that brings 
us here. When the House of Representatives can get a bipartisan 
majority of 252 Members to understand the implications, people might 
wonder why it is so hard to find eight more Senators to do the same. I 
have asked the same question myself.
  Last week, Senator Lieberman, during a widely and deservedly praised 
speech, stood in this Chamber and appealed to a higher principle than 
partisanship or the politics of self-preservation. He wasn't speaking 
of election reform, but his appeal to our more noble instincts is 
relevant to this debate. In fact, it is integral.
  Reforming our broken campaign system is not a Republican thing, not a 
Democrat thing, but the right thing. It is something we owe to 
ourselves as leaders, it is something we owe to this institution, and 
it is something we owe to the American people as participants in the 
world's greatest democracy.
  I know that some have said that the American people actually aren't 
very concerned about this issue. They point to studies, such as a poll 
conducted this year by the Pew Research Center, which ranked campaign 
reform 13th on a list of 14 major issues. But let's look at the reason: 
The report also said that public confidence in Congress to write an 
effective and fair campaign law had declined. In other words, the 
American people have given up on us. They are betting we won't do it. 
That is a sad commentary. I say, let's surprise them and do the right 
thing. I say, we have a solemn obligation not to justify their 
cynicism.
  And to those who argue that now is not the time to take up this 
issue, my response is: What better time than now? This is the most 
optimum time to change the political dynamic today.
  After an election in which the most corruptive elements were brought 
to bear, after we learn of illegal donations from the Chinese in an 
attempt to gain influence, after we learn of more than 45 fundraising 
calls from the White House, after we learn that the President may have 
controlled advertising paid for by the DNC but aimed at reelecting the 
President, after the Attorney General launched three separate 
preliminary investigations in the last 2 weeks into these allegations, 
after we learn of the explosion of soft money and electioneering ads--
after all of these things, now is the time to clean up the system.
  Mr. President, I come to this debate as a veteran supporter of 
campaign finance reform. As someone who has served on Capitol Hill for 
almost 20 years, I understand the realities and I know there are 
concerns on both sides of the aisle that whatever measure we may 
ultimately pass, it must be fair, it must treat everyone as equitably 
as possible.
  In fact, I agree with those concerns. That is the challenge that 
brought Senator Jeffords and me to the table last October when we first 
attempted to consider this issue. It is what brought us back in 
February, and it is the reason I am here again today.
  I said last year that we should be putting our heads together, not 
building walls between us with intractable rhetoric and all-or-nothing 
propositions. Senator Jeffords and I attempted to bridge the gulf 
between two sides and expand support for McCain-Feingold by making 
sensible incremental changes.
  We were joined in this bipartisan effort by both Senators McCain and 
Feingold, as well as Senators Levin, Chafee, Lieberman, Thompson, 
Collins, Breaux, and Specter.
  I thank them again for their tremendous help and support.
  Together we not only won adoption of the amendment, but we helped 
bring

[[Page S10149]]

this body to the first real vote on campaign finance reform and moved 
the debate forward by actually having the debate, and we solidified 
majority support for McCain-Feingold.
  I would like to take a few moments to speak about the provisions of 
the Snowe-Jeffords measure and why I think this measure is now 
considered worthy of the support of my Republican colleagues.
  The McCain-Feingold measure we are now considering takes a tremendous 
step forward by putting an end to soft money, tightening coordination 
definitions, and working to level the playing field for candidates 
facing opponents with vast personal wealth spent on their own 
campaigns. It also addresses the issues concerning the use of 
unregulated and undisclosed advertising that affects Federal elections, 
and the concerns that the original bill's attempt at addressing this 
issue would not withstand court scrutiny. This is important because if 
the courts had ruled the bill's efforts to address the distinction 
between true advocacy ads that influence Federal elections to be 
unconstitutional, then essentially all that would remain would be a ban 
on soft money. If that were to happen, we would be left with only one-
half of the equation, and I share the concerns of those who want to see 
balanced reform--and a level playing field, not throw it even further 
off kilter.
  The Snowe-Jeffords approach would be much more likely to pass court 
muster. It was developed in consultation with noted constitutional 
scholars and reformers such as Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise 
Institute and Josh Rosenkrantz, Director of the Brennan Center for 
Justice at NYU, as well as others. And it goes to the heart of the 
``stealth advocacy ads'' which purport to be only about issues but are 
really designed to influence the outcome of federal elections.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the document from the 
Brennan Center for Justice be printed in the Record at the conclusion 
of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, the approach in this amendment is a 
straightforward, two tiered one that only applies to advertisements 
that constitute the most blatant form of electioneering. It only 
applies to ads run on radio or television, 30 days before a primary and 
60 days before a general election, that identify a federal candidate. 
And only if over $10,000 is spent on such ads in a year. What is 
required is disclosure of the ads' sponsor and major donors, and a 
prohibition on the use of union dues or corporate treasury funds to 
finance the ads.

  We called this new category ``electioneering ads''. They are the only 
communications addressed, and we define them very narrowly and 
carefully.
  If the ad is not run on television or radio; if the ad is not aired 
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, if the ad 
doesn't mention a candidate's name or otherwise identify him clearly, 
if it isn't targeted at the candidate's electorate, or if a group 
hasn't spent more than $10,000 in that year on these ads, then it is 
not an electioneering ad.
  If is an item appearing in a news story, commentary, voter guides or 
editorial distributed through a broadcast station, it is also not an 
electioneering ad. Plain and simple.
  If one does run an electioneering ad, two things happen. First, the 
sponsor must disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors 
who donated more than $500 to the group since January 1st of 
the previous year. Right now, candidates have to disclose campaign 
contributions over $200--so the threshold contained in McCain-Feingold 
is much higher. Second, the ad cannot be paid for by funds from a 
business corporation or labor union--only voluntary contributions.
  The clear, narrow wording of the amendment is important because it 
passes two critical first amendment doctrines that were at the heart of 
the Supreme Court's landmark Buckley versus Valeo decision: vagueness 
and overbreadth. The rules of this provision are clear. And the 
requirements are strictly limited to ads run near an election that 
identify a candidate--ads plainly intended to convince voters to vote 
for or against a particular candidate.

  Nothing in this provision restricts the right of any group to engage 
in issue advocacy. Nothing prohibits groups from running electioneering 
ads, either. Let me be clear on this: if this bill becomes law, any 
group running issues ads today can still run issue ads in the future, 
with no restrictions on content. And any group running electioneering 
ads can still run those ads in the future, again with absolutely zero 
restrictions on content.
  So to those who will argue, as they did in February, that this 
measure runs afoul of the first amendment, I say that that is simply a 
red herring, Mr. President. And you don't have to take my word for it. 
Constitutional scholars from Stanford Law to Georgia Law to Loyola Law 
to Vanderbilt Law have endorsed the approach that is now part of this 
legislation.
  If anything, Mr. President, this provision underscores first 
amendment rights for union members and shareholders by protecting them 
from having their money used for electioneering ads they may not agree 
with, while maintaining the right of labor and corporate management to 
speak through PACs.
  This is a sensible, reasonable approach to addressing a burgeoning 
segment of electioneering that is making a mockery of our campaign 
finance system. How can anyone not be for disclosure? How can anyone 
say that less information for the public leads to better elections? 
Don't the American people have the right to know who is paying for 
these stealth advocacy ads, and how much?
  This problem is not going to go away, Mr. President. The year 1996 
marked a turning point in American elections--make no mistake about it.
  The Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania 
published a report this year on so-called issue advertising during the 
1996 elections, and if any member of the Senate hasn't read it I 
recommend you get hold of a copy.
  As this first chart demonstrates, the report finds that, during the 
1996 elections, anywhere from $135 million to $150 million was spent by 
third-party organizations in the 1996 election on radio and TV ads. 
This totals almost one-third of the amount of money that was spent in 
the election; $400 million was spent by all candidates for President, 
U.S. Senate, and the House, but other organizations spent a third of 
all of the money that was spent in the last election.
  Then chart two, if there is any doubt about the intent of these ads, 
indicates, according to the Annenberg Report, that in a study of 109 
ads that were supported by 29 different organizations, almost 87 
percent of those so-called issue ads referred to a candidate, and 41 
percent of those issue ads were identified by the public as being 
``attack ads''--41 percent. Almost 87 percent of these so-called issue 
ads identified a candidate. That is the highest percentage recorded 
among a group that also included Presidential ads, debates, free-time 
segments, and news program organizations.
  Clearly, these ads were overtly aimed at electing or defeating 
targeted candidates, but under current law they aren't even subject to 
disclosure requirements. We are only talking about those individuals 
who provide $500 or more to an organization that runs ads identifying a 
candidate 30 days before a primary and 60 days before a general 
election.
  But let's look at the ads that I am talking about. Again, we are 
talking about stealth advocacy ads. First, you get the ``True Issue 
Ad,'' according to the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which says that 
``McCain-Feingold would have no impact on True Issue Ads.'' It says 
here that it is ``A True Issue Ad.'' It says:

       This election year, America's children need your vote. Our 
     public schools are our children's ticket to the future. But 
     education has become just another target for attack by 
     politicians who want huge cuts in education programs. They're 
     making the wrong choices. Our children deserve leaders who 
     will strengthen public education, not attack it. They deserve 
     the best education we can give them. So this year, vote as if 
     your children's future depends on it. It does.

  That is a true issue ad.
  Look at chart four. This is what I call a ``Stealth Advocacy Ad.'' 
This is what McCain-Feingold would define as ``Electioneering 
Communications.''
  That is totally permissible under any of the rulings that have been 
made and

[[Page S10150]]

rendered by the Supreme Court, because those distinctions can be made 
between electioneering and between constitutionally permitted freedom 
of speech.
  This is a stealth advocacy ad:

       Mr. X promised he'd be different. But he's just another 
     Washington politician. Why, during the last year alone he has 
     taken over $260,000 from corporate special interest groups. . 
     . . But is he listening to us anymore?

  That identifies a candidate.
  I defy anyone to tell me with a straight face that the intent of this 
stealth advocacy ad is anything other than to advocate for the defeat 
of candidate X. That is the kind of ad that is covered by the McCain-
Feingold measure.
  Let me tell you something. This ad could still run. Any group in 
America can run any ad that they want before the election identifying a 
candidate. But the fact is it would require disclosure of those donors 
who provide more than $500 to that organization, if these ads run 30 
days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. And the 
money could not be funded by unions or corporations through their 
treasuries. If they want to finance these ads, by unions or 
corporations, they will have to do so by a PAC, if these ads run 30 
days before a primary and 60 days before a general election.

  So what are we talking about? Disclosure. That is what we are talking 
about. And 87 percent of these issue ads, these so-called issue ads, 
are what I would call stealth advocacy ads, because they identify a 
candidate but we don't know who finances these ads. This, on the other 
hand, is a true issue ad. It doesn't identify a candidate. Groups can 
run ads saying: ``Call your Senator. Call your Member of Congress.'' 
They don't have to identify the candidate. But if they do, it requires 
disclosure of their major donors.
  Mr. President, we are accountable to the people. We are required as 
candidates for office to file disclosure forms as candidates. PACs are 
required to disclose. But hundreds of millions of dollars are spent on 
these ads without one dime being reported--not one dime. And I remind 
you that one-third of the money that was spent in the last election, in 
1996, was spent by organizations that did not have to disclose one 
dime. And there is no reason to think it will not get worse.
  You do not need a crystal ball. Just look at some of the special 
elections this year. For example, it has been widely reported that just 
one group spent $200,000 on special election TV commercials. We don't 
have the total of exactly how much was spent overall, because there is 
currently no accountability, no disclosure. That is what the McCain-
Feingold legislation is addressing.
  And think about this. Overall, national party committees raised over 
$115 million in soft money during the first 18 months of the 1997-1998 
election cycle, the most money ever on a nonpresidential election 
cycle. Total soft money contributions to both Democrats and Republicans 
have more than doubled during the past 4 years. In fact, soft money 
contributions to national party committees have grown by 131 percent 
from the first 18 months of the 1993-1994 election cycle compared to 
the same period in this 1997-1998 election cycle--grown 131 percent.
  Enough is enough. I have said before that it is the duty of leaders 
to lead, and that means making some difficult choices. I know this is 
not an easy vote. It requires looking at ourselves and asking what is 
important, protecting the status quo, or is it protecting the integrity 
of our system of elections?
  How we choose our elected officials goes to the heart of who we are 
as a nation. It defines us as a country and it defines whether or not 
we will continue to maintain the integrity of this process. But there 
is a very great danger that if we do nothing, if we shroud ourselves in 
the rhetoric of absolutism, if we turn our backs on a monumental 
opportunity that we now have, then our mantle of greatness will decay 
from the inside, because if the American people lose faith in the 
system that elects our public officials, they have lost faith in the 
integrity of Government itself, and we cannot allow this to happen. We 
cannot preside over this disintegration of public trust.
  Eight votes stand between us and a reform bill. Eight votes stand 
between us and the passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation. After 
two tries in the Senate, the labyrinthian parliamentary procedure, 
hundreds of amendments, and a ``Queen of the Hill'' contest in the 
House, all that is holding back a reform bill this year is eight 
Senators. This is our chance, my friends, and I implore my colleagues 
to seize this historic opportunity. After this vote, there will be no 
doubt who stands four square behind fair, sensible, meaningful reform 
and who does not.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for yielding me the 
time and for his leadership and his commitment.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

                                        Brennan Center for Justice


                                         at NYU School of Law,

                                  New York, NY, February 20, 1998.
     Re NRLC objections to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment.
       Dear Senator: We write to rebut letters from the National 
     Right to Life Committee (NRLC), dated February 17 and 
     February 20, 1998, in opposition to the Snowe-Jeffords 
     Amendment to the McCain-Feingold Bill. NRLC mischaracterizes 
     what the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment would achieve and 
     misrepresents constitutional doctrine. The Amendment would 
     not restrict the ability of advocacy groups such as NRLC to 
     engage in either issue advocacy or electioneering. But it 
     would prevent them from (1) hiding from the public the 
     amounts they spend on the most blatant form of 
     electioneering; (2) keeping secret the identities of those 
     who bankroll their electioneering messages with large 
     contributions; and (3) funneling funds from business 
     corporations and labor unions into electioneering. These 
     goals, and the means used to achieve them, are 
     constitutionally permissible.


               What the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment Would Do

       The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment applies only to advertisements 
     that constitute the most blatant form of electioneering. If 
     an ad does not satisfy every one of the following criteria, 
     none of the restrictions or disclosure rules of the Snowe-
     Jeffords Amendment would be triggered: Medium: The ad must be 
     broadcast on radio or television. Timing: The ad must be 
     aired shortly before an election--within 60 days before a 
     general election (or special election) or 30 days before a 
     primary. Candidate-Specific: The ad must mention a 
     candidate's name or identify the candidate clearly. 
     Targeting: The ad must be targeted at voters in the 
     candidate's state. Threshold: The sponsor of the ad must 
     spend more than $10,000 on such electioneering ads in the 
     calendar year.
       If, and only if, an electioneering ad meets all of the 
     foregoing criteria, do the following rules apply:
       Restriction: The electioneering ad cannot be paid for 
     directly or indirectly by funds from a business corporation 
     or labor union. Individuals, PACs, and most nonprofits can 
     engage in unlimited advocacy or the sort covered by the 
     Snowe-Jeffords Amendment. The Amendment would prohibit these 
     advocacy groups from financing their electioneering ads with 
     funds from business corporations or labor unions. Since it is 
     already illegal for business corporations and labor unions to 
     engage in electioneering, these limitations are intended to 
     prevent evasion of otherwise valid federal restrictions.
       Disclosure: The sponsor of an electioneering ad must 
     disclose the amount spent and the identity of contributors 
     who donated more than $500 toward the ad. This requirement is 
     necessary to prevent contributors from evading federal 
     reporting requirements by funneling contributions intended to 
     influence the outcome of an election through advocacy groups.


    the nrlc's misrepresentations about the snowe-jeffords amendment

       The NRLC has so completely distorted the effect of the 
     Snowe-Jeffords Amendment with false and misleading 
     allegations that it is important at the outset to set the 
     record straight.
       The Amendment would not prohibit groups such as NRLC from 
     disseminating electioneering communications. Instead, it 
     would merely require the NRLC to disclose how much it is 
     spending on electioneering broadcasts and who is bankrolling 
     them.
       The Amendment would not prohibit NRLC and others from 
     accepting corporate or labor funds. If it wished to accept 
     corporate or labor funds, it would simply have to take steps 
     to ensure that those funds could not be spent on blatant 
     electioneering messages.
       NRLC and similar organizations would not have to create a 
     PAC or other separate entity in order to engage in the types 
     of electioneering covered by the Amendment. Rather, they 
     would simply have to deposit the money they receive from 
     corporations and unions (or other restricted sources) into 
     separate bank accounts.
       The Amendment would not bar or require disclosure of 
     communications by print media, direct mail, or other non-
     broadcast modes of communication. NRLC and similar advocacy 
     groups would be able to organize their members or communicate 
     with the public at large through mass communications such as 
     newspaper advertisements, mass mailings, voter guides, or 
     billboards, to

[[Page S10151]]

     the same extent currently permitted by law. There is no 
     provision in the current version of the Snowe-Jeffords 
     Amendment that changes any of the rules regarding those non-
     broadcast forms of communication.
       The Amendment would not affect the ability of any 
     organization to ``urge grassroots contacts with lawmakers 
     regarding an upcoming vote in Congress.'' The Amendment 
     has no effect on a broadcast directing the public, for 
     example, to ``Urge your congressman and senator to vote 
     against [`or in favor of'] the McCain-Feingold bill.'' The 
     sponsor could even give the telephone number for the 
     audience to call. And the ad would be free fom all the 
     Amendment's new disclosure rules and source rules--even if 
     the ad is run the day before the election. By simply 
     declining to name ``Congressman X'' or ``Senator Y,'' 
     whose election is imminent and the outcome of which NRLC 
     presumably does not intend to affect, NRLC could run its 
     issue ad free from both the minimal disclosure rules and 
     the prohibition on use of business and union funds.
       The Amendment's disclosure rules do not require invasive 
     disclosure of all donors. They require disclosure only of 
     those donors who pay more than $500 to the account that funds 
     the ad.
       The Amendment would not require advance disclosure of the 
     contents of an ad. It would require disclosure only of the 
     amount spent, the sources of the money, and the identity of 
     the candidate whose election is targeted.


                    Basic Constitutional Principles

       NRLC is simply mistaken in suggesting that the minimal 
     disclosure rules and the restrictions on corporate and union 
     electioneering contained in the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment are 
     unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has made clear that, for 
     constitutional purposes, electioneering is different from 
     other speech. See FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, 479 
     U.S. 238, 249 (1986). Congress has the power to enact 
     campaign finance laws that constrain the spending of money on 
     electioneering in a variety of ways, even though spending on 
     other forms of political speech is entitled to absolute First 
     Amendment protection. See generally Buckley v. Valeo, 424 
     U.S. 1 (1976). Congress is permitted to demand that the 
     sponsor of an electioneering message disclose the amount 
     spent on the message and the sources of the funds. And 
     Congress may prohibit corporations and labor unions from 
     spending money on electioneering. This is black letter 
     constitutional law about which there can be no serious 
     dispute.
       There are, of course, limits to Congress's power to 
     regulate election-related spending. But there are two 
     contexts in which the Supreme Court has granted Congress 
     freer reign to regulate. First, Congress has broader latitude 
     to require disclosure of election-related spending than it 
     does to restrict such spending. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 67-
     68. In Buckley, the Court declared that the governmental 
     interests that justify disclosure of election-related 
     spending are considerably broader and more powerful than 
     those justifying prohibitions or restrictions on election-
     related spending. Disclosure rules, the Court opined, in 
     contrast to spending restrictions or contribution limits, 
     enhance the information available to the voting public. Plus, 
     the burdens on free speech rights are far less significant 
     when Congress requires disclosure of a particular type of 
     spending than when it prohibits the spending outright or 
     limits the funds that support the speech. Disclosure rules, 
     according to the Court, are ``the least restrictive means of 
     curbing the evils of campaign ignorance and corruption.'' 
     Thus, even if certain political advertisement cannot be 
     prohibited or otherwise regulated, the speaker might still be 
     required to disclose the funding sources for those ads if the 
     governmental justification is sufficiently strong.
       Second, Congress has a long record, which has been 
     sustained by the Supreme Court, of imposing more onerous 
     spending restrictions on corporations and labor unions than 
     on individuals, political action committees, and 
     associations. Since 1907, federal law has banned corporations 
     from engaging in electioneering. See 2 U.S.C. Sec. 441b(a). 
     In 1947, that ban was extended to prohibit unions from 
     electioneering as well. Id. As the Supreme Court has pointed 
     out, Congress banned corporate and union contributions in 
     order ``to avoid the deleterious influences on federal 
     elections resulting from the use of money by those who 
     exercise control over large aggregations of capital.'' United 
     States v. UAW, 352 U.S. 567, 585 (1957). As recently as 1990, 
     the Court reaffirmed this rationale. See Austin v. Michigan 
     Chamber of Commerce, 491 U.S. 652 (1990); FEC v. National 
     Right to Work Committee, 459 U.S. 197 (1982). The Court 
     emphasized that it is perfectly constitutional for the state 
     to limit the electoral participation of corporations because 
     ``[s]tate law grants [them] special advantages--such as 
     limited liability, perpetual life, and favorable treatment of 
     the accumulation of and distribution of assets,'' Austin, 491 
     U.S. at 658-59. Having provided these advantages to 
     corporations, particularly business corporations, the state 
     has no obligation to ``permit them to use `resources amassed 
     in the economic marketplace' to obtain `an unfair advantage 
     in the political marketplace.'' (quoting, MCFL, 479 U.S. at 
     257).
       The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment builds upon these bedrock 
     principles, extending current regulation cautiously and only 
     in the areas in which the First Amendment protection is at 
     its lowest ebb.


               Congress Is Not Stuck with ``Magic Words''

       The Supreme Court has never held that there is only a 
     single constitutionally permissible route a legislature may 
     take when it defines ``electioneering'' to be regulated or 
     reported. The Court has not prescribed certain ``magic 
     words'' that are regulable and placed all other 
     electioneering beyond the reach of any campaign finance 
     regulation. NRLC's argument to the contrary is based on a 
     fundamental misreading of the Supreme Court's opinion in 
     Buckley v. Valeo.
       In Buckley, the Supreme Court reviewed the 
     constitutionality of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     (FECA). One section of FECA imposed a $1,000 limit on 
     expenditures ``relative to a clearly identified candidate,'' 
     and another section imposed reporting requirements for 
     independent expenditures of over $100 ``for the purpose of 
     influencing'' a federal election. The Court concluded that 
     these regulations ran afoul of two constitutional doctrines--
     vagueness and overbreadth--that pervade First Amendment 
     jurisprudence.
       The vagueness doctrine demands precise definitions. Before 
     the government punishes someone--especially for speech--it 
     must articulate with sufficient precision what conduct is 
     legal and what is illegal. A vague or imprecise definition of 
     electioneering might ``chill'' some political speakers who, 
     although they desire to engage in discussions of political 
     issues, may fear that their speech could be punished.
       Even if a regulation is articulated with great clarity, it 
     may still be struck as overbroad. A restriction that covers 
     regulable speech (and does so clearly) can be struck if it 
     sweeps too broadly and covers a substantial amount of 
     constitutionally protected speech as well. But under 
     the overbreadth doctrine, the provision will be upheld 
     unless its overbreadth is substantial. A challenger cannot 
     topple a statute simply by conjuring up a handful of 
     applications that would yield unconstitutional results.
       Given these two doctrines, it is plain why FECA's clumsy 
     provisions troubled the Court. Any communication that so much 
     as mentions a candidate--any time and in any context--could 
     be said to be ``relative to'' the candidate. And it is 
     difficult to predict what might ``influence'' a federal 
     election.
       The Supreme Court could have simply struck FECA, leaving it 
     to Congress to develop a narrower and more precise definition 
     of electioneering. Instead, the Court intervened by 
     essentially rewriting Congress's handiwork itself. In order 
     to avoid the vagueness and overbreadth problems, the Court 
     interpreted FECA to reach only funds used for communications 
     that ``expressly advocate'' the election or defeat of a 
     clearly identified candidate. In an important footnote, the 
     Court provided some guidance on how to decide whether a 
     communication meets that description. The Court stated that 
     its revision of FECA would limit the reach of the statute 
     ``to communications containing express words of advocacy of 
     election or defeat, such as `vote for,' `elect,' `support,' 
     `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote against,' 
     `defeat,' `reject.' '' Buckley, 424 U.S. at 44 n.52.
       But the Court emphatically did not declare that all 
     legislatures were stuck with these magic words, or words like 
     them, for all time. To the contrary, Congress has the power 
     to enact a statute that defines electioneering in a more 
     nuanced manner, as long as its definition adequately 
     addresses the vagueness and overbreadth concerns expressed by 
     the Court.
       Any more restrictive reading of the Supreme Court's opinion 
     would be fundamentally at odds with the rest of the Supreme 
     Court's First Amendment jurisprudence. Countless other 
     contexts--including libel, obscenity, fighting words, and 
     labor elections--call for delicate line drawing between 
     protected speech and speech that may be regulated. In none of 
     these cases has the Court adopted a simplistic bright-line 
     approach. For example, in libel cases, an area of core First 
     Amendment concern, the Court has rejected the simple bright-
     line approach of imposing liability based on the truth or 
     falsity of the statement published. Instead the Court has 
     prescribed an analysis that examines, among other things, 
     whether the speaker acted with reckless disregard for the 
     truth of falsity of the statement and whether a reasonable 
     reader would perceive the statement as stating actual facts 
     or merely rhetorical hyperbole. See, e.g., Milkovich v. 
     Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 14-17 (1990). Similarly, in 
     the context of union representation elections, employers are 
     permitted to make ``predictions'' about the consequences of 
     unionizing but they may not issue ``threats.'' The courts 
     have developed an extensive jurisprudence to distinguish 
     between the two categories, yet the fact remains that an 
     employer could harbor considerable uncertainty as to whether 
     or not the words he is about to utter are sanctionable. The 
     courts are comfortable with the uncertainty of these tests 
     because they have provided certain concrete guidelines.
       In no area of First Amendment jurisprudence has the Court 
     mandated a mechanical test that ignores either the context of 
     the speech at issue or the purpose underlying the regulatory 
     scheme. In no area of First Amendment jurisprudence has the 
     Court held that the only constitutionally permissible test is 
     one that would render the underlying regulatory scheme 
     unenforceable. It is doubtful, therefore, that the Supreme 
     Court

[[Page S10152]]

     in Buckley intended to single out election regulations as 
     requiring a mechanical, formulaic, and utterly unworkable 
     test.


    The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment's Prohibition is Precise and Narrow

       The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment presents a definition of 
     electioneering carefully crafted to address the Supreme 
     Court's dual concerns regarding vagueness and overbreadth. 
     Because the test for prohibited electioneering is defined 
     with great clarity, it satisfies the Supreme Court's 
     vagueness concerns. Any sponsor of a broadcast will know, 
     with absolute certainty, whether the ad depicts or names a 
     candidate, how many days before an election it is being 
     broadcast, and what audience is targeted. There is little 
     danger that a sponsor would mistakenly censor its own 
     protected speech out of fear of prosecution under such a 
     clear standard.
       The prohibition is also so narrow that it easily satisfies 
     the Supreme Court's overbreadth concerns. Any speech 
     encompassed by the prohibition is plainly intended to 
     convince voters to vote for or against a particular 
     candidate. A sponsor who wishes simply to inform the public 
     at large about an issue immediately before an election could 
     readily do so without mentioning a specific candidate and 
     without targeting the message to the specific voters who 
     happen to be eligible to vote for that candidate. It is 
     virtually impossible to imagine an example of a broadcast 
     that satisfies this definition even though it was not 
     intended to influence the election in a direct and 
     substantial way. Though a fertile image might conjure up a 
     few counter-examples, the would not make the law 
     substantially overbroad.
       The careful crafting of the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment stands 
     in stark contrast to the clumsy and sweeping prohibition that 
     Congress originally drafted in FECA. Unlike the FECA 
     definition of electioneering, the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment 
     would withstand constitutional challenge without having to 
     resort to the device of narrowing the statute with magic 
     words. Congress could, if it wished, apply the basic rules 
     that currently govern electioneering to all spending that 
     falls within this more realistic definition of 
     electioneering. Congress could, for example, declare that 
     only individuals and PACs (and the most grassroots of 
     nonprofit corporations) could engage in electioneering that 
     falls within this broadened definition. It could impose 
     fundraising restrictions, prohibiting individuals from 
     pooling large contributions toward such electioneering.
       But, of course, the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment does not go 
     that far. The flat prohibition applies not to advocacy groups 
     like NRLC, but only to business corporations and labor 
     unions--and to the sorts of nonprofits that are already 
     severely limited in their ability to lobby. The expansion in 
     the definition of electioneering will not constrain NRLC from 
     engaging in grassroots advocacy or spending the money it 
     raises from its members for electioneering purposes. An 
     individual, any other group of individuals, an association, 
     and most nonprofit corporations can spend unlimited funds on 
     electioneering that falls within the expanded definition and 
     can raise funds in unlimited amounts, so long as they take 
     care to insulate the funds they use on electioneering from 
     funds they collect from business corporations, labor unions, 
     or business activities. Since all corporations and labor 
     unions receive reduced First Amendment protection in the 
     electioneering context--remember.  they can be flatly barred 
     from electioneering at all--the application of the new 
     prohibition only to labor unions and certain types of 
     corporation is certainly constitutional.


                  the extended disclosure requirement

       NRLC incorrectly argues that the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment's 
     disclosure requirements infringe on the public's First 
     Amendment right to engage in secret electioneering. In short, 
     there is not such right. In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections 
     Commission, 115 S. Ct. 1511 (1995), the Court was careful to 
     distinguish the anonymous pamphleteering against a referendum 
     at issue in that case from the disclosure rules governing 
     electioneering for or against a particular candidate for 
     office that were permitted in Buckley. Similarly, NRLC 
     improperly relies on NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958), 
     which recognizes a limited right of anonymity for groups that 
     have a legitimate fear of reprisal if their membership lists 
     or donors are publicly disclosed. NRLC, like any other group, 
     may be entitled to an exemption from electioneering 
     disclosure laws if it can demonstrate a reasonable 
     probability that compelled disclosure will subject its 
     members to threats, harassment, or reprisals. See McIntyre, 
     112 S. Ct. at 1524 n.21. But the need for these kinds of 
     limited exceptions certainly do not make the general 
     disclosure rules contained in Snowe-Jeffords 
     unconstitutional.
       Since the new prohibition in the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment 
     does not apply to the funds of individuals, associations, or 
     most nonprofit corporations, the First Amendment implications 
     for them are diminished. They will simply be required to 
     report their spending on speech that falls within the 
     broadened definition of electioneering, just as they 
     currently must report the sources and amounts of their 
     independent expenditures. They would be required to disclose 
     the cost of the advertisement, a description of how the money 
     was spent, and the names of individuals who contributed more 
     than $500 towards the ad. Contrary to the NRLC's claim, they 
     will never be required to disclose in advance any ad copy 
     that they intend to air.
       The overbreadth and vagueness rules are particularly strict 
     when applied to rules that restrict speech--such as the 
     aspect of the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment that bars business 
     corporations and labor unions from spending any funds on 
     electioneering. But, as the Supreme Court has observed, 
     disclosure rules do not restrict speech significantly. 
     Disclosure rules do not limit the information that is 
     conveyed to the electorate. To the contrary, they increase 
     the flow of information. For that reason, the Supreme Court 
     has made clear that rules requiring disclosure are subject to 
     less exacting constitutional strictures than direct 
     prohibitions on spending. See Buckley, 424 U.S. at 68. There 
     is no constitutional bar to expanding the disclosure rules to 
     provide accurate information to voters about the sponsors of 
     ads indisputably designed to influence their vote.


                               conclusion

       The Snowe-Jeffords Amendment is a sensitive and sensible 
     approach to regulating spending that has made a mockery of 
     federal campaign finance laws. It regulates in the two 
     contexts--corporate and union spending and disclosure rules--
     in which the Supreme Court has been most tolerant of 
     regulation. The provisions are sufficiently clear to oversome 
     claims of unconstitutional vagueness and sufficiently narrow 
     to allay overbreadth concerns. The Amendment will not 
     restrict the ability of advocacy groups such as NRLC to 
     engage in either issue advocacy or electioneering, but it 
     will subject their electioneering spending to federal 
     disclosure requirements, which is constitutionally 
     permissible.
           Respectfully submitted,
     Burt Neuborne,
       John Norton Pomeroy Professor of Law, NYU School of Law.
     Norman Ornstein,
       Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute.
     Daniel R. Ortiz,
       John Allan Love Professor of Law, University of Virginia 
     School of Law.
     E. Joshua Rosenkranz,
       Executive Director, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU 
     School of Law.

  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from 
Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank Senator McConnell, and I thank all Members of 
the body for this excellent debate on a very important issue. I suggest 
that there are different views about what is noble and fair and of the 
highest order. A jurist at one time said that to talk of justice is the 
equivalent of pounding on the table; everybody seems to say that their 
view is just and fair and wonderful. But I think there are a lot of 
competing principles here, and I would just like to share a few 
comments on this subject.
  I ran in a Republican primary, had seven opponents, two of whom spent 
over $1 million of their own money, and the total that those seven 
opponents spent was some $5 million. My opponent in the general 
election spent about $3 million, the Democratic nominee. But when you 
figure it on 4 million people in Alabama, that is about $2 per voter.
  A number of the expenditures--and it irritated me at the time--were 
these stealth advocacy ads that have been referred to. Groups ran ads 
that tried to claim they were advocacy ads but in fact were aimed at me 
and trying to drive my numbers down and to help their candidate get 
elected. It irritated me, and when I got here I was irritated with some 
of the campaign laws. It struck me as somewhat unfair that a man could 
spend $1 million but I could not ask anybody for more than $1,000. So I 
was pretty open to reviewing that.
  Since I have been here and had the time to do a little thinking about 
it, talking with Senator McConnell and others, I have become pretty 
well convinced that we do not need to deregulate the institutional 
media, allow them to run free doing whatever they want to, and just 
tell groups of people, even if I don't agree with them, they can't come 
together, peaceably assemble and raise money and petition their 
Government.
  That is a fundamental first amendment principle. The right to 
assemble

[[Page S10153]]

peaceably and petition your Government for grievances is a right that 
is protected by our Constitution. In no way can we abridge freedom of 
speech. We have a number of cases dealing with that.
  The particular Snowe-Jeffords amendment that we talked about has been 
touched upon in a famous case from Alabama. NAACP v. Alabama, in 1958, 
clearly established that groups have a right to assemble and they do 
not have to reveal the names of individuals who have contributed to 
them.
  They said: Well, we don't want to demand that of everybody, just if 
you run a campaign ad 60 days in front of a general election. Only then 
do we want to know who gave you money; only then do we abridge your 
right to free speech, because we are abridging it by saying you can't 
express yourself unless you tell who gave money to your organization 
only within 60 days of the election. That is the only time we want to 
do it.
  So, Mr. President, I would ask, when do you want to speak out? When 
do people become concerned and energized about issues? I believe in my 
State, for example, that we had abuse of the laws of Alabama, and we 
had too many lawsuits and uncontrolled verdicts, and we needed tort 
reform. The trial lawyers of Alabama are a very aggressive group. A 
small group of them contribute huge sums of money. I saw recently where 
about seven plaintiff law firms, relatively small law firms, had given 
some $4 million to political campaigns in the last cycle. They spent $1 
million--some of these were stealth advocacy ads aimed at me. They ran 
one ad against a Supreme Court Justice, the skunk ad that was voted the 
dirtiest ad in America.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator 2 more minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the Senator.
  We have a robust democracy. People have their say. I am inclined to 
think this obsession with eliminating the ability of people to speak 
out freely in an election cycle is unwise. It does threaten the robust 
nature of this democracy.
  I recall last year we had 30 Members here who voted to amend the 
first amendment to the Constitution so they could pass this kind of 
legislation.
  I think at least they were honest enough to propose a constitutional 
amendment to amend the first amendment, which I thought was stunning.
  But at any rate, my time has expired. I just wanted to share those 
comments. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If I could just thank the Senator from Alabama for his 
important contribution to this debate, he is a distinguished lawyer, 
well versed in the first amendment. I think his points were very, very 
well made, and I just wanted to thank him for his contribution to this 
debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield up to 5 minutes to another of our tremendous 
cosponsors and supporters of this legislation, the distinguished 
Senator from Vermont.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I rise today as a cosponsor of the 
amendment being offered by Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold to 
motivate the Senate and conclude action on campaign finance reform 
legislation.
  Before I proceed, I would like to point something out about the 
decision the Senator from Alabama referenced to defend nondisclosure. 
The Supreme Court in that case said if the people were threatened with 
bodily injury or death, they did not have to disclose their names. That 
is hardly, I hope, the case that we have here. I hope people would not 
rely upon that Alabama decision to say that the present procedure that 
we have here, allowing people to hide themselves behind their ads, is 
legitimized by that decision.
  I also thank the Senator from Maine, who worked very strenuously on 
this amendment with respect to disclosure. To me, it is incredible to 
think anybody can object to what we are suggesting, which is that if 
people put something on the air obviously aimed at candidates, we ought 
to know who they are. I just cannot understand how anybody can take the 
position that is a violation of the freedom of speech.
  Also, let me congratulate the House of Representatives for passing 
campaign finance reform legislation shortly before the August break. 
This was a first step toward achieving our mutual goal of having a 
campaign finance system that is fair and equitable. Such a system 
should ensure that the electorate is fully informed and that the pool 
of potential candidates is not limited by financial barriers.
  Earlier this year we fell eight votes short of passing the McCain/
Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. During consideration of 
this bill an important amendment offered by Senator Snowe and I was 
adopted, and I am pleased that Senators McCain and Feingold have 
included this language in the amendment we are considering today. I 
think it is a critical amendment. The willingness of my colleagues to 
include this language and the leadership of the Vermont legislature on 
this issue last year has convinced me that it is time to move forward 
and pass this amendment.
  The McCain-Feingold amendment with the Jeffords-Snowe language boosts 
disclosure requirements and tightens expenditures of certain funds in 
the weeks preceding a primary and general election. The last few 
election cycles have shown that spending has grown astronomically in 
two areas that cause me great concern. First, issue ads that have 
turned into blatant electioneering. Second, the unfettered spending by 
corporations and unions to influence the outcome of an election. This 
amendment with the Jeffords-Snowe language addresses these areas in a 
reasonable, equitable and last but not least, constitutional way.
  Mr. President, reform of the campaign finance system is long overdue. 
The litany of problems and short comings of our current system is long 
and well known, but the full Congress has so far been reluctant to act.
  Since my election to the House in the wake of the Watergate scandal, 
I have worked with my colleagues to craft campaign finance reform 
legislation that could endure the legislative process and survive a 
constitutional challenge. We came close in 1994, and I believe 
circumstances still remain right for enactment of meaningful campaign 
finance reform during this Congress. This belief has only been 
strengthened by the recent actions taken by the House.
  The Senate is known for its ability to have full and complete debates 
on any issue, and campaign finance should be no different, but debate 
on this important topic should eventually reach an end. We may not 
agree on the solution, but we must move forward, debate the issue and 
ultimately reach a conclusion. Let the process run its course, let 
Senators offer their amendments and get their votes. But, in the end 
let the Senate complete consideration of this issue.
  Mr. President, if Mark McGwire can hit 62 home-runs, Congress can 
surely pass this important legislation and hit one home-run for cleaner 
campaign financing. I remain hopeful that my colleagues will join me in 
allowing the Senate to conclude debate on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the First Amendment to the Constitution 
mandates that Congress shall make no laws which abridge the freedom of 
speech. The freedom to engage in political speech is the bedrock of our 
democracy. We may not like what people say when they exercise their 
First Amendment rights, but this Senator acknowledges that everyone has 
the right to engage in political speech.
  This bill places unconstitutional limits on the First Amendment 
rights of individuals, groups and even unions. The bill creates a rule 
which virtually prohibits any political ads by individuals, groups and 
unions which mention specific candidates within 60 days of an election.
  That would serve to muzzle political speech at the most critical time 
during a campaign. Not only is this unconstitutional, it is bad policy, 
because it will only serve to make the media more powerful.
  I have examined the provisions in this bill very carefully, and even 
on the slightest chance the Supreme Court

[[Page S10154]]

would find these provisions constitutional, I ask my fellow Senators: 
is this good policy?
  The reason I ask this question is that, in my view, when you muzzle 
the political speech of individuals and groups, whose voice will then 
carry the day?
  In our zeal on both sides of the aisle to address the role of certain 
entities in our elections, we need to ask ourselves: what will be the 
consequence of restricting the free speech rights of unions, 
corporations and wealthy individuals to engage in campaign-related 
speech? In my mind, by restricting freedom of speech for these groups, 
we will make the media an even more powerful player in the political 
process.
  During the 60 days prior to the election when the so called bright 
line rule is in effect, the only one who will be able to speak directly 
about the candidates will be the news media.
  We all know the saying around Washington: ``you shouldn't pick a 
fight with someone who buys paper by the ton and ink by the barrel.'' 
Because it enjoys the full protection of the First Amendment, we call 
the media the Fourth Estate, or the Unofficial Fourth Branch of 
government. The media are the ``Big Opinion Makers''--they write the 
editorials, present the news and decide which issues deserve the 
attention of the American people on a daily basis.
  We also know that members of the media are only human--and by that I 
mean that they are opinionated. Their opinion tends to lean in favor of 
a liberal, Democrat agenda. Recent surveys have shown that close to 90 
percent of the media votes for liberal Democrat candidates. What of 
their independence? What about their role in the election of federal 
officials?
  Thomas Jefferson once wrote: There are rights which it is useless to 
surrender to the government, but which rights governments always have 
sought to invade. Among these are the rights of speaking and publishing 
our thoughts.
  This bill is a giant step toward Congress invading the rights of many 
to engage in political discourse and surrendering those rights to the 
media. In my view, you can choose McCain/Feingold or you can choose the 
First Amendment. I choose the First Amendment. Thank you, Mr. 
President.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the 
time, and particularly for the effort and information that he has 
participated in giving during this debate.
  I am interested in the fact that our fellow Senators talk about 
having a discussion. How long are we going to discuss this? It seems 
like we have been through this every year. We have been through it 
three times last year; we have been through it the second time this 
year. I can hardly imagine that anyone can make a case that we have not 
had a chance to talk about this issue.
  As a matter of fact, frankly, I just think we have a lot of things to 
do in the next 3 weeks. I hope we focus on doing those things and not 
continue to repeat and discuss the same things that we have done 
before. This subject had three failed cloture votes in 1997. This is 
the second cloture vote in 1998. We had the opportunity to talk about 
this, and under the system in the Senate which we all use, this issue 
has failed to be approved. Frankly, I think it will be one more time. I 
heard earlier that this is something that everybody in the country is 
clinging to and wanting to have resolved. I have not seen that. Where 
people are asked to list the things that are most important to them, 
where do you see this on the list? If at all, on the bottom.
  I think the fact is times have changed. The fact is we do spend more 
money, perhaps too much money, but we want people to vote. We believe 
they should be educated, and if you do that, you do that through the 
public media, which is expensive. So we are changing those things a 
great deal.
  What puzzles me a great deal--and I am not here to talk about the 
details; others are much more familiar with them than am I--but we find 
ourselves with the dilemma of having a campaign finance law in place 
now that we seem to be unable or unwilling to enforce, and in fact what 
do we want to do? We want to have more laws put on top of the ones that 
we are not willing to enforce now. That seems to be a real difficult 
thing for me to understand.
  I think it would be a mistake to pile more bureaucracy, more new laws 
on top of the ones that we have, and then say to ourselves, ``Look at 
all the things that were illegally done in 1997 or 1996.'' We haven't 
enforced the laws that we have. It is strange to me there is a pitch 
for making more laws until we do that.
  I will not take much time. I do think there ought to be some changes. 
I certainly support the idea of strengthening and enforcing disclosure. 
I think disclosure ought to be there prior to the election, and I am 
for that. I would even probably support the amount of soft money that 
can be contributed. But I am also quick to understand that there are 
lots of ways to do it, and laws simply do not have the effect that 
sometimes we think they should.
  So, I think most everything has been said here, but I did want to 
rise to say that the notion if you are not for this somehow you don't 
care about elections, somehow you don't care about voting, that is not 
true. That is not at all true. All of us want to have an open 
declaration of spending. We want to have disclosure. We also want to 
have people have the opportunity to participate as fully as they choose 
under the first amendment, and there are some restrictions in here.
  So, we will continue to talk about this, I presume. But McCain-
Feingold is not the answer, in my opinion. That doesn't mean that I 
don't care about elections, because I do care about them, and so do all 
of us. That allegation is simply not true.
  Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for the time.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Frist). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the senior Senator from Wyoming 
for coming over and participating in the debate and for his insightful 
observations.
  Seeing no speakers on the other side, I yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished junior Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky, and I 
rise in opposition to the McCain-Feingold amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill. Rather than ``reform'' the way campaigns are 
financed, this amendment would infringe on the first amendment rights 
of millions of American citizens and place enormous burdens on 
candidates running for office, and one of our primary obligations here 
is to preserve the Constitution of the United States.
  While the McCain-Feingold amendment claims to ``clean up'' elections, 
it does so by placing unconstitutional restrictions on citizens' 
ability to participate in the political process. We have heard several 
Members of the Senate bemoan the fact that various citizen groups and 
individuals have taken out ads criticizing them during their elections.
  I must admit that I can sympathize with my colleagues who have been 
the object of often pointed and critical campaign ads. In fact, during 
my last campaign, some ads were aired against me that were downright 
false. I do support truth in advertising. Even that, I am told, is an 
infringement on freedom of speech, and the Washington Supreme Court 
just ruled that it is OK to lie in campaign advertising.
  How do you counter that? During my campaign, my opponent ran a series 
of ads that said I put a tax on Girl Scout cookies. Fortunately, Girl 
Scout cookies were delivered during the campaign, and those poor little 
girls had to say, ``No, he didn't put a sales tax on Girl Scout 
cookies.'' Had it not been for the delivery of those cookies, I would 
have had to find a lot of money to counter the false advertising done 
against me. If we can't get truth in advertising, we don't have 
campaign reform, and that is an infringement on freedom of speech.
  At the same time, I believe in a free society it is essential that 
citizens have a right to articulate their positions on issues and 
candidates in a public forum. The first amendment to our Constitution 
was drafted to ensure

[[Page S10155]]

that future generations will have the right to engage in public 
political discourse that is vigorous and unfettered. Throughout even 
the darkest chapters of our Nation's history, our first amendment has 
provided an essential protection against inclinations to tyranny.
  The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the first amendment to 
protect the right of individual citizens and organizations to express 
their views through issue advocacy. The Court has maintained for over 
two decades that individuals and organizations do not fall within the 
restrictions of the Federal election code simply by engaging in this 
advocacy.
  Issue advocacy includes the right to promote any candidate for office 
and his views as long as the communication does not ``in express terms 
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.'' As 
long as independent communication does not cross the bright line of 
expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, individuals 
and groups are free to spend as much as they want promoting or 
criticizing a candidate and his or her views. While these holdings may 
not always be welcome to those of us running in campaigns, they 
represent a logical outgrowth of the first amendment's historic 
protection of core political speech.
  Mr. President, this amendment, which parades under the disguise of 
``reform,'' would violate these clear first amendment protections. The 
amendment impermissibly expands the definition of ``express advocacy'' 
to cover a whole host of communications by independent organizations. 
The McCain-Feingold amendment attempts to expand bright-line tests for 
issue advocacy to include communications which, ``in context,'' 
advocate election or defeat of a given candidate.
  Are we comfortable with giving a Federal regulatory agency the power 
to determine what constitutes acceptable political speech--a Federal 
regulatory agency the power to determine what constitutes acceptable 
political speech?
  This amendment gives expansive new powers to the Federal Election 
Commission. This is one Federal agency which has abused the power it 
already has to regulate Federal elections. Just last year, the Fourth 
Circuit Court of Appeals strongly criticized the Federal Election 
Commission for its ``unsupportable'' enforcement action against the 
Christian Action Network. The network's only crime was engaging in 
protected political speech. The Court of Appeals required the Federal 
Election Commission to pay the network's attorney fees and court costs 
since the FEC's prosecution had been unjustified. Congress should not 
condone flagrant administrative abuses by giving the FEC expanded new 
powers and responsibilities.
  The McCain-Feingold substitute also includes within its new 
definition of ``express advocacy'' any communication that refers to one 
or more clearly identified candidates within 60 calendar days preceding 
an election. These provisions would allow the speech police to regulate 
core political speech during the most crucial part of an election 
cycle. They would also place an economic burden on thousands of small 
radio and television stations which carry those ads. I don't think we 
in Washington should be placing any more restrictions on America's 
small businesses. Our Founding Fathers drafted the first amendment to 
protect against attempts such as these to prohibit free citizens from 
entering into public discourse on issues that greatly affect them.
  I cannot support legislation that stifles the free speech of American 
citizens and gives expanded new powers to a Federal bureaucracy. For 
these reasons, I must oppose the McCain-Feingold amendment. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in paying tribute to the first amendment and 
opposing the McCain-Feingold substitute and any other amendment that 
would unconstitutionally restrict the rights of citizens to participate 
in the democratic process.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wyoming for his 
participation, once again, in what seems to be an endless debate. We 
have this periodically, and I thank my colleague from Wyoming for 
always coming over and making an important contribution.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 21 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on 
our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-one minutes, 25 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I commend him and 
Senator McCain and the bipartisan group that has worked so hard to pass 
campaign finance reform.
  A couple of nights ago, Mark McGwire hit his 62nd home run. In doing 
so, he defied the odds. He warmed the hearts of Americans everywhere 
with his grit, his determination, and his dedication. It was a shining 
moment for American baseball and for America. Today, we should hold him 
up as our example. We need to show equal grit and equal determination. 
We need to hit a home run for the American people by passing campaign 
finance reform.
  To do that, we are going to have to defy the odds. The House did it; 
they defied the odds. They passed campaign finance reform, and now the 
question that we are going to face in the days ahead is whether we can. 
Can the Senate rise to the occasion? Or will we go with the status quo, 
continuing the demoralizing and debilitating money chase that now funds 
our election campaigns and undermines public confidence in our 
democracy?
  Seventy-five percent of the American people want campaign finance 
reform. They want limits restored on contributions, real limits. They 
want the end of the loophole called the soft money loophole.
  The House passed a strong bipartisan bill. The President is ready to 
sign it. A majority of the Senate supports similar legislation which is 
before us now. We are ready to vote to enact this legislation into law.
  But instead of going to a vote on the bill, the majority leader has 
instead filed a cloture motion. And what is surreal about this cloture 
motion is that while a cloture motion is usually intended to be a 
device to close debate on an issue, and to move to a vote, the Senators 
who signed the cloture motion in this instance do not want to end 
debate or go to a vote. They oppose their own petition. They hope that 
the pending legislation and this issue will go away. They hope the 
supporters of campaign finance reform will withdraw the bill because it 
is being filibustered.
  This is an inside-out filibuster. The opponents of reform want to 
filibuster the reform bill without actually filibustering it. They are 
hoping that if supporters do not have the 60 votes to close debate, 
that the supporters will agree to withdraw their own amendment. I 
believe it would be wrong to withdraw this bill because opponents are 
filibustering the bill. Opponents have the right to filibuster under 
our rules. They have the right to filibuster. But the supporters have 
no obligation to help them succeed by agreeing to change the subject or 
by agreeing to withdraw the amendment.
  This is an issue of transcendent importance. Huge contributions that 
come through that soft money loophole have sapped public confidence in 
the electoral process. The House has acted. They did what conventional 
wisdom said could not be done. They passed a bill with meaningful 
campaign finance reform to close the soft money loophole. Our colleague 
from Kentucky said that when the House passed reform and sent it over 
here, that the bill and reform was dead on arrival, DOA. Well, it was 
not. The struggle for life for campaign finance reform will be 
determined by a test of wills between a bipartisan majority who support 
campaign finance reform and the minority that is filibustering in 
opposition to campaign finance reform.
  But campaign finance reform is not dead on arrival. It is struggling 
for life here on the Senate floor in a kind of a titanic struggle which 
has existed with prior legislation of this importance,

[[Page S10156]]

legislation which has such meaning to the country that both its 
supporters and its opponents are willing to test their strength. 
Opponents filibustering, as is their right, but supporters not yielding 
to that filibuster, as is our right.
  So just as the House defied the odds by passing a bill, just like 
Mark McGwire defied the odds by hitting home run No. 62, now it is our 
turn at bat. The American public is waiting for us to step up to the 
plate and to fight for campaign finance reform. And that is what our 
intention is. Again, I commend the bipartisan group that has led this 
effort. It is a vital effort for the well-being of democracy in this 
country. It is worth fighting for.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will not submit for the record the 400 
campaign finance reform editorials from 196 newspapers across America 
that have been published just since March 30, 1998.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
a list of those newspapers that published editorials, 196 newspapers. 
It is about a four-page document. I will not ask that the editorials be 
put in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       Attached are more than 400 campaign finance reform 
     editorials from 196 newspapers. These editorials have been 
     published since March 30, 1998:

     Aiken Standard, Aiken, SC
     Akron Beacon Journal, Akron, OH (3)
     Times Union, Albany, NY
     Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, NM
     The Morning Call, Allentown, PA (3)
     The Ann Arbor News, Ann Arbor, MI
     USA Today, Arlington, VA (5)
     The Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta, GA (3)
     The Atlanta Journal, Atlanta, GA (2)
     Kennebec Journal, Augusta ME
     Beacon-News, Aurora, IL
     Austin American-Statesman, Austin, TX (4)
     The Sun, Baltimore, MD
     The Bango Daily News, Bango, ME
     The Times Argus, Barre, VT
     The Herald-Palladium, Benton Harbor-St. Joe, MI
     The Birmingham News, Birmingham, AL (2)
     the Birmingham News-Post Herald, Birmingham, AL
     The Boston Globe, Boston, MA (10)
     Boston Herald, Boston, MA (4)
     The Christian Science Monitor, Boston, MA (3)
     Connecticut Post, Bridgeport, CT (4)
     Bridgeton Evening News, Bridgeton, NJ
     The Courier-News, Bridgewater, NJ
     The Times Record, Brunswick, ME
     The Buffalo News, Buffalo, NY (3)
     Cadillac News, Cadillac, MI (4)
     The Repository, Canton, OH (2)
     The Charleston Gazette, Charleston, WV
     The Charlotte Observer, Charlotte, NC (2)
     Chattanooga Free Press, Chattanooga, TN
     The Chattanooga Times, Chattanooga, TN
     Press Register, Clarksdale, MS
     The Leaf-Chronicle, Clarksville, TN
     The Bolivar Commercial, Cleveland, MS
     The Brazosport Facts, Clute, TX
     The State, Columbia, SC (2)
     Columbus Ledger-Enquirer, Columbus, GA
     Concord Monitor, Concord, NH
     The Dallas Morning News, Dallas, TX
     The News-Times, Danbury, CT (5)
     Dayton Daily News, Dayton, OH
     Daytona Beach News Journal, Daytona, FL
     The Denver Post, Denver, CO (3)
     Detroit Free Press, Detroit, MI (4)
     The Dubuque Telegraph Herald, Dubuque, IA
     The Duncan Banner, Duncan, OK
     The Home News & Tribune, East Brunswick, NJ (3)
     The Express-Times, Easton, PA
     The Courier News, Elgin, IL
     Star-Gazette, Elmira, NY
     The Evansville Press, Evansville, IN (3)
     The Journal Gazette, Fort Wayne, IN (2)
     Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Fort Worth, TX (6)
     The Middlesex News, Framingham, MA (2)
     The Gainesville Sun, Gainesville, FL (5)
     Great Falls Tribune, Great Falls, MT
     Greenville Herald-Banner, Greenville, TX
     Greenwich Time, Greenwich, CT
     The Greenwood Commonwealth, Greenwood, MS
     The Record, Hackensack, NJ (4)
     The Patriot-News, Harrisburg, PA
     The Hartford Courant, Hartford, CT (10)
     The Daily Review, Hayward, CA
     The Times-News, Hendersonville, NC (2)
     Hood River News, Hood River, OR
     Houston Chronicle, Houston, TX (2)
     Register-Star, Hudson, NY
     The Post Register, Idaho Falls, ID
     Jackson Citizen Patriot, Jackson, MI
     The Clarion-Ledger, Jackson, MS (2)
     The Jackson Sun, Jackson, TN (2)
     The Jopin Globe, Joplin, MO
     The Kansas City Star, Kansas City, MO (5)
     Lake City Reporter, Lake City, FL (2)
     The Ledger, Lakeland, FL (5)
     The Lakeville Journal, Lakeville, CT
     Las Cruces Sun-News, Las Cruces, NM
     Bucks County Courier Times, Levitttown, PA
     Lexington Herald Leader, Lexington, KY (5)
     The Express, Lock Haven, PA
     Lodi News-Sentinel, Lodi, CA
     Newsday, Long Island, NY (2)
     Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, CA (8)
     The Courier-Journal, Louisville, KY (3)
     Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Lubbock, TX (2)
     The Lufkin Daily News, Lufkin, TX
     The News & Advance, Lynchburg, VA
     The Capital Times, Madison, WI (3)
     Journal Inquirer, Manchester, CT
     The Marietta Times, Marietta, OH (2)
     Chronicle-Tribune, Marion, IN
     The Times Leader, Martins Ferry, OH
     Enterprise-Journal, McComb, MS
     The Daily News, McKeesport, PA (3)
     Florida Today, Melbourne, FL (2)
     The Commercial Appeal, Memphis, TN
     Milford Daily News, Milford, MA
     Millville News, Millville, NJ
     Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Milwaukee, WI
     Star-Tribune, Minneapolis, MN (4)
     The Macomb Daily, Mount Clemens, MI
     The Muskogee Daily Phoenix & Times-Democrat, Muskogee, OK
     The Sun News, Myrtle Beach, SC
     The Napa Valley Register, Napa, CA
     The Broadcaster, Nashua, NH
     The Tennessean, Nashville, TN
     The Day, New London, CT
     New York Daily News, New York, NY (2)
     The New York Times, New York, NY (33)
     The Star-Ledger, Newark, NJ (4)
     The New Jersey Herald, Newton, NJ (2)
     The Virginian-Pilot, Norfolk, VA
     The Hour, Norwalk, CT
     The Oakland Tribune, Oakland, CA
     Ocala Star-Banner, Ocala, FL (2)
     The Olympian, Olympia, WA
     The Orlando Sentinel, Orlando, FL
     The Paris Post-Intelligencer, Paris, TN
     The Parkersburg Sentinel, Parkersburg, WV
     North Jersey Herald & News, Passaic, NJ (5)
     Journal Star, Peoria, IL
     The Philadelphia Inquirer, Philadelphia, PA (6)
     Post-Gazette, Pittsburgh, PA (2)
     The Berkshire Eagle, Pittsfield, MA
     Mountain Democrat, Placerville, CA
     Tri-Valley Herald, Pleasanton, CA
     Port Arthur News, Port Arthur, TX (3)
     Maine Sunday Telegram, Portland, ME
     Portland Press Herald, Portland, ME (2)
     The Oregonian, Portland, OR (4)
     The News & Observer, Raleigh, NC (5)
     The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, CA
     Roanoke Times & World-News, Roanoke, VA
     Rochester Democrat & Chronicle, Rochester, NY
     Rocky Mount Telegram, Rocky Mount, NC
     Roswell Daily Record, Roswell, NM
     The Daily Tribune, Royal Oak, MI
     Today's Sunbeam, Salem, NJ
     The San Antonio Express-News, San Antonio, TX (6)
     The San Diego Union-Tribune, San Diego, CA (4)
     San Francisco Chronicle, San Francisco, CA (3)
     San Gabriel Valley Tribune, San Gabriel, CA
     The San Jose Mercury News, San Jose, CA
     The Telegram-Tribune, San Luis Obispo, CA
     The County Times, San Mateo, CA
     The Sentinel, Santa Cruz, CA (3)
     The Press Democrat, Santa Rosa, CA (2)
     The Tribune, Scranton, PA
     The Sheboygan Press, Sheboygan, WI
     The Times, Shreveport, LA
     The Sioux City Journal, Sioux City, IA (3)
     South Bend Tribune, South Bend, IN (2)
     The Springfield State Journal-Register, Springfield, IL (3)
     Union-News, Springfield, MA
     Springfield News-Sun, Springfield, OH (3)
     St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis, MO (2)
     The Stamford Advocate, Stamford, CT
     Northern Virginia Daily, Strasburg, VA
     Pocono Record, Stroudsburg, PA
     Sturgis Journal, Sturgis, MI
     The Daily News-Sun, Sun City, AZ
     The Post-Standard, Syracuse, NY (2)
     Tarrentum Valley News Dispatch, Tarentum, PA (2)
     Temple Daily Telegram, Temple, TX
     The Terrell Tribune, Terrell, TX
     The Blade, Toledo, OH
     Daily Breeze, Torrance, CA
     The Register-Citizen, Torrington, CT
     The Times, Trenton, NJ (3)
     The Arizona Daily Star, Tucson, AZ (4)
     The Tullahoma News & Guardian, Tullahoma, TN (2)
     Tulsa World, Tulsa, OK
     Utica Observer-Dispatch, Utica, NY (2)
     The Columbian, Vancouver, WA
     Vincennes Sun-Commercial, Vincennes, IN
     Waco Tribune-Herald, Waco, TX (3)
     The Tribune Chronicle, Warren, OH
     The Washington Post, Washington, DC (14)
     The Waterloo Courier, Waterloo, IA (2)
     Central Maine Morning Sentinel, Waterville, ME (2)
     The News Sun, Waukegan, IL
     Westfield News, Westfield, MA
     The Palm Beach Post, West Palm Beach, FL (9)
     The Reporter Dispatch, White Plains, NY (4)
     Valley News, White River Junction, VT
     The Wichita Eagle, Wichita, KS (2)
     The Citizens' Voice, Wilkes Barre, PA
     The Times Leader, Wilkes Barre, PA
     The News Journal, Wilmington, DE
     The Winchester Star, Winchester, VA
     Winston Salem-Journal, Winston Salem, NC
     The Gloucester County Times, Woodbury, NJ
     The Telegram & Gazette, Worcester, MA (4)
     The York Dispatch, York, PA
     The York Sunday News, York, PA


[[Page S10157]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I do think it is of interest that 
newspapers from the Aiken Standard all the way to the York Sunday News, 
196 newspapers--some of them more than once; some of them as many as 
five or six times--have editorialized in favor of campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. President, one of the people that I admired and revered in many 
ways, and in many ways was a mentor to me when I was in a different 
avocation, was Senator John Tower. On March 28, 1974, Senator Tower 
rose to speak in favor of campaign finance reform. At that time, it was 
S. 3261, a bill to reform the conduct and financing of Federal election 
campaigns, and for other purposes.
  Senator Tower gave a speech at that time, and I ask unanimous consent 
that this statement be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

            [From the Congressional Record, March 28, 1974]

       Mr. Tower. Mr. President, today I am introducing the 
     Federal Campaign Reform Act of 1974. The bill generally 
     encompasses President Nixon's election campaign reform 
     proposals as outlined in his message delivered to the Nation 
     on March 8. As one package, it represents the most 
     comprehensive set of reform proposals yet to be offered. It 
     does not subject the political process to the abuses that 
     would naturally flow from public financing of Federal 
     elections as envisioned by S. 3044.
       I need not dwell on the necessity for campaign reform that 
     works. What I do wish to emphasize now are the specific ways 
     in which this bill is in the Nation's best interest.
       First, this bill requires each candidate to designate a 
     single political committee, which would ultimately receive 
     all contributions made in his behalf. That committee would 
     make all expenditures by check from a designated federally 
     chartered bank. These provisions would substantially ease the 
     administrative burden of enforcing compliance with campaign 
     laws.
       Second, a candidate's political committee would be 
     prohibited from accepting more than $3,000 from an individual 
     donor in any Senate or House election, and not more than 
     $15,000 in any Presidential election. All contributions from 
     any kind of organization would be prohibited, except those 
     made by national committees or political action groups.
       Third, comprehensive and timely reporting and disclosure 
     requirements are imposed upon political committees and 
     political action groups. For example, political action groups 
     would be required to disclose the ties their principal 
     officers have to political parties.
       Fourth, an independent Federal Election Commission is 
     established with the independence necessary to effectuate the 
     provisions of the bill.
       Fifth, the bill provides real safeguards against express or 
     implied intimidation or coercion used against corporate 
     employees and union members in soliciting campaign 
     contributions.
       Sixth, specific prohibitions against so-called ``dirty 
     tricks'' are provided. Such activities have no proper role to 
     play in any campaign, and this bill successfully draws the 
     line between constitutionally protected campaign activity, 
     and activity which is universally recognized as intolerable.
       Seventh, a shortening of Presidential campaigns, and a 
     corresponding reduction in the costs of campaigning, are 
     provided for by prohibiting the holding, before May 1 of an 
     election year, of Presidential primaries or conventions at 
     which delegates to the national nominating convention are 
     selected.
       A central theme of the bill is the restoration of the 
     dignity and power of the individual donor to a proper role in 
     political campaigns. For too long, big organizations have run 
     roughshod over the wishes of their individual members. 
     Implicit intimidation or coercion has often been used to 
     compel contributions which cannot fairly be characterized as 
     voluntary. Individual contributors have often been misled as 
     to the true nature of the political action groups to whom 
     they gave. Individuals have also felt of insignificant value 
     in campaigns because of the enormous contributions made by 
     many organizations.
       The ascendancy of the power of faceless organizations in 
     campaigns is unhealthy. It leads to unfair and 
     unrepresentative influence on the part of the few who 
     manipulate the many. Individuality is a hallmark of America 
     that has made it great. It promotes that diversity of thought 
     and influence so necessary to a thriving and robust 
     democracy.
       This bill dignifies and encourages each individual to 
     participate actively in Federal elections. It assures each 
     voter that he will not be harassed, intimidated, or misled by 
     political action groups representing narrow and special 
     interests. It assures each voter that his contribution will 
     count as much as others.
       I must admit that I have philosophical reservations about 
     placing limitations on an individual's privilege to determine 
     the amount of his personal contribution. There even might 
     well be constitutional problems with such a congressional 
     mandate. However, as I have previously stated, excesses can 
     and have occurred. Thus, absent judicial reversal of the 
     concept, such limitations are inevitable and represent a 
     significant part of this reform package.
       Mr. President, I shall consider offering this bill as a 
     substitute amendment for S. 3044 in substantially the same 
     form as I am introducing it today. Therefore, I urge my 
     colleagues to review it carefully.

  Mr. McCAIN. In the body of his remarks, Senator Tower said:

       The ascendancy of the power of faceless organizations in 
     campaigns is unhealthy. It leads to unfair and 
     unrepresentative influence on the part of the few who 
     manipulate the many. Individuality is a hallmark of America 
     that has made it great. It promotes that diversity of thought 
     and influence so necessary to a thriving and robust 
     democracy.

  The bill he is referring to is the campaign reform bill that was then 
being considered by the Senate.

       This bill dignifies and encourages each individual to 
     participate actively in Federal elections. It assures each 
     voter that he will not be harassed, intimidated, or misled by 
     political action groups representing narrow and special 
     interests. It assures each voter that his contribution will 
     count as much as others.

  Mr. President, Senator Tower described the situation pretty much as 
it is today. Each voter does not believe that his or her contribution 
counts as much as others. We have seen manifestations of that in 
virtually every primary this season. Every voter does not believe that 
there is fair and representative influence on the part of the many. In 
fact, the voters, in recent polls that have been taken, believe that 
there is undue influence on the part of special interests. And I, 
having witnessed it myself, am convinced of it.
  In 1974, on August 8, Representative Anderson said:

       Under our representative system of government, the people 
     elect fellow citizens to speak for, vote on behalf of, and 
     represent their interests in the legislative bodies--the 
     House and Senate--and they elect a President to administer 
     the laws, conduct foreign affairs, and established 
     priorities. And, I believe this to be the best system of 
     government devised by man.
       If some people, however, are given preferential treatment 
     because of their ability and willingness to contribute large 
     sums toward the election of an individual, then the system 
     breaks down. If some are ``more equal'' than others, then our 
     representative system fails and the interests of all the 
     people are aborted.
       And this is a very serious threat to our democracy. It is a 
     very serious threat if the interests of the rich and powerful 
     are placed above the interests of the weak and the poor.
       Our country was founded on the principle of equality--all 
     are equal in the eyes of the law. But, if the rich and the 
     powerful have a greater influence on writing and 
     administering the laws, is not equality a sham, a farce?

  Mr. President, yesterday I noted a document that was put out by the 
Democratic National Committee in the 1996 election where a broad 
variety of privileges would be extended to those who contributed 
$100,000. One of the most egregious were seats on trade missions. These 
things have consequences, Mr. President. One of the ongoing 
controversies--in fact, we will have a hearing in the Commerce 
Committee next week on the transfer of technology to China being 
directly related to the issue of these ``trade missions.''
  Mr. President, both parties do this. Both parties do this as far as 
many of these are concerned. This is a memo from the Democratic 
National Committee. If you want to give a contribution of $100,000 
annually:

       Two annual Managing Trustee Events with the President . . .
       Two annual Managing Trustee Events with the Vice President.
       One annual Managing Trustee Dinner with senior 
     Administration officials.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Two Annual Retreats/Issue Conferences . . .
       Invitations to Home Town Briefings
       As senior Administration officials travel throughout the 
     country, Managing Trustees are invited to join them in 
     private, impromptu meetings.
       Monthly Policy Briefings
       Administration officials discuss topics ranging from 
     telecommunications policy to welfare reform at regular 
     Washington policy briefings to which Managing Trustees are 
     invited.
       Personal DNC Staff Contact
       Each Managing Trustee is specifically assigned a DNC staff 
     member to assist them in their personal requests. [et 
     cetera.]

  But of course the one that strikes me is:


[[Page S10158]]


       Annual Economic Trade Missions
       Managing Trustees are invited to participate in foreign 
     trade missions, which affords opportunities to join Party 
     leaders in meeting with business leaders abroad.

  Is that equal opportunity? Could any American citizen go on these 
trade missions? I think it is pretty clear that if you are willing to 
give $100,000 annually, then indeed you can take those trade missions.
  A memorandum from whoever Ann Cahill is:

       To: Ann Cahill
       From: Martha Phipps
       RE: WHITE HOUSE ACTIVITIES
       Two reserved seats on Air Force I and II trips.

  Is that the way you ride on Air Force One and Two, Mr. President?--
``In order to reach a very aggressive goal of $40 million this year . . 
. very helpful if we could coordinate the following activities between 
the White House and the Democratic National Committee.''
  Let me repeat that memorandum: ``. . . coordinate the following 
activities between the White House and the Democratic National 
Committee.''

       Two reserved seats on Air Force I and II trips . . .
       Six seats at all White House private dinners . . .
       Six to eight spots at all White House events (i.e. Jazz 
     Fest, Rose Garden ceremonies, official visits).

  And in this memorandum it says who the contact is. Ann Stock seems to 
be a person to contact; and Alexis Herman, now Secretary of Labor.

       Invitations to participate in official delegation trips 
     abroad.
       Contact: Alexis Herman . . .
       Better coordination on appointments to Boards & Commissions 
     . . .
       White House mess privileges.

  Patsy Thomason was the contact for that.

       White House residence visit and overnight stays.

  Ann Stock was the person on that.

       Guaranteed Kennedy Center Tickets (at least one month in 
     advance) . . .
       Six radio address spots
       Contact: David Levy . . .
       Photo opportunities with the principles . . .
       Phone time from the Vice President.

  That was Jack Quinn's job, Mr. President, general counsel. He was 
responsible, he is the contact, for phone time from the Vice President. 
That would be the subject of some ongoing inquiry.

       Ten places per month at White House film showings . . .
       One lunch with Mack McLarty per month.

  Boy, it makes me better understand why Mr. Mack McLarty decided to go 
into private life.

       One lunch with Ira Magaziner . . .

  I think that might be a penalty rather than a benefit.

       One lunch with the First Lady per month.

  I will leave that unremarked.

       Use of the President's Box at the Warner Theater and at 
     Wolf Trap . . .
       Ability to reserve time on the White House tennis courts . 
     . .
       Meeting time with Vice President Gore.

  Again, Jack Quinn was the contact person.
  To be very clear, this is a memorandum of May 5, 1994, to Ann Cahill 
from Martha Phipps, and it is titled ``White House Activities.'' Again, 
it reads:

       In order to reach our very aggressive goal of $40 million 
     this year, it would be very helpful if we could coordinate 
     the following activities between the White House and the 
     Democratic National Committee.

  I have stated several times that every institution of government was 
debased in the 1996 campaign. I think that this document certainly 
indicates that was the case.
  We will have a vote on a tabling motion by my dear friend from 
Wisconsin here in a few minutes and then we will have a cloture vote 
later this afternoon. I will have a lot more to say before we finish 
this debate.
  How do we go home and tell our constituents that we are all equal 
when this kind of thing has become commonplace? And the same kinds of 
things are done by the Republican Party. Obviously, they didn't have 
the White House boxes and those other conveniences or perks. How can we 
tell the American people that they are equal when these kinds of things 
go on?

  The reason I bring this up, this all has to do with the most 
egregious aspect of the present system, and that is soft money. When 
you look at the dramatic increase in soft money over the last couple, 
three cycles, it is dramatic. So there will be more memorandums like 
the one I just cited and there will be more soft money and there will 
be more requests for large contributors.
  I see a couple of my colleagues who are waiting to speak. I believe--
and I will say this again before the final vote--this issue will be 
resolved over time and we will prevail because the American people 
won't stand for this. They won't stand for it, and I believe they will 
demand we clean up this system either sooner or later.
  I will talk again later on. I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I inform my colleagues I will not be 
offering a motion to table at 12:00 noon. Instead, as I understand it, 
we will continue to debate until the cloture vote at 1:45. We will have 
the opportunity to vote on this issue again in the days to come, so I 
don't see a need for another vote before our cloture vote.
  May I inquire of the Chair, am I correct that the time after 12:00 
noon but prior to 1:45 will be equally divided?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent I control the time on our side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object, I didn't hear the 
earlier unanimous consent.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I did not propose a prior unanimous consent; the only 
unanimous consent I propose is I control the time after 12 noon and 
prior to 1:45 on our side.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So the suggestion was, we will continue to divide the 
time until 1:45?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do we have remaining on our side prior to 
1:45?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 54 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Prior to 1:45?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct, and the Senator from Kentucky 
has 63 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minute to the distinguished 
Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President.
  I thank Senator Feingold for yielding the time, and I both thank and 
commend Senator Feingold and Senator McCain for their leadership on 
this very critical issue. They have been fighting a very lonely--at 
times lonely--but a very extraordinary battle for not only the 
reforming of our campaign system but, many suspect, the continued 
viability of our political system.
  We have a campaign finance system in place, but that system has 
literally collapsed. The exceptions, the loopholes, the ingenious ways 
around, have in fact devoured the rules and we no longer really have a 
system of campaign finance. What we have is an all-out race for 
dollars, constantly, incessantly, and then an all-out escalation of 
spending and political campaigns which has left our constituents amazed 
and at times disgusted. We have a responsibility and an obligation to 
change this system today, with the opportunity to vote for very modest 
reform which will begin to, once again, make elections about ideas and 
policies, and not auctions to the highest bidder.
  The McCain-Feingold compromise seeks to accomplish two basic goals: 
First, to ban the unlimited, unregulated gifts by corporations, wealthy 
individuals and labor unions to political organizations, the so-called 
soft money; second, to regulate the so-called issue advertisements 
which impact on campaigns and which are growing in frequency and in 
their emphasis impact on campaigns. By ending soft money contributions, 
we will do what we persistently have said we want to do, and that is to 
prevent corporations from participating directly in elections.
  This is not radical reform, this is commonsense consistent reform 
that we thought we accomplished back in 1973 and 1974 with the original 
campaign finance reform system.
  Second, this legislation would attempt to provide a modicum of 
control over the new phenomenon of the issue ads. They would require 
the disclosure of the contributions by these individuals and also 
indicate who is sponsoring these advertisements, or where they are 
getting their money. We have

[[Page S10159]]

seen, over the last several years, an amazing phenomenon--candidates 
are in a race and they are discussing the issues and, suddenly, out of 
nowhere, comes a mysterious advertisement on television attacking one 
or praising another. And they both claim that they had nothing to do 
with it. It is no longer their campaign. They are, in a sense, 
bystanders on issue advertisements and issue campaigns of which they 
themselves, many times, disclaim having any knowledge. All of this 
takes out of the hands of the candidates and, ultimately, the hands of 
the electorate, what should be at the heart of every election--a 
vigorous debate between individual candidates about their vision of the 
future of this country.
  So we have to do these things. We have to ensure that our campaigns 
are not tainted by soft money and not overwhelmed by these issue 
advertisements. This is a problem that plagues both of our Houses. As 
Senator McCain pointed out, it is not just a situation with the 
Democrats or just with the Republicans; both sides are locked into this 
inexorable, it seems, race for dollars. In doing that, we have created 
a situation where the American people, in many cases, are increasingly 
disenchanted; they are voting less and less and are getting to the 
point of being contemptuous of the best political system the world has 
created to date.
  We have to do this modest reform today. Frankly, this is just modest 
reform. There are many things that we could and should do that we are 
not even talking about today on the floor of the Senate. The States--
the so-called laboratories of reform--are doing things today that we 
should be at least contemplating. In my own State of Rhode Island, we 
implemented voluntary spending limits with limited public financing. 
The States of Maine and New Jersey have done the same thing. The State 
of Vermont has implemented strict limits on candidate spending--
legislation which directly challenges the Court's decision in Buckley 
v. Valeo, which I believe incorrectly equates money with speech.
  In fact, I have introduced similar legislation in this body which 
would legislatively put limits on and legislatively force the Court to 
reevaluate Buckley v. Valeo. These are very aggressive steps that we 
should take. These are things we should do to ensure that our system is 
entirely resistant to the ravages of money that is affecting it today. 
But at least today we can stand up with Senators McCain and Feingold 
and say that we must stop the influence of soft money. We must at least 
have the disclosure rule behind these issue advertisements. This is the 
first step toward long-term campaign finance reform that will not only 
make races about ideas, but will, in fact, I believe, restore the faith 
of the American people in their system of government and what we do for 
them.
  I yield back my time.
  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  Very properly, Senator McCain made reference to the bipartisan nature 
of the problem and the bipartisan nature of the effort. I commend 
Senator McCain for doing that, for his strong leadership, which is 
essential if this is going to succeed.
  I want to put in the Record some documents, for the sake of 
completeness, showing how bipartisan this problem is. Senator McCain, 
very appropriately, put in a document relative to what the benefits of 
major contributors to the Democrats are going to be offered. I don't 
know if that was actually implemented under that document or not, but 
plenty was implemented.
  I ask unanimous consent that these two documents be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 1997 RNC Annual Gala, May 13, 1997, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC


                       gala leadership committee

     Cochairman--$250,000 fundraising goal
       Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships. Republican Eagles 
     memberships or Dinner Tables.
       Dais Seating at the Gala.
       Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senate Majority Leader 
     Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13, 
     1997.
       Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and 
     the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice.
       Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the 
     Gala.
     Vice Chairman--$100,000 fundraising goal
       Sell or purchase Team 100 memberships, Republican Eagles 
     memberships or Dinner Tables.
       Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of 
     your choice.
       Breakfast and Photo Opportunity with Senate Majority Leader 
     Trent Lott and Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich on May 13, 
     1997.
       Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and 
     the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice.
       Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the 
     Gala.
     Deputy Chairman--$45,000 fundraising goal
       Sell or purchase three (3) Dinner Tables or three (3) 
     Republican Eagles memberships.
       Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of 
     your choice.
       Luncheon with Republican Senate and House Leadership and 
     the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairmen of your 
     choice.
       Private Reception with Republican Governors prior to the 
     Gala.
     Dinner Committee--$15,000 fundraising goal
       Sell or purchase one (1) Dinner Table.
       Preferential Seating at the Gala Dinner with the VIP of 
     your choice.
       VIP Reception at the Gala with the Republican members of 
     the Senate and House Leadership.

     (Note.--Benefits pending final confirmation of the Members of 
     Congress schedules.)
                                  ____


                   1992 Republican President's Dinner

                                    BENEFITS FOR TABLEBUYERS AND FUNDRAISERS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fundraisers (two       Fundraisers ($92,000
        Tablebuyers/tablehosts                 tables)                 and above)            Top fundraisers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Private reception hosted by President  Private reception        Photo Opportunity with   Opportunity to be
 and Mrs. Bush at the White House; 2    hosted by President      President Bush; 1        seated at a head table
 people, or Reception hosted by the     and Mrs. Bush at the     person.                  with the President or
 President's Cabinet, 2 people. In      White House, 2 people,  All Fundraiser Benefits   Vice President based
 addition Luncheon at the Vice          or Reception hosted by   listed above..           on ticket sales.
 President's Residence hosted by Vice   the President's                                  All Fundraiser Benefits
 President and Mrs. Quayle, 2 people.   Cabinet, 2 people. In                             listed above.
 Senate-House Leadership Breakfast      addition Luncheon at
 hosted by Senator Bob Dole and         the Vice President's
 Congressman Bob Michel, 2 people.      Residence hosted by
 Option to request a Member of the      Vice President and
 House of Representatives to complete   Mrs. Quayle, 2 people.
 the table of ten. With purchase of a   Reception with Senator
 second table, option to request one    Bob Dole at U.S.
 Senator or one Senior Administration   Capitol, 2 people.
 Official.                              Senate-House
                                        Leadership Breakfast
                                        hosted by Senator Bob
                                        Dole, and Congressman
                                        Bob Michel, 2 people.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--Attendance at all events is limited. Benefits based on receipts.

  Mr. LEVIN. One of these documents is an invitation to the Republican 
National Committee Annual Gala 1997, in which for $250,000, the 
contributors to the Republican National Committee get to attend a 
luncheon with Senate and House leadership and the Republican Senate and 
House committee chairmen of your choice. That is $250,000. You get a 
luncheon with the committee chairmen.
  Next is a 1992 Republican President's Dinner. Major contributors got 
a private reception, among other things, hosted by President and Mrs. 
Bush at the White House. And the Republican Eagles promised major 
contributors who became members of the Republican Eagles' contributor 
group ``foreign economic and trade missions,'' in which the Eagles have 
been welcomed enthusiastically by heads of state, such as Premier Li 
Peng of the People's Republic of China.
  Again, Mr. President, I think the point Senator McCain very properly 
made is that we have a major, massive, bipartisan problem that is 
undermining public confidence in elections in this country. It is a 
bipartisan problem. It requires a bipartisan solution, and hopefully 
this coalition will stand together in the face of a filibuster and

[[Page S10160]]

say, yes, you have a right to filibuster; that is your right, but we 
need not withdraw in the face of a filibuster.
  This problem is so huge that it requires action, and we cannot simply 
defer it year after year. There has never been a better time for action 
than when the House has acted on reform, against the odds, just as we 
have to act against the odds if we are going to succeed. I thank 
Senators McCain and Feingold, the leaders on both sides of the aisle, 
who can succeed if we hang tough here and not withdraw in the face of a 
filibuster.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me first strongly concur with the 
remarks of the Senator from Michigan. We have to proceed on this issue. 
We will proceed on this issue this year until we get the job done. I am 
grateful for his strength and leadership on this.
  I am pleased now to be able to yield some time to the distinguished 
junior Senator from Maine, who brings many important qualities to this 
issue, but the two that I will list at the top are her extremely 
genuine commitment to this issue and her courage. It is a difficult 
thing to be a part of this bipartisan issue. I see her involvement as 
being absolutely central to the fact that we are even here today still 
discussing it.
  With that, I yield 12 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I want to start by commending the Senator 
from Wisconsin for his leadership and thanking him for his kind 
comments.
  It is with a renewed sense of enthusiasm that I rise today to urge 
this body to pass much-needed reforms to our campaign finance laws. I 
am buoyed by the courage shown by my Republican colleagues in the House 
who were willing to put their commitment to good government ahead of 
their parochial interests.
  Mr. President, this amendment is needed because the twin loopholes of 
soft money and bogus issue ads have virtually obliterated our campaign 
finance laws, leaving us with little more than a pile of legal rubble. 
We supposedly have restrictions on how much individuals can contribute 
to political parties; yet, at last year's hearings before the Senate 
Governmental Affairs Committee, we heard from one individual who gave 
$325,000 to the Democratic National Committee in order to secure a 
picture with the President of the United States. Another mockingly 
testified that the next time he is willing to spend $600,000, rather 
than $300,000, to purchase access to the White House.
  We supposedly prohibit corporations and unions from financing 
political campaigns; yet, the AFL-CIO reportedly spent $800,000 in 
Maine on so-called issue ads which anyone with an ounce of common sense 
recognized were designed to defeat a candidate for Congress. And as 
reported in Sunday's Washington Post, when the class action lawyers 
collect their tens of billions in fees from the tobacco lawsuits, the 
resulting flood of cash to the Democratic Party will make past 
contributions look like pocket change.
  We in this body decry legal loopholes, but we have reserved the 
largest ones for ourselves. Indeed, these are more like black holes, 
and that sucking sound you hear during election years is the whoosh of 
six-figure soft money donations rushing into party coffers.
  Why should this matter, we are asked by those all too eager to equate 
freedom of speech with freedom to spend? It should matter because 
political equality is the essence of democracy, and an electoral system 
fueled by money is one lacking in political equality.
  Mr. President, the hope of Maine support campaign finance reform. If 
my colleagues will indulge me a bit of home state pride, I think the 
Maine perspective results from old fashion, Down East common sense. 
Maine people are able to see through the complexities of this debate 
and focus on what is at heart a very simple, yet very profound, 
problem. As long as we allow unlimited contributions--whether in the 
form of hard or soft money--and as long as we allow unlimited 
expenditures, we will not have political equality in this country. It 
is not just that there will not be a level playing field for those 
seeking public office, but more important, there will not be a level 
playing field for those seeking access to their government.
  The Maine attitude may well be shaped by the fact that many people in 
my state live in communities where town meetings are still held each 
year. I am not talking about the staged, televised town meeting that 
has become so fashionable of late. I am talking about a rough and 
tumble meeting held in the high school gym or in the grange hall. 
Attend one of these meetings and you will observe an element of true 
democracy; people with more money do not get to speak longer or louder 
than people with less money. Unfortunately, what is true at Maine town 
meetings is not true in Washington.
  Mr. President, the amendment pending before this body is dramatically 
different from the original McCain-Feingold bill. It does not seek to 
radically alter how we finance our campaigns. Indeed, it does not alter 
at all the basic framework that Congress established more than two 
decades ago in the 1970s.
  Before us today is legislation designed simply to close election law 
loopholes that undermine the protections the American people were 
promised in the aftermath of Watergate. Put differently, this amendment 
does not create new reforms, but merely restores reforms adopted two 
decades ago.
  Let me be more specific. Gone from this version of the legislation 
are the voluntary limits on how much a campaign can spend. Gone is the 
free TV time, as well as the reduced TV time. Gone is the reduction in 
PAC limits. Gone are the restrictions on certain types of so-called 
issue ads run by nonprofit organizations, replaced instead by a 
requirement that they disclose their sources of funding.
  Most of these continue to be very important reforms to which I remain 
personally committed. But in the interest of securing action on the 
major abuses in the current system, we who support the McCain-Feingold 
proposal have agreed to significant compromises. This is now a modest 
bill but nevertheless, a critical first step in the journey toward 
reform.
  Mr. President, history demonstrates that the current uses of soft 
money and issue ads were not intended by the framers of our election 
laws. Go back to the early 1980s when soft money was used only for 
party overhead and organizational expenses, and you will find that the 
contributions totaled a few million dollars. By contrast, in the last 
election cycle when soft money took on its current role, these 
contributions exceeded $250 million.
  Bogus issue ads were such a small element in the past that it is 
impossible to find reliable estimates of the amounts expended on them. 
Unfortunately, that is no longer the case, and these expenditures have 
now become worthy of studies, the most prominent of which estimates 
that as much as $150 million dollars was spent on these ads in 1995-96.
  When I ran for a seat in this body, I advocated major changes to our 
campaign finance laws, but I recognize that goal must wait for another 
time. The challenge before us today is far more modest. Are we prepared 
to address loopholes that subvert the intent of the election laws that 
we enacted more than two decades ago? Are we willing to restore to the 
American people the campaign finance system that rightfully belongs to 
them?
  Those are the questions before this body. Mr. President, a strong 
majority of the Members of the House of Representatives support reform 
as do a majority of the Members of the Senate. I would hope that the 
Senate this week will finally vote to reform a loophole-ridden system. 
The American people deserve no less.
  Mr. President, it remains to be seen whether campaign finance reform 
is an idea whose time has come. But I can assure my colleagues of one 
thing--it is an idea that will not die.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I urge my colleagues to support the McCain-
Feingold amendment, and I am proud to be a cosponsor.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again am grateful for the comments of 
the Senator from Maine and for her support.

[[Page S10161]]

  I am also delighted to be able to yield time to someone who has been 
deeply involved in this issue, both as a supporter of our legislation 
and one of the original supporters of the legislation, but who also of 
course is intimately familiar with the problems that have occurred 
because of the campaign finance scandal--the chairman of the 
Governmental Affairs Committee. At this point I would like to yield 20 
minutes to the distinguished Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin very much.
  Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment. I do so not only 
because of what I believe to be the inherent merits of the amendment 
but because I think it has broader implications for us today in the 
times that we live in.
  We have had good times in this country for some time now--
economically, we have low unemployment, we have low inflation, and we 
have prosperity. When we look abroad, we have had peace. We are the 
lone remaining superpower in the world.
  It seems that during times like this, Washington becomes irrelevant 
to a lot of people, and in some ways perhaps that is good. But we are 
not very mindful of the need for leadership in times of trial and times 
of trouble. But the fact of the matter is that in more recent times we 
have seen the beginnings of such times of peril and trouble. Many 
people think that we have some serious chickens coming home to roost 
and that both peace and prosperity are at issue now.
  As we look at what is going on in this country and the fact that we 
cannot forever remain the only buying nation in a world of sellers--
that we cannot be immune to what is going on in the Pacific rim, the 
Soviet Union, perhaps Japan and South America, and the troubling 
economic conditions there--we cannot forever be immune, and our economy 
cannot be immune, from what is going on in the rest of the world.
  We see, as we broaden our perspective, a foreign policy that is in 
shambles in many respects. We see that we are losing the respect in 
many ways that the United States has had around the world. It is 
evidenced by our troubled coalition with regard to Iraq. It is 
evidenced by a very, very troubling policy with regard to Iraq where 
the credibility of the Nation's leading figures is at issue.
  It is at issue when you look at a country such as North Korea, with 
whom we are supposed to have a nuclear understanding and agreement, as 
they send missiles across our ally in Japan. We are told by the 
Rumsfeld Commission that rogue outlaw nations are going to have the 
capability within just a few years of launching a missile containing 
biological or nuclear or chemical weapons to hit the continental United 
States.
  So all of this is before us now, and the American people, I think, 
are going through somewhat of a period of readjustment in their 
thinking because we have not only that, but we have very much of a 
troubled Presidency. We have seen for some time now that while nobody 
has been paying much attention to a lot of these things, the level of 
cynicism continues to go up in this country.
  We see the Pew report, for example, which shows that our confidence 
in the leadership in this country is low. We see that this lack of 
confidence is even greater among our young people. A lot of people used 
to attribute the growing cynicism and lack of confidence in many 
respects--and it is somewhat affected by the economy as it goes up and 
down--but fundamentally the cynicism grows and lot of people say 
because of Watergate, because of Iran Contra, because of various other 
things, the assassinations of one generation that we saw, Dr. King and 
the President, and so forth, but what we are seeing now in these 
reports is that the cynicism and the concern is the greatest among our 
young people who have never witnessed or had to experience many of 
these things. So it makes it even more troubling.
  So all of this goes to the point of now that we see the need for 
strong leadership, after we have done so much to destroy the confidence 
that the American people ought to be having in the leadership of this 
country, who is going to listen to our leaders? I have been saying for 
well over a year now that with peace and prosperity we can go on 
autopilot for a little bit. But if our people continue to be 
distrustful of their own Government and the cynicism levels rise, 
especially among our young people, when that pendulum swings back, as 
it invariably does, and we no longer have peace and we no longer have 
prosperity, where is the leadership going to be, and who is going to 
follow the leadership of those of us in Washington who stand up and say 
here is the way; here is what we need to do; this is the way out of 
this problem. We have been in problems before, and we can get out of 
this one if you follow us. Who is going to follow us?
  That is the question yet to be answered. We do not know what we have 
done to our institutions, in many cases by our own actions, in many 
cases for other reasons, but we don't know the answer to that. And when 
the tough times come, as they invariably will in the short term or the 
long term, I only hope that we are strong enough in our institutions, 
in the Presidency, in the Congress, and the respect for our court 
system to be able to lead the American people.
  Mr. President, that is why this issue that we are discussing today is 
doubly important. It has to do with the very fundamentals of our 
Government. It has to do with the way we finance campaigns in this 
country, the way we elect the elected leaders who in turn are supposed 
to lead us when we need that leadership. I must say, in my opinion, we 
now have the worst campaign finance system that we have ever had in 
this country. In fact, you cannot call it a campaign finance system at 
all. It is a situation that is an open invitation to abuse. It is an 
open invitation to corruption. It is an open invitation to cynicism. 
And after the scandal of the 1996 campaign, if we do not do something 
about it, the level of cynicism that I talked about earlier, I think, 
is going to be even higher.
  If people think that we have gotten over the hump and everyone loves 
Congress now, you wait until that economy dips just a little bit; it 
will come back to the trend it has been following for a long, long 
time. It is a scandal waiting to happen. It is a system that after all 
this time has come to the point where there is no limitation on big 
corporate contributions or big labor contributions, and we are spending 
more and more and more time going after more and more money from fewer 
and fewer people who have the millions of dollars that is fueling our 
system, the same people who come back before us wanting us to either 
pass or defeat legislation.
  Mr. President, I have said ever since I have been in the Senate, I 
say here again today, that is a system that cannot last. That is an 
inherently defective system that cannot last over any period of time. 
So now because of that system, everybody is onto it and the race is on, 
and we are seeing the millions go to tens of millions and the tens of 
millions go to the hundreds of millions being put in by the large 
corporations and the large labor unions and the large vested interests 
that have those kinds of dollars.
  It makes me wonder how the small donor, which has been the bedrock of 
my party, perceives himself in all this. We are not getting enough 
checkoff on the tax returns in the Presidential system right now, and 
that is probably going to fail. Voter turnout is getting down there now 
with some of the banana Republics, and I think part of that has to be 
due to the fact that in a system that I have just described the average 
person does not see that it has a whole lot to do with him or with her.
  The ironic part about it is that this is not even a system that we 
created in Congress. We could not. No one would ever come in here and 
offer a piece of legislation that would create the system that we have 
today. We can discuss that a little bit further in a moment.
  We have had a lot of good discussion about the details of the 
amendment and the details of the legislation and some discussion about 
the broader principles involved, but the crux of it all has to do with 
whether or not we think it is a good idea to have unlimited corporate, 
labor, and individual contributions to political candidates and to 
incumbents and to have those contributors come in and try to get 
legislation passed after they have given us all that money. I think 
asking the

[[Page S10162]]

question answers it. When you put it out like that, I think it answers 
itself. I think the answer is, no, we do not want that even though that 
is what we have.
  Why do I say that I think we do not want that when people seem to be 
so afraid of reform? Well, it is because throughout our entire history 
we have indicated that we do not want that because we ourselves learn 
some things sometimes from history, and we look around the world and we 
see that almost 2,000 years ago scholars were saying that this is the 
sort of thing that brought down the Roman Empire. The Venetians imposed 
strict limitations on contributions and money that would go to public 
officials. In their system, if donors had favors to ask, they were not 
allowed to give anything.

  We have seen that political influence money brought down entire 
political systems in times past in Japan and Italy. We have seen 
corruption in South Korea and Mexico. It is all around us--at the end 
of the last century, influence buying scandals; the Watergate; campaign 
finance scandal--time and time again.
  So, we have seen that. And we also understand that it is a potential 
problem from our real world experience. People are sometimes surprised 
that a conservative Republican like myself would feel strongly about 
campaign finance reform, and they say: Why would that be? I say for the 
same reason Barry Goldwater was for campaign finance reform. We will 
talk about that in a minute, too.
  But I think it has more to do with the fact that up until 3 or 4 
years ago I was not involved in the political system, I was not running 
for office or holding office. But I did prosecute cases. I did defend 
cases. And I am very familiar with the idea that if you have people 
making decisions, you have to be very careful about how those decisions 
are influenced. If you are a purchasing agent, for example, you cannot 
take favors from someone from whom you are considering to buy 
something. If you are a loan officer at a bank, you cannot take favors 
from people whom you are considering for a loan. People get prosecuted 
for things like that all day, whether or not it was the real reason 
that the loan was made. The point being--the analogy is not perfect--
but the point being, we have always been very concerned about that. We 
have gratuity laws in this country where, regardless of whether or not 
it bought anything, there are some people under some circumstances that 
you cannot give gifts to, because we are very mindful of the 
appearances of that.
  We even do that with regard to our own activities. We passed gratuity 
laws that pertain to the Congress so now a friend cannot buy you 
dinner. He can go out here and raise $100,000 for a committee and, in 
turn, it will go to your benefit, he can bundle a few hundred thousand 
dollars for you, but he cannot buy you dinner. So at least we are 
paying some lip service to the idea that we have to be somewhat mindful 
of money going to those who are in positions of decisionmaking power.
  We recognized that in 1907 when, as a Congress, as a nation, we 
prohibited corporate contributions. We recognized it again in 1943 
when, in the same manner, we prohibited labor contributions and set up 
political action committees. We recognized it further as a Congress 
when we set up the current system of $1,000 limitations and $5,000 
limitations on PACs, and so on and so forth.
  You can argue over the amounts. I certainly think those amounts now 
are ridiculously low. They ought to be raised. The hard money limits 
ought to be raised. That is a debate for another time. But the fact of 
the matter is, we have been mindful of that. We addressed that. We 
always said, in this country, it is a bad idea to have wealthy 
individuals being able to give large amounts of money, unlimited 
amounts of money, to politicians. It is a bad idea to have big 
corporations who are usually involved in government contracts giving 
unlimited amounts to politicians or big labor unions. Yet that is what 
we have.
  By the same token, we are mindful of that, especially with regard to 
our Presidential campaigns and our Presidential elections. That is why 
we set up a public finance system for our Presidential elections. It is 
in shambles now because we have an Attorney General who is not doing 
her job and has a singular, a unique way of interpreting laws. But the 
fact of the matter is, we set up a system to take our candidates for 
President out of the money grubbing system. If you agree to take public 
financing, then you get public money, and the public, the taxpayers, 
were willing to run those campaigns on their own money, on their dime, 
in order to keep their candidates above and separate and apart from 
having to raise large amounts of money from these large contributors.
  We have always been mindful that large amounts of money and the 
decisionmaking of government are things that we have to be very, very 
careful about. We do allow some contributions. We do have a system--it 
takes money to run campaigns and all of that. We can argue over the 
amounts and so forth. But hardly ever has anybody, really, in this 
country, carried on a serious debate espousing the idea that all bets 
ought to be off, that any big corporation or any big labor union could 
give any amount that they wanted to regardless of whether or not they 
had legislation pending.
  So, if that is the case, how in the world did we get to where we are 
today, where, I say, there are no limitations anymore? You have to jump 
through a few hoops and you have to be hypocritical--which is no big 
hurdle to overcome--and you have to run it through the right kind of 
committee and so forth, and you have to word the ad a little bit 
correctly, and a few other things that 100 years from now we will look 
back on--somebody will look back on, and laugh at, as to how we ever 
had a deal like this.

  But essentially, whether you are running for President now--under the 
Attorney General's current interpretation, running for President now or 
to be a Member of Congress or a Member of the U.S. Senate, you can 
basically take any amount of money or get the benefit from any amount 
of money from anywhere, including the other side of the world. That has 
not been fully pushed yet, but I assure you, unless things change, that 
will be the next shoe to drop. There are people arguing in courts in 
this country right now that there is no limitation, under current law, 
on foreign contributions--foreign soft money contributions to our 
political parties. So that is the next step.
  So, how did we get here? If Congress, if we as a people, have always 
been mindful of this problem and Congress has legislatively set up a 
restrictive framework, then how did we get to where we are? It is 
really pretty simple when you distill it all down. It happened over a 
period of time, but essentially the FEC, Federal Election Commission, 
decided to open up a little soft money crack and said parties can use a 
little soft money in their party-building activities. Then they went a 
little bit further and said parties can use some soft money, a certain 
percentage of soft money, in their TV issue ads.
  And what happened then? The Clinton-Gore campaign took that crack and 
ran a Sherman tank through it and basically said, not only are we going 
to do that, but we are going to totally coordinate that entire activity 
so it will not be independent at all, and that we will sign the 
certification that we will take public financing and raise no more 
money, but we will really pretend like this is not money for our 
campaign.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Grams). The Senator's 20 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 10 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I just want to inform my colleague, we only have a 
total additional 16 minutes for other Senators, and that will bring 
some difficulty here unless I ask unanimous consent that an additional 
10 minutes be added to our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. We reserve the right to object until we have 
a----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator withhold that request?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I will.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. What was the consent agreement?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was for Mr. Feingold to add 10

[[Page S10163]]

additional minutes to his side for the debate.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Thereby making the vote later?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the effect, yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Reserving the right to object----
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of something I was informed of 
after I put in my request, I withdraw my unanimous consent request and 
I simply yield an additional 2 minutes to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 
another 2 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. All right. I was not aware that there was a time 
agreement. So I apologize for the necessarily abbreviated nature of the 
rest of my remarks, which basically have to do with the fact that we 
have an interpretation now by the Attorney General which permits that.
  Therein lies part of the problem of those who advocate for campaign 
finance reform, because those who advocate it in many cases have lost 
the high ground. The President certainly lost the high ground because 
of his behavior, and I must say that after our congressional hearings 
on this subject where we saw foreign money coming in, people taking the 
fifth amendment, unlimited access to the White House, shakedowns with 
regard to American Indians and Buddhist nuns, use of the White House, 
setting people up in positions with classified information, and then 
raising money and all of the coverups attendant to that, while we need 
to address that from a campaign finance standpoint for the future, we 
have not adequately addressed what has gone on in the past.
  When we look around for blame to assess with regard to the fact we 
can't move this legislation, we have to come to terms with the fact 
that those who want to reform cannot be content with saying all we need 
is reform and forget about the past. We have not adequately addressed 
the past. Those who have let those things go by without blowing the 
whistle on them, without seeing anything wrong, without saying that is 
wrong conduct, as we saw for the last year in this country in our 
hearings, have lost the moral high ground with regard to this 
legislation.
  I am hoping we can do better in the future. I think those of us who 
want reform have to understand, yes, we need to clean up the past, but 
we cannot let this hold us hostage for what we need to do in the 
future. Those of us who promote campaign finance reform need to 
understand that before we can really have it, we have to have justice 
for the past. I thank the President and yield the floor.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, once again the Senate is considering 
campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, the House of 
Representatives in August passed a strong reform measure. I'm pleased 
that their action has prompted a renewed effort here in the Senate to 
pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform measure.
  I started my career in politics as a community activist, working to 
prevent a highway from demolishing my Fell's Point neighborhood. I 
don't want the next generation of community activists shut out of the 
process. I want them to know that their efforts matter. I want people 
to have an opportunity to participate in their communities and in our 
political process. I want to restore each American's faith and trust in 
government. The McCain-Feingold amendment is an important part of that 
effort.
  I have consistently supported campaign finance reform, so I will 
gladly vote to close debate on the McCain-Feingold amendment. I hope we 
will invoke cloture, and move quickly to a vote on final passage of 
this amendment. Vote after vote this year has shown that a majority of 
the Senate supports McCain-Feingold.
  Unfortunately, through parliamentary tactics and filibuster, a 
majority of the Senate has not been able to work its will on this 
issue. I hope we will be successful today in at last ending the 
filibuster on this issue.
  During my time in the United States Senate, I have voted 19 times to 
end filibusters on campaign finance reform. So I know we have a fight 
on our hands. But it is time for action, and it is time for reform. The 
American people are counting on us.
  I believe we need campaign finance reform for a number of reasons. 
First and most important, we need to restore people's faith in the 
integrity of government, the integrity of their elected officials, and 
the integrity of our political process.
  Many Americans are fed up with a political system that ignores our 
Nation's problems and places the concerns of working families behind 
those of big interests. Our campaign finance system contributes to a 
culture of cynicism that hurts our institutions, our government and our 
country.
  When Congress fails to enact legislation to save our kids from the 
public health menace of smoking because of the undue influence of Big 
Tobacco, it adds to that culture of cynicism. When powerful health care 
industry interests are able to block measures to provide basic patient 
protections for consumers who belong to HMOs, that adds to the culture 
of cynicism. Is it any wonder that Americans do not trust their elected 
leaders to act in the public interest?
  Today we have a chance to help break that culture of cynicism. We can 
enact legislation to eliminate the undue influence of special interests 
in elections.
  How does this amendment do that? First of all, it stems the flood of 
unregulated, unreported money in campaigns. It will ban soft money, 
money raised and spent outside of federal campaign rules and which 
violates the spirit of those rules. It will end the sham of ``issue 
ads'' that are really designed to support or oppose federal candidates.
  This amendment will improve the disclosure of contributions, and 
expand the Federal Election Commission's enforcement capabilities. It 
will codify the Beck decision, by allowing non-union members who pay 
fees in lieu of union dues to obtain a refund of the portion of those 
fees used for political activities. It will make it less likely for 
wealthy candidates to try to buy elections, by barring political 
parties from making coordinated expenditures for candidates who do not 
agree to limit their personal spending.
  These are all reasonable reforms. They will get the big money and the 
secret money out of campaigns. They will help to strengthen democracy 
and strengthen the people's faith in their elected officials.
  Mr. President, we can improve our political process, making it more 
fair and more inclusive, without compromising our rights under the 
Constitution.
  By limiting the influence of those with big dollars, and increasing 
the influence of those with big hearts, we can bring government back to 
where it belongs--with the people.
  The McCain-Feingold amendment will help us to do that. I am proud to 
support it with my voice and my vote.
  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, twice during this Congress, the Senate has 
debated reforming the manner in which campaign funds are raised and 
spent. A majority of Senators clearly believes that the current system 
is in need of reform. Progress has been made during this Congress in 
two important areas: in the substance of the issue and in gaining 
greater Congressional support for reform.
  It would be a shame to sully this bipartisan progress by resorting to 
political tactics, as too often has occurred in past debates. In 1992, 
both the House and the Senate approved a campaign reform bill that had 
no hope of becoming law. It was wholly unacceptable to President Bush, 
and he had no recourse but to veto it. In 1993 some of us worked hard 
with Members from the other side to craft serious legislation. But the 
Senate bill was not agreeable to House Democrats, and it languished in 
the House for months before any action occurred. As the election year 
adjournment neared, the Democratic leadership reached an agreement on 
what would be included in a conference report before the conferees had 
ever met, and that agreement was far from the reform that I had hoped 
for and supported. In 1996, another election year, a far less 
acceptable version of the McCain-Feingold bill was debated and 
defeated.
  This year, supporters of reform find themselves in a slightly more 
hopeful position. The bill before us has been greatly improved; it has 
bipartisan support; and the House has already approved very similar 
legislation.

[[Page S10164]]

  The paramount goal of any true effort to reform the system of 
financing elections for federal office must be to reduce the influence 
of special interest money on elected officials. Although the proposal 
before us may not be the final resolution to the problems that afflict 
the current system of campaign fundraising, it provides a better 
starting point than we have had in previous years.
  I urge my colleagues on this side of the aisle to take another look 
at the modified version of McCain-Feingold that is before us today. 
This is a solid proposal that addresses the soft money abuses that have 
effectively obliterated federal election law. It addresses the problem 
of unregulated, unrestricted, and unreported spending by anonymous 
donors. It addresses blatant electioneering disguised as issue 
advocacy. And it eliminates enormous soft money contributions from 
corporations and big donors. In other words, it goes a long way to 
reducing the influence of special interests.
  And I urge my colleagues on the other side not to let this debate 
degenerate into political gamesmanship.
  Mr. SARBANES. Mr. President, last fall, the Majority Leader and the 
other Republican opponents of campaign finance reform denied the will 
of a majority of the Senate--and a majority of the American people--by 
denying an up or down vote on the McCain-Feingold bill. This past 
February, we witnessed again successful efforts to block consideration 
of this proposal. At that point, I stated that such maneuvers violate 
the Senate's well-earned reputation for thoughtfulness and 
deliberation, in which it rightly takes such pride, and I noted that 
full consideration of the campaign finance issue by the Senate is 
crucial to maintaining the public's confidence in its government.
  Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill is before us again, but under 
changed circumstances which make the need for Senate consideration of 
campaign finance reform all the more vital. We must now consider this 
most important issue in the context of House passage of its own 
campaign finance legislation--passage which occurred only after 
determined members of both parties successfully navigated a minefield 
of amendments erected by the House Republican leadership with the goal 
of killing campaign finance reform there. Despite these efforts, a 
majority of the House held together and enacted legislation that gives 
voice to the belief of the American public that our system of campaign 
financing needs fixing.
  I hope that this time the Senate leadership will give us the same 
opportunity to express our support for campaign finance legislation 
that the members of the House earned this summer. I am a cosponsor of 
the McCain-Feingold bill, and will therefore vote in its favor when--
if--the issue comes before the Senate. Others oppose this legislation. 
What the American public deserves at least, however, is an up or down 
Senate vote that gives effect to the will of the majority and that 
makes the American public confident that the issue has received 
thorough review by its elected representatives. Based on prior votes, I 
suspect that such review will in fact yield a decision by a majority of 
the Senate that campaign finance reform is appropriate and necessary. 
But even if I am mistaken and a majority of Senators now oppose such 
legislation, a fair Senate process demands that an up or down vote take 
place as soon as possible and that the will of the majority be allowed 
to carry the day.
  In February I noted that the Senate's failure to consider the McCain-
Feingold bill on an up or down vote merely increases the public 
cynicism that makes campaign finance reform necessary. Now that the 
House has acted, my prior statements are even more true. I therefore 
once again urge the Majority Leader to observe a process consistent 
with the Nation's desires and needs.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, my colleague from Kentucky has, as usual, 
made a persuasive case why the McCain amendment is, as it has been for 
several years, flawed beyond salvage. I commend him for his leadership 
on this issue.
  Like most of my colleagues, I do not oppose reform of our campaign 
finance laws if it is done in a constitutionally sound manner. But, I 
do not think passing campaign finance reform--this McCain-Feingold 
amendment, for example--just to say we've enacted reform gives us any 
sort of bragging rights. There is no virtue in passing a bad bill.
  I would like to spend just a few minutes addressing what, in my mind, 
is a much greater issue: the investigation of the fundraising abuses 
during the 1996 election cycle. At a time when the supporters of 
McCain-Feingold are urging adoption of an unprecedented increase in 
federal regulation of campaigns and public discourse, which would be 
enforced by this administration, that same administration has made 
almost no progress in finding out whether the laws already on the books 
were trampled by the Clinton/Gore campaign, the White House, and the 
Democratic National Committee. Unfortunately, the Attorney General of 
the United States, Janet Reno, has continued to refuse to do what the 
law compels her: appoint an independent counsel to conduct the 
investigation of the fundraising activities surrounding the 1996 
reelection campaign. And her own investigation, mired in obvious 
conflict of interest, has been a dismal failure.
  Last week I met for almost three hours with Attorney General Reno and 
top officials and staff of the Justice Department, including Deputy 
Attorney General Holder and Former Task Force head Charles LaBella, 
along with House Judiciary Chairman Hyde, House Government Reform and 
Oversight Chairman Burton, and Ranking Member Waxman, regarding the 
campaign finance investigation and the application of the independent 
counsel statute to this widespread and dangerous scandal.
  I had requested this meeting in late July after the existence of the 
so-called LaBella memorandum had come to light. In that memo, Mr. 
LaBella, the handpicked lead investigator with the most extensive 
knowledge of the facts of this scandal, concluded that the facts and 
law dictated that a broad independent counsel be appointed to 
investigate campaign finance abuses by the 1996 Clinton/Gore reelection 
campaign, the Clinton administration, and the Democratic National 
Committee. This memo came several months after a similar written 
conclusion made by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
Louis Freeh.
  Under federal law, the Attorney General must apply to the special 
division of the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for appointment 
of an independent counsel whenever, after completion of a preliminary 
investigation, she finds finds information that a high-ranking official 
included in a specific category of individuals within the executive 
branch may have violated federal law.
  More than one and a half years ago, all ten Republicans on the 
Judiciary Committee felt the time had come to request such an 
appointment. We sent a letter to the Attorney General, as we are 
authorized to do by the independent counsel statute, requesting that 
she make an application for an independent counsel and demonstrating 
the evidence which requires such an application concerning the campaign 
finance scandal.
  After reviewing redacted versions of the memos prepared by Mr. 
LaBella and Director Freeh, it is clear that both gentleman have 
advanced strong, convincing arguments in support of a broad-based 
independent counsel. Importantly, when I asked the Attorney General and 
her top advisors why those recommendations have, thus far, been 
rejected, the answers I received were vague, insufficient, or 
unconvincing.
  I have urged Attorney General Reno to appoint a broad-based 
independent counsel for campaign finance for well over a year. I have 
written the Attorney General numerous times to demonstrate how she is 
misapplying and misunderstanding the independent counsel law. The law 
allows her to appoint a independent counsel if she has information that 
a crime may have been committed, but she has read the law as requiring 
that the evidence shows without a doubt that a crime has been 
committed. By setting up this legal standard, she basically has 
required that a smoking gun walk in the doors of Justice Department 
before she appoints an independent counsel.
  As has been widely reported, numerous individual investigations are 
being

[[Page S10165]]

handled by the task force. Yet, the task force has reportedly never 
conducted an investigation or inquiry into the entire campaign finance 
matter in order to determine if there exists specific and credible 
information warranting the triggering of the independent counsel 
statute. Indeed, as has been reported, the task force has been 
utilizing a higher threshold of evidence when evaluating allegations 
that may implicate the Independent Counsel Act or White House 
personnel.
  I have admired the courage of FBI Director Freeh and lead 
investigator LaBella in discussing, within applicable rules, their 
views on these important issues. They made it clear that the 
independent counsel is required under the law, that there are no legal 
arguments for the Attorney General to hide behind. Director Freeh 
stated that covered White House persons are at the heart of the 
investigation. Investigator LaBella said there was a core group of 
individuals at the White House and the Clinton campaign involved in 
illegal fundraising.
  Now some may attempt to defend the Attorney General by noting that 
she has gone through the process of legal reviews of many aspects of 
the campaign finance scandal. These actions are good, although clearly 
incomplete, steps. Each month that goes by sees the Attorney General 
lurch towards a real investigation of the campaign finance scandal. We 
now have action on several peripheral fronts, including the independent 
counsel investigating Bruce Babbitt, the reviews of potential false 
statements by the Vice President concerning his fundraising calls and 
by Harold Ickes regarding his involvement with unions, and now the 
review of the President's control of DNC advertising.
  My primary focus, however, has been and remains the infusion of 
foreign money and influence on our campaigns. Until we have a broad-
based independent counsel investigation, we will only be looking at the 
loose threads of the scandal and not the most serious alleged 
violations.
  In addition, I hope that the Attorney General will not take the 
entire three months to make decisions on these latest matters. The 
campaign finance violations we are discussing happened two and three 
years ago and every day that passes means leads are drying up, evidence 
is lost, and statutes of limitations are running.
  While Lead Investigator LaBella and FBI Director Freeh recommended 
that the Attorney General appoint an independent counsel to look into 
the coordination issue, it is clear that they both think an independent 
counsel should be appointed to handle the whole scandal, not just these 
peripheral issues. Any independent counsel must be given authority to 
delve into the most important questions of the scandal. As the New York 
Times concluded, a limited appointment would be a ``scam to avoid 
getting at the more serious questions of whether the Clinton campaign 
bartered Presidential audiences or policy decisions for contributions. 
A narrowly focussed inquiry could miss the towering problem of how so 
much illegal foreign money, possibly including Chinese government 
contributions, got into Democratic accounts.''
  I must also take issue with the Attorney General's assertions that 
the current investigation is not a failure because it has secured a 
limited number of indictments. Let's remember that the ongoing campaign 
finance investigation has only indicted the most conspicuous people who 
made illegal donations to the DNC or the Clinton/Gore campaign. It has 
made no headway in finding out who in the administration or DNC knew 
about or solicited these illegal donations. Until it does so, the 
investigation is a failure.
  In closing, let me quote the New York Times, which, I believe, 
captured the situation perfectly: ``Ms. Reno keeps celebrating her 
stubbornness as if it were some sort of national asset or a 
constitutional principle that had legal standing. It is neither. It is 
a quirk of mind or personality that has blinded her to the clear 
meaning of the statute requiring attorneys general to recuse themselves 
when they are sunk to the axle in conflict of interest.''
  The inability of the Justice Department to investigate and prosecute 
the violations of existing laws is the real scandal here. That is what 
we should be talking about, rather than legislation which would 
represent an unconstitutional, unwise, and partisan trampling of our 
electoral system and First Amendment rights.
  One final note, Mr. President. I believe that the American people 
want accountability in the electoral market place--not more 
restrictions on what they can and cannot do to participate in it. 
Accountability is a desirable thing in campaigning. I have always 
favored disclosure, and I believe we can take steps to enhance the 
information available to the press and to the public. But, 
accountability is not the same as regulating, which is what we are 
debating here today.
  This measure imposes new restrictions without necessarily increasing 
accountability, and it does so at a time when there has been little 
effort to effectively enforce the campaign laws we already have on the 
books. I join the Senator from Kentucky in urging defeat of this 
amendment.
  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, in the next few weeks I will be casting my 
final votes and concluding my four terms in the Senate. During this 
last term, a significant amount of my time has been devoted to 
investigating abuses of our current campaign finance system. What I 
have learned is that this is a problem which cannot wait. I am pleased 
that one of my remaining votes can be cast in support of important 
reform, however, I am disappointed that the Senate will likely not pass 
this much needed legislation.
  Although I have always been a supporter of campaign finance reform--
and indeed I personally believe that a system of campaigns fairly and 
equally underwritten by all Americans through some form of publicly 
supported financing is the only way to ensure public officials are not 
unduly influenced--but this last session has been a lesson for me on 
just how urgently we need to fix the campaign finance laws.
  When we originally passed the current campaign finance laws it was in 
the wake of allegations that the presidential campaigns of the early 
1970s had accepted hundreds of thousands, even millions, of dollars 
from secret contributors not known to the voters. The goals of that law 
were right and for many years it served us well. But there are few 
things that change as quickly as campaigns and politics. By 1996 our 
law had been eroded to the point that it was barely recognizable.
  In 1996, we again faced a system totally out of control--filled with 
soft money and thinly disguised political advertisements masquerading 
as ``issue'' advertising funded by secret sources. We faced an election 
in which even the Members of this body--the people governed by the 
campaign finance laws--did not know what was legal and what was not.
  The amendment that is before us today and the bill that passed the 
House are a direct product of the chaos of the 1996 election. They are 
good legislation that address the two key problems of our campaign 
finance system--the proliferation of soft money and the use of thinly 
disguised ``issue'' advertisements. In addition, the legislation takes 
important steps to strengthen the Federal Election Commission. The 
goals of the bill before us today are the same as those of the original 
law: to deter corruption, to inform voters and to prevent wealthy 
private interests from exercising disproportionate influence over the 
government.
  There is no question that most problems we saw in the 1996 election 
stemmed from legal activity. There is also no question that both 
political parties and groups supporting candidates on both sides of the 
aisle in 1996 took advantage of these loopholes in their quest to win. 
The problems of soft money being used to purchase access and of secret 
contributors funding their own attack advertising campaigns without 
disclosing their identity can not be solved by any other means than by 
passing a new law.
  The proposals in this bill are carefully drafted to protect the First 
Amendment right of voters to engage in political speech. The 
legislation simply requires public disclosure and compliance with 
contribution limits. To those who see no problem with soft money 
advertising campaigns by parties and issue advertising by unknown and 
undisclosed contributors I can only wonder what they will say after the 
next time they run for re-election and

[[Page S10166]]

discover they no longer have any control over the course of their own 
campaigns?
  No one can seriously argue that the system of soft money and secret 
issue ads is consistent with the spirit of the campaign finance laws. 
Together, the soft-money and issue-advocacy loopholes have eviscerated 
the contribution limits and disclosure requirements in federal election 
laws and caused a loss of public confidence in the integrity of our 
campaign finance system. By inviting corruption of the electoral 
process, they threaten our democracy. For parties to accept 
contributions of hundreds of thousands--even millions--of dollars, from 
corporations, unions and others to air candidate attack ads without 
meeting any of the federal election law requirements for contribution 
limits and public disclosure is a fundamental step backwards.
  Twice in the past year we have voted on the amendment before us 
today. Each time, although a majority of the Members of this body have 
voted in support of the bill--a minority opposed to reform has blocked 
its passage.
  Today we again take up this measure--but this time with a 
difference--this time the House of Representatives has worked together 
in a bi-partisan manner, recognized the critical need for reform, and 
passed a bill. By coming together and passing this reform legislation 
we in the Senate can take advantage of a narrow window of opportunity 
and turn these bills into a new and vital campaign finance law. This is 
a rare chance to fix a major problem. If we fail, it will plague us in 
many elections to come.
  Over the course of my Senate career, I have watched as public 
cynicism about government increases, and trust in government declines. 
In 1996, for the first time, less than half the people in this country 
eligible to vote cast a ballot. We must assure the integrity of our 
campaigns if we are to have any hope that young Americans will continue 
to have the faith in our government and in its public servants.
  If we do not act we here in the Senate will be responsible when the 
abuses witnessed by the American people in 1996 are repeated. All that 
will change is that amounts of money will continue to increase and 
public faith will continue to decline. In less than two months we will 
see the loopholes ripped open in 1996 resulting in an even greater 
flood of money into the system as each party tries to elect their 
chosen candidates, and the candidates battle to be heard against the 
flood of issue advertising.
  There is nothing I should like to be able to say so much as that I 
left the Senate having helped to pass into law the amendment before us 
today. I would ask that my colleagues join with me to cast a vote to 
enact into law these sensible reforms that we know we need. Only then 
can I depart with the confidence that we have acted to protect our 
electoral process from the apathy and cynicism that are a danger to 
democracy.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, with this amendment the United States 
Senate has an excellent opportunity to restore public faith in the 
political system by enacting long overdue campaign finance reform. 
After cynically withdrawing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform 
bill last winter, the Senate followed the lead of the House and passed 
a needed new law to limit the role of money in election campaigns.
  The current system is a scandal, and I commend Senator McCain and 
Senator Feingold for their leadership in demanding that the Senate act 
on reform. The vast sums of special interest money pouring into 
campaigns are a cancer on our democracy. The voice of the average 
citizen today is scarcely heard over the din of lobbyists and big 
corporations contributing millions of dollars to political campaigns 
and buying hundreds of TV ads to promote the causes of their special 
interests.
  Every Democrat supports the proposal before us. If enough Republicans 
join us, this reform will pass.
  It is time to end special interest gimmickry in campaign advertising. 
Currently, special interests can run as many so-called issue ads as 
they wish as long as they do not specifically advocate a candidate's 
election. The American people aren't being fooled--they know that these 
are campaign ads in disguise and should be regulated accordingly.
  Democrats also want to close the gaping loophole on soft money, which 
allows special interests to bypass legal limits on giving money 
directly to candidates. Big corporations and other special interests 
use this loophole to funnel money to candidates through the back door, 
by making so-called ``soft-money'' contributions to political parties 
and other political organizations that are spent to benefit candidates.
  More than $250 million in soft money contributions played a part in 
the 1996 elections. McCain-Feingold proposal will ban this practice.
  The fact is that phony issue ads and soft money contributions have 
created a climate in which our elections and our legislative agenda are 
determined more and more by how much money candidates can raise and 
less and less by issues of concern to families and communities across 
America. The public doesn't have to look any further than the Senate 
floor to see the effect big money has on the Republican legislative 
agenda.
  For example, Republicans are determined to pass a bankruptcy bill 
bought and paid for by the consumer credit industry, despite the pleas 
of bankruptcy judges, scholars, and consumer groups.
  Why is Congress moving so quickly to pass legislation that raises 
such grave concerns? Who benefits from the bill? Is it working 
families, the elderly, women and children? The answer is a resounding 
``no.'' If you want to know who benefits from this legislation, just 
look at the corporate interests making soft money contributions--the 
consumer credit industry gave $5.5 million in soft money during the 
1995-1996 election cycle. Common Cause reports that since 1995, 
Republicans in the House of Representatives have received more than 
twice the PAC and soft money contributions from consumer creditors as 
Democrats, and--not surprisingly--Republicans voted wholesale for the 
bankrtupcy bill. In the House of Representatives, the bill had the 
support of every Republican.
  The tobacco industry's total PAC and soft money contributions are 
less than half of what the credit industry gave during the same 
period--but, it was enough for the Republican leadership to reject 
needed anti-tobacco legislation and prevent it from being enacted.
  The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids reports that Senators who voted 
consistently against the tobacco reform legislation took far more money 
from the industry--four times more--than those who supported the bill. 
In the past ten years, Senators supporting the tobacco industry's 
position have accepted an average of $34,000, while those who support 
reform measures accepted about $8,000 in contributions.
  The challenge of managed care reform is another example of the power 
that big corporations can wield against the interests of individuals 
and families in the political process. In the halls of Congress, big 
money from campaign contributors is drowning the voices of our 
constituents.
  A year ago, in a private strategy meeting called to defeat the 
Patients' Bill of Rights, staff from the Senate Republican leadership 
exhorted insurance industry lobbyists to ``Get off your butts, get off 
your wallets.'' And lo and behold, the industry ingloriously responded.
  In fact, Blue Cross/Blue Shield and its state affiliates have made $1 
million in political contributions during the 1997-1998 cycle, with 
four out of every five dollars going to Republicans. They are also the 
number one PAC donors to leadership committees. They more than doubled 
their contributions during the 1995-1996 election cycle and 98 percent 
of the contributions were directed to Republicans.
  According to the Center on Responsive Politics, managed care PACs--
including the American Association of Health Plans, the Health 
Insurance Association of America, and Blue Cross/Blue Shield--gave 
$77,250 to leadership political action committees. All but $1,500 went 
to the Republican majority. As of July 1, these industry PACs have made 
$1.8 million in political contributions during this election cycle, and 
70 percent of the money is directed to Republicans.
  These same corporations have also funded a multi-million dollar 
advertising campaign of disinformation and distortion on managed case 
reform.

[[Page S10167]]

The same corporations profit by denying care to patients who have 
faithfully paid their premiums. These same corporations, with their 
crocodile tears, claim that patient protections will bankrupt them or 
force them to raise premiums by hundreds of dollars.
  These same corporations are spending millions of dollars--taken from 
premiums paid by patients--on political campaign contributions and 
advertising to defeat the very legislation that patients need and 
deserve.
  What did this significant investment buy? Just what they wanted. 
Inaction by Congress. Stonewalling. A ``just say no'' strategy. At the 
behest of their big donors and special interest friends, the Senate 
Republican leadership has delayed and denied consideration of the 
Patients' Bill of Rights for nearly a year and a half.
  The choice is clear. Will the Senate stand with patients, families, 
and physicians, or with the well-heeled special interests that put 
profits ahead of patients?
  It is clear that the majority of Senator Republicans are standing 
with the special interests. There is no mystery about what is going on. 
The Republican Leadership's position is to protect the insurance 
industry instead of protecting the patients. They know they can't do 
that in the light of day. So their strategy has been to work behind 
closed doors to kill the bill. Keep it bottled up in Committee. No 
markup. No floor debate or vote.
  Bill Gradison, the head of the Health Insurance Association of 
America, was asked in a interview published in the Rocky Mountain News 
to sum up the coalition's strategy. According to the article, Mr. 
Gradison replied ``[t]here's a lot to be said for `Just say no.' '' The 
author of the article goes on to report that:

       [a]t a strategy session . . . called by a top aide to 
     Senator Don Nickles, Gradison advised Republicans to avoid 
     taking public positions that could draw fire during the 
     election campaign. Opponents will rely on Republican leaders 
     in both chambers to keep managed care legislation bottled up 
     in committee.

  Just as managed care plans gag their doctors, the Republican 
leadership wants to gag the Senate. Just as insurance companies delay 
and deny care, the Republican leadership is trying to delay and deny 
meaningful reform. Just as health plans want to avoid being held 
accountable when they kill or injure a patient, the Republican 
leadership wants to avoid being held accountable for killing patient 
protection legislation.
  That is why the Republican leadership is trying to hide its tactics 
of delay and denial behind a smokescreen of parliamentary maneuvers and 
phony procedural justifications. They say we don't have time to debate 
managed care. They reject offer after offer from the Democratic leader, 
thereby continuing the stall of this critically important legislation. 
I say, the American people aren't interested in excuses. They want 
action. They want reforms. They want clean elections. This legislation 
will give it to them and it deserves to pass by an overwhelming 
majority of the Senate.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this is the sixth year I have been a 
Member of the U.S. Senate. And this is the sixth year I can recall 
debating campaign finance reform. I have voted to pass campaign reform 
legislation in 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, and now 1998. We actually passed 
a good bill in the Senate in 1993. Each time it has been killed off by 
filibuster.
  Each time I thought, this is it. This is our chance to make some 
changes that the people of this country will notice and respect. This 
is our chance to restore a measure of faith in American democracy. 
While I've had my share of disappointments, today we are here again 
with a rare and valuable opportunity to actually get a bill signed into 
law.
  Mr. President, it is critically important that we pass campaign 
reform legislation. The health of our democracy is not good. Yes, the 
economy is strong, crime is down, and people are generally feeling good 
about their lives. But there is an undercurrent that I find deeply 
troubling, and it's been building for the past two decades.
  People simply do not like government. They do not trust government, 
and they do not feel like they are part of the process. They are losing 
faith and I think it would be terrible if we did not do something to 
re-invigorate peoples' interest in American democracy.
  If any of my colleagues doubt this, just look at voter turnout rates 
and voter registration rates. People just are not participating any 
more, and it gets worse each year.
  What exactly is the problem? Money, plain and simple. Too much money, 
having too much influence over our democratic process.
  The campaign system is so clogged with money, there is hardly room 
left for the average voter. Political campaigning has become an 
industry in this country. In the last election, over a billion dollars 
were spent on federal elections alone. To what end?
  That money--much of it undisclosed, from dubious sources--flowed into 
the political arena and dictated the terms of our elections to the 
people. Like water, it flowed downhill into campaigns all across the 
country. Some of it came out in the form of national party ads 
attacking candidates in the abstract; some came out in the form of 
issue-ads by interest groups trying to influence the outcomes. Some of 
it came out in the candidates' own TV ads.
  It reaches the point where you almost cannot hear the voices of the 
candidates or the people anymore, only the voices of the dueling 
special interests. We do not know who pays for these ads, where they 
get their money, or what they stand to gain if their candidate wins. 
Yet they have found ways to have a huge influence over the election 
process.
  Opponents of reform argue against the McCain-Feingold bill on free 
speech grounds. They argue politicians and political parties should be 
able to take money in any amount from anyone in order to make the case 
for their re-election. They believe that having more money entitles one 
to a greater influence over our campaigns and elections. I find this 
argument shocking, Mr. President. I find it profoundly un-democratic, 
and un-American.
  The last time we debated reform, I told a story of a woman who sent 
my campaign a small contribution of fifteen dollars. With her check she 
enclosed a note that said, ``please make sure my voice means as much as 
those who give thousands.'' With all due respect, Mr. President, this 
woman is typical of the people who deserve our best representation. 
Sadly, under the current campaign system, they rarely do.
  I have tried to live by my word on this issue. My first Senate 
campaign was a shoe-string affair. I was out spent nearly three-to-one 
by a congressional incumbent. But because I had a strong, grassroots, 
people-based effort, I was able to win.
  Since then, I have worked hard to keep to that standard. I have over 
35,000 individual donors. The average contribution to my campaign is 69 
dollars. Nearly 75 percent of my contributions come from within 
Washington state. I firmly believe that's the way campaigns should be 
run: by the people.
  We need more disclosure, not less. We need more restrictions on 
special interest money, not fewer. We need less money in the system, 
not more. We need to amplify the voices of regular people, instead of 
allowing them to be shouted down by special interests.
  Mr. President, the opponents of reform miss the point. In America, 
money does not equal speech. More money does not entitle one to more 
speech. The Haves are not entitled to a greater voice in politics than 
the Have-nots. In America, everyone has an equal say in our government. 
That is why our Declaration of Independence starts with, ``We, the 
people.''
  When this Congress started, I thought this might really be our chance 
to pass a bill. The public was paying more attention. The excesses of 
the last campaign season, brought to light through the good work of the 
Government Affairs Committee, made campaign reform a front-burner issue 
in every kitchen in America. More than one million signatures were 
delivered to the Capitol from people all over America who joined a 
nationwide call for reform.
  A bipartisan group of Senators committed to reform worked overtime to 
craft a reasonable reform measure that makes sense for America. I think 
we

[[Page S10168]]

all owe a debt of gratitude to Senators McCain and Feingold for their 
work. They generated public support, made their case to the media, and 
pushed for the last few votes necessary to pass a bill. Well, the time 
has come to see if this is our chance to do the right thing.
  Our like-minded colleagues in the other body did find the votes, and 
they did pass a good strong bill. The Senate has more than enough votes 
to pass the same bill on an up-or-down vote. All we need are eight more 
votes from the majority party to do the right thing for America. Mr. 
President, who will it be? Who will be the heroes on this vote? And who 
will let down the millions of American citizens who have grown sick, 
tired, and alienated from our democratic system?
  Mr. President, I believe we have made this debate way too 
complicated. After all the maneuvering, the cloture petitions, the 
technicalities, the procedural votes, this issue boils down to one 
basic question: are senators willing to make some modest reforms to 
reduce the influence of big money in politics and encourage greater 
voter participation? Or are they more interested in protecting the 
current system, and the ability of parties and politicians to turn 
financial advantage into political advantage?
  Are you for reform, or against it? Are you with the people, or 
against them on the need for a more healthy democracy? The votes we are 
taking today will show the answers to these questions.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, today I add my voice to the on-going 
debate on the campaign finance reform bill that is before us once 
again. Let me say right up front, so that there is no confusion, I 
support, and I have always supported enforceable, reasonable, common-
sense reform. Unfortunately, I don't believe the amendment offered by 
Senators McCain and Feingold before the Senate meets those standards, 
nor do I believe it would stand a Constitutional challenge. As I stated 
with my friend and fellow Coloradan, Senator Allard, in a joint 
editorial printed in the Denver Post back in October, ``real campaign 
finance reform protects the right to free speech under the First 
Amendment while guaranteeing the public's right to know through full 
disclosure.'' This amendment does not contain that kind of reform. The 
Constitution guarantees all Americans the right to freedom of speech 
and association in the First Amendment.
  The Supreme Court applied those words to campaign spending in the 
landmark case Buckley v. Valeo to mean that money spent in favor or 
against a candidate is a form of speech, and therefore entitled to this 
protection. That decision has been reinforced over and over again. 
Given this ruling, I cannot believe that the Court, or the Founding 
Fathers, intended to impose a sixty- or thirty-day moratorium prior to 
elections on this right, as this amendment would do. I believe the 
Founders wanted Americans to have the unabridged right to speak their 
minds and show their support for candidates by using a collective 
voice, including showing support by making contributions to one 
candidate or another.
  In order to have an educated electorate, money must be spent on 
spreading candidates' messages. In our free market system, advertising 
rates are determined by the industry. I would note that these days, 
there is hardly such a thing as a ``free exchange of ideas,'' as nearly 
all forms of communication cost money. The exchange of ideas and 
opinions is what allows the public to become informed about the 
candidates that are seeking office. But limiting the amount candidates 
can raise and spend severely limits the ability to spread information 
about their backgrounds and opinions, and only harms citizens. I cannot 
understand why this amendment targets some forms of spreading these 
messages while allowing others to continue unchecked. Doesn't that 
signal to the American people that the First Amendment only applies to 
speech that is printed, and not speech that is broadcast?
  I would note that my colleagues and I have been under tremendous 
pressure this session to pass this particular legislation. But until we 
have found a solution that answers all the Constitutional concerns that 
have been raised, I am reluctant to act on this particular measure. As 
was stated in an editorial that appeared in my state's Rocky Mountain 
News, this ``particular piece of legislation would have betrayed 
several of the nation's most important principles, not the least of all 
is its guarantee of free political speech.'' I wholeheartedly agree 
with this sentiment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor and ask unanimous consent 
that the text of this editorial be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       The McCain-Feingold Fraud

       As those of you with the radio on last week probably know, 
     Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell has been the target of an ad 
     campaign by a coalition that supports something known as the 
     McCain-Feingold bill, a campaign finance reform that died 
     last Thursday in the U.S. Senate.
       Various local journalists also joined the crusade, in one 
     instance publishing Campbell's office phone number as a 
     service to readers who wished to complain about his failure 
     to support the bill.
       But, in fact, that particular piece of legislation would 
     have betrayed several of the nation's most important 
     principles, not least of all its guarantee of free political 
     speech. Under one of its provisions, for instance, groups 
     focused on particular issues would be prohibited from 
     mentioning the names of candidates in advertisements as 
     elections drew near.
       Can anyone with any understanding of the First Amendment 
     honestly believe that Congress can constitutionally prohibit 
     any organization of Americans from saying any politician at 
     nay time it chooses?
       The American Civil Liberties Union has correctly identified 
     one probable result of McCain-Feingold: ``to shut down 
     citizen criticism of incumbent officeholders standing for re-
     election at the very time when the public's attention is 
     especially focused on such issues.''
       The truth is, McCain-Feingold would probably have fixed 
     very little on its way to hampering democratic discussion. It 
     would not have become easier--and might well have become 
     harder--to challenge an incumbent, especially if you happened 
     to be a third-party candidate. For that matter, the most 
     publicized campaign spending scandals of the past year 
     involved activity that was already illegal. If the bill had 
     been enacted, politicians probably would have figured out 
     ways to circumvent it--and the Supreme Court probably would 
     have declared it unconstitutional.
       Sure, the present system is not pretty to look at. 
     Politicians work constantly to raise money for their 
     campaigns, and special interest groups are forever trying to 
     influence legislation with their donations, usually by 
     helping those who have helped them in the past. One possible 
     reform is full, instant disclosure of contributions so that 
     voters can themselves determine whether candidates are in 
     danger of being bought.
       Give people liberty, and their political system is going to 
     be messy. Taking away some significant portion of that 
     liberty is too high a price for cleaning things up.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I strongly support the McCain-Feingold 
amendment to reform the federal campaign finance system.
  It is clear that a majority of the United States Senate supports the 
McCain-Feingold amendment. I urge senators to stop filibustering this 
extremely important matter, and let us pass the plan and send a bill to 
the president.
  I want to explain what the amendment does and the kinds of abuses of 
the system that it would prevent.
  First, it bans unlimited ``soft money'' contributions, which are 
contributions to national political committees like the Republican and 
Democratic National Committees.
  Under current law, ``soft money'' contributions are unlimited and 
virtually unregulated. This means that a corporation with an interest 
in legislation pending in Congress--such as an oil company--can give 
hundreds of thousands of dollars to the national political parties in 
an attempt to influence the outcome of the legislation.
  The McCain-Feingold amendment would shut down the special interest 
money machine by imposing limits on contributions to the national 
political parties.
  Second, the McCain-Feingold amendment bans attack advertising 
disguised as ``issue ads'' by corporations and unions within 60 days of 
an election. The amendment also requires others--individuals and 
nonprofit organizations--to disclose their contributors and 
expenditures for these ads.
  Current law allows anyone to launch vicious attacks against 
candidates and not disclose their true identity or the sources of their 
contributions, as long

[[Page S10169]]

as the ad doesn't say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' the candidate.
  For example, a group of tobacco companies can get together, form a 
phony organization called ``Citizens for Good Government'', and have 
that ``organization'' spend millions of dollars for television ads 
attacking a congressional candidate who supports tougher tobacco laws. 
And those companies never have to disclose what they did.
  This isn't just a hypothetical: In my own state, outside special 
interest groups regularly spend millions of dollars attacking 
California congressional candidates, often leaving those candidates 
mere spectators in their own election campaigns.
  The amendment prohibits corporations and unions from buying these 
stealth attack ads, and anyone else--individuals and nonprofit 
organizations--has to disclose what they are doing.
  Third, the amendment fixes a major problem in the law governing 
``independent expenditures'', which are efforts on behalf of a 
candidate by someone not affiliated with that candidate's campaign.
  Under current law, a political party can make ``independent 
expenditures'' on behalf of a candidate at the same time it is making 
expenditures that are coordinated with the candidate's campaign. Mr. 
President, this is an absurd situation! Clearly, a political party 
can't--at the same time, with the same political operatives, from the 
same office--be both ``independent of'' and ``coordinate with'' a 
political campaign!
  The McCain-Feingold amendment allows a political party to do only one 
or the other: If the party makes ``independent expenditures'', it can't 
also make ``coordinated'' expenditures for the campaign.
  Finally, the amendment requires faster and more complete disclosure 
of contributions to campaigns.
  Mr. President, for these reasons, I urge my colleagues to vote for 
cloture on this amendment and move to passage so that we can send a 
bill to the president and make these changes in our campaign finance 
system.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. In light of the fact we have limited time, I ask that 
any time that is open here, a quorum call time, be charged to the other 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I confess, I was not particularly 
attentive. What was the unanimous consent request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The unanimous consent request was that any 
quorum calls be charged exclusively to the time under the control of 
the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask that the time be equally divided with regard to 
the quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask my colleague from Wisconsin whether I can speak 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I inform the Senator from Minnesota, we only have a 
total of 16 minutes remaining. Mr. McCain would like some time. If the 
Senator would like to speak for 3 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. That is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is to be advised 
that he has 11 minutes, 45 seconds remaining. The Senator from 
Minnesota is recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I had a chance to speak yesterday for 
about half an hour, so let me summarize this way:
  First of all, I thank Senator Feingold who I think has just emerged, 
really, as a leading reformer before the U.S. Senate for his work, 
along with Senator McCain. This is a bipartisan effort, and I, frankly, 
think it speaks to the core issue.
  What I tried to say yesterday on the floor of the Senate is that as I 
think about a whole range of questions, over and over and over again, I 
come back to the fact that too few people have way too much wealth, 
power, and say, and too many people are just locked out. The polls show 
people want to have faith in our political process, people want to 
believe in what we are doing, but the conclusion that many people have 
reached is that if you pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you don't 
play, and that, basically, the same investors pretty much control both 
political parties; they control the political process.
  So many people in Minnesota and across the country have reached the 
conclusion that when it comes to their concerns about themselves and 
about their families and about their neighbors and about their 
communities, that their concerns are of little concern here in the 
corridors of power.
  I can't think of a better thing for us to do than to pass this piece 
of legislation. The Shays-Meehan bill passed in the House of 
Representatives. That was a very important victory. We now have an 
important vote on the floor of the Senate. There is an effort on the 
part of those who are opposed to reform to block this. That is what 
this is all about. We have a majority support on the floor of the U.S. 
Senate. I hope that other Senators will step forward and support this 
important piece of legislation, this important amendment offered by 
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold.
  As a Senator from Minnesota, a good government State, a progressive 
State, a State that cares about clean money and clean elections, a 
State that believes integrity in the political process is the most 
important thing that we can focus on, this piece of legislation, this 
amendment is the most important amendment that we will be voting on 
during this Senate.
  I hope my colleagues will vote to end this filibuster and support 
this legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, in light of the fact that we have very 
limited time remaining, I ask that any time under subsequent quorum 
calls not be charged against our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? As a Senator from the 
State of Minnesota, I lodge an objection.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am about to put in a quorum call. I am 
going to ask unanimous consent that we be able to use our remaining 
time near the conclusion of this debate. We have how much time 
remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has control of 8 
minutes, 40 seconds.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that we be permitted to use 
that time just prior to the end of the debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Again, as a Senator from the State of 
Minnesota, I have to object. I can equally divide--objection is heard.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum 
call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Sean 
O'Brien, who is an intern in my office, be granted the privilege of the 
floor today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S10170]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who requests time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator does not have control of the time. 
Who seeks time? The Senator has control of time on the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask that it be 
equally divided.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I wonder if the distinguished proponent 
of this bill from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, would be willing to 
yield some time. Does the Senator have any additional time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Precious little. I can yield the Senator 2 minutes of 
our remaining 8 minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. My speech will be much better than sitting in a quorum 
call. I thought I might get more time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas is recognized for 2 
minutes.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I came over to express my very strong 
support for campaign finance reform. From the time I ran for Governor 
in 1970 until 28 years later--this very moment--I have abhorred the 
system of financing campaigns in this country. One of the reasons--not 
the main reason, but certainly one of the reasons I decided not to seek 
reelection this year was because I detested going out and raising 
money.
  Let me also say that it is reaching the point in this country where 
the cost of campaigning goes up every single year--and there is no end 
in sight.
  Right now the Attorney General is conducting a 90-day interim period 
investigation on whether or not the DNC coordinated a 1996 campaign 
with the President of the United States. The same thing is going on 
with the Vice President. And the same thing will go on forever until we 
change it, and change it dramatically--soft money, hard money, issue 
ads, attack ads.
  I close, Mr. President, by saying I consider not only the method of 
financing campaigns in this country ominous, quite frankly, I consider 
it rotten to the core.
  I also want to say to the American people----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Thirty seconds?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator 30 additional seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Anybody who believes that a democracy can survive when 
the people you elect and the laws you pass depend on how much money is 
given for the cause are daydreaming. It is dangerous to our system. It 
is dangerous to our democracy. I plead with my colleagues to vote for 
cloture on this matter.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement, the 
vote is scheduled for the hour of 1:45?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. McCAIN. This side has used all but 8 minutes of its time, and the 
other side has not used a significant amount of its time because there 
is an hour and 15 minutes approximately between now and when the vote 
is scheduled.
  What we are trying to achieve here is, one, allow the debate to 
continue, and, two, allow the proponents of the legislation the 
opportunity to continue the debate.
  I thought that this whole debate was being conducted in an atmosphere 
of comity. When I have been in other debates here on the floor of the 
Senate and there has been no one to speak in opposition or in favor of 
a particular amendment, then those who wanted to speak were allowed to 
speak.
  If we are going to depart from that, Mr. President, OK. But I am 
asking unanimous consent, one, that the last 20 minutes be equally 
divided, 10 minutes on each side, but also I am asking unanimous 
consent that if there are no speakers in opposition to the legislation, 
that speakers in favor of the amendment be allowed to speak rather than 
just throw the Senate into a quorum call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  In the Chair's capacity as a Senator from Minnesota----
  Mr. McCAIN. Could I make one addition? I ask unanimous consent to add 
one addition to that. That is, when Senator McConnell returns, and if 
he or any of the opponents wish to use their time, they clearly would 
be allowed to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the President, and I thank my colleagues for 
their cooperation.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Under the unanimous consent agreement, I understand, as 
long as there are not opposition speakers present, that we can go 
forward without that being charged against our remaining time. Is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  In light of that, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota has any 
additional remarks. I am prepared go forward, if he does not.
  Mr. President, we have heard a lot of criticism of our bill during 
this debate on constitutional grounds. The Senator from Kentucky said 
once again yesterday something that he has said many times. He 
expressed his opinion that there is ``absolutely no way'' that our bill 
will be held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. And obviously I 
disagree with that analysis.
  Our bill has been carefully crafted to be consistent with the Court's 
decision in Buckley v. Valeo. The only way to find out who is right, of 
course--because you cannot call up the Chief Justice and ask him for 
advice or his opinion--the only way is by passing this bill, and 
allowing a court challenge to take place. I and other supporters of the 
McCain-Feingold bill are ready to defend this bill in court, and I 
sincerely hope that we will have a chance to do so.
  The Senator from Kentucky does have one group on his side that does 
specialize in the first amendment, the American Civil Liberties Union. 
And he is fond of reminding us that the ACLU, ``America's expert on the 
first amendment,'' as he likes to say, opposes our bill. Let me say, I 
have a great deal of respect for the ACLU in many areas. In fact, I may 
have agreed with them on more issues over the years than the Senator 
from Kentucky. But I think it is worth pointing out two things with 
respect to the ACLU's position on campaign finance reform.
  First, the ACLU is on record many times as opposing the Court's 
decision in Buckley that limitations on campaign contributions are 
constitutional. In other words, the ACLU disagrees with the Court's 
ruling in Buckley. The ACLU believes, for example, that limitations on 
soft money donations to political parties would be unconstitutional. 
But that is an opinion that is by no means in the mainstream of 
constitutional thought.
  In fact, as we have noted many times over the last year, we have a 
letter signed by 127 law professors who wrote to Senator McCain and to 
me and gave their opinion that a soft money ban would be fully 
consistent with the first amendment and the Buckley decision and 
therefore would be constitutional.
  Senator McConnell once said it would be easy to find 127 law 
professors of his own to say that soft money cannot be banned, but so 
far no such letter has ever materialized. Senator McConnell has been 
completely unable to come up with a list of constitutional scholars 
that would suggest that we cannot ban soft money, and I doubt that he 
ever could.
  Second, there is a serious split within the ACLU itself. One of the 
most interesting and significant developments in this whole debate 
occurred just this past June during the House debate on campaign 
finance reform when a group of former leaders of the ACLU released a 
statement on their opinion of the

[[Page S10171]]

constitutionality of the House version of the McCain-Feingold bill.
  Mr. President, this isn't just one, if you will, disgruntled former 
leader of the ACLU. This statement was released by nine former leaders 
of the organization. They include every living person who has served as 
president, executive director, legal director, or legislative director 
of the ACLU for the past 30 years, except for one person who is 
currently in Government service and is not free to express his opinion.
  That is quite a thing--all of those former ACLU officials indicating 
they do believe that this bill is constitutional. Let me just read from 
the letter of June 19, the statement of persons who have served in the 
American Civil Liberties Union in leadership positions supporting the 
constitutionally of efforts to enact reasonable campaign finance 
reform. They say:

       We have devoted much of our professional lives to the ACLU, 
     and to the protection of free speech. We are proud of our 
     ACLU service, and we continue to support the ACLU's matchless 
     efforts to preserve the Bill of Rights. We have come to 
     believe, however, that the opposition to campaign finance 
     reform expressed by the ACLU misreads the First Amendment. In 
     our opinion, the First Amendment does not forbid content-
     neutral efforts to place reasonable limits on campaign 
     spending.
       We believe that the First Amendment is designed to 
     safeguard a functioning and fair democracy. The current 
     system of campaign financing makes a mockery of that ideal by 
     enabling the rich to set the national agenda, and to exercise 
     disproportionate influence over the behavior of public 
     officials.

  Later in the letter the same individuals said,

       . . . even within the limitations of the Buckley decision, 
     we believe that significant campaign finance reform is both 
     possible and constitutional. We support elimination of the 
     ``soft money'' loophole that allows unlimited campaign 
     contributions to political parties, undermining Congress's 
     effort to regulate the size and source of campaign 
     contributions to candidates. We believe that Congress, for 
     the purpose of regulating the size and source of federal 
     campaign contributions, may treat a contribution to the 
     political party sponsoring a federal candidate as though it 
     were a contribution to the candidate directly.
       We also support regulation to the funding of political 
     advertising that is clearly intended to affect the outcome of 
     a specific federal election, but that omits the magic words 
     ``vote for'' or ``vote against''. We believe that Congress 
     may draft a narrowly tailored provision regulating the 
     funding of so-called ``issue advertisements'' that mention 
     one or more of the candidates, appear shortly before the 
     election, and are geographically targeted in an obvious 
     effort to affect the outcome of a specific federal election.

  These individuals conclude by saying:

       We believe that the current debate over campaign financing 
     reform in the House of Representatives and the Senate should 
     center on the important policy questions raised by various 
     efforts at reform. Opponents of reform should no longer be 
     permitted to hide behind an unjustified constitutional 
     spokescreen.

  I ask unanimous consent that the full statement of these nine former 
members of the ACLU be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                    June 19, 1998.

Statement of Persons Who Have Served the American Civil Liberties Union 
in Leadership Positions Supporting the Constitutionality of Efforts to 
                Enact Reasonable Campaign Finance Reform

       We have served the American Civil Liberties Union in 
     leadership positions over several decades. Norman Dorsen 
     served as ACLU General Counsel from 1969-1976 and as 
     President of the ACLU from 1976-1991. Jack Pemberton and 
     Aryeh Neier served as Executive Directors of the ACLU from 
     1962-1978. Melvin Wulf, Bruce Ennis, Burt Neuborne, and John 
     Powell served as National Legal Directors of the ACLU from 
     1962-1992. Charles Morgan, Jr., and Morton Halperin served as 
     National Legislative Directors of the ACLU from 1972-1976, 
     and 1984-1992, respectively. Indeed, except for one person 
     currently in government service, and, therefore, not free to 
     express a personal opinion, we constitute every living person 
     to have served as ACLU President, ACLU Executive Director, 
     ACLU Legal Director, or ACLU Legislative Director during the 
     past 30 years, with the exception of the current leadership.
       We have devoted much of our professional lives to the ACLU, 
     and to the protection of free speech. We are proud of our 
     ACLU service, and continue to support the ACLU's matchless 
     efforts to preserve the Bill of Rights. We have come to 
     believe, however, that the opposition to campaign finance 
     reform expressed by the ACLU misreads the First Amendment. In 
     our opinion, the First Amendment does not forbid content-
     neutral efforts to place reasonable limits on campaign 
     spending.
       We believe that the First Amendment is designed to 
     safeguard a functioning and fair democracy. The current 
     system of campaign financing makes a mockery of that ideal by 
     enabling the rich to set the national agenda, and to exercise 
     disproportionate influence over the behavior of public 
     officials.
       We believe that Buckley v. Valeo, the 1976 Supreme Court 
     case that makes it extremely difficult to reform the current, 
     disastrous campaign financing system, should be overruled for 
     three reasons. First, the Buckley opinion inappropriately 
     treats the spending of money as though it were pure speech, 
     no matter how high the spending limits may be. But such an 
     approach ignores the long-established Supreme Court rule that 
     when speech is inextricably intertwined with conduct, the 
     conduct may be regulated if it threatens to cause serious 
     harm. While we agree that unreasonably low spending limits 
     would unconstitutionally impinge on free speech, the Buckley 
     Court failed to recognize that there is a compelling interest 
     in defending democracy that justifies reasonable spending 
     limits. Reasonable spending limits would free candidates and 
     officials to concentrate on substantive questions of public 
     policy, instead of spending excessive time raising campaign 
     funds. Reasonable spending limits would also free candidates 
     from becoming trapped in an arms race mentality, where each 
     candidate is forced to continue raising money, not because 
     they wish to, but to prevent being outspent by an 
     opponent.
       Second, the Buckley opinion makes an untenable distinction 
     between campaign contributions, which may be subjected to 
     stringent government regulation, and campaign expenditures, 
     which are virtually immune from regulation. The bright-line 
     distinction between contributions and expenditures is neither 
     analytically nor pragmatically defensible. By upholding 
     limits on the size and source of campaign contributions, 
     while preventing any effort to limit the demand for campaign 
     funds by capping spending, the Buckley Court inadvertently 
     created a system that tempts politicians to break the law 
     governing campaign contributions in order to satisfy an 
     uncontrollable need for campaign cash.
       Third, the Buckley Court erred in refusing to permit the 
     establishment of reasonable spending limits designed to avoid 
     unfair domination of the electoral process by a small group 
     of extremely wealthy persons. Instead of ``one person-one 
     vote'', the Buckley decision has resulted in a regime of 
     ``one dollar-one vote'' that magnifies the political 
     influence of extremely wealthy individuals and distorts the 
     fundamental principle of political equality underlying the 
     First Amendment itself, causing great harm to the democratic 
     principles that underlie the Constitution.
       It is our hope that the current Supreme Court, confronted 
     with the unfortunate practical implications of the Buckley 
     decision, and the serious flaws in its constitutional 
     analysis, will reconsider the decision, and permit reasonable 
     legislative efforts to reform our campaign financing system.
       Moreover, even within the limitations of the Buckley 
     decision, we believe that significant campaign finance reform 
     is both possible and constitutional. We support elimination 
     of the ``soft money'' loophole that allows unlimited campaign 
     contributions to political parties, undermining Congress's 
     effort to regulate the size and source of campaign 
     contributions to candidates. We believe that Congress, for 
     the purpose of regulating the size and source of federal 
     campaign contributions, may treat a contribution to the 
     political party sponsoring a federal candidate as though it 
     were a contribution to the candidate directly.
       We also support regulation of the funding of political 
     advertising that is clearly intended to affect the outcome of 
     a specific federal election, but that omits the magic words 
     ``vote for'' or ``vote against''. We believe that Congress 
     may draft a narrowly tailored provision regulating the 
     funding of so-called ``issue advertisements'' that mention 
     one or more of the candidates, appear shortly before the 
     election, and are geographically targeted in an obvious 
     effort to affect the outcome of a specific federal election.
       We believe that the current debate over campaign financing 
     reform in the House of Representatives and the Senate should 
     center on the important policy questions raised by various 
     efforts at reform. Opponents or reform should no longer be 
     permitted to hide behind an unjustified constitutional 
     smokescreen.

         Norman Dorsen, Jack Pemberton, Aryeh Neier, Melvin Wulf, 
           Bruce Ennis, Burt Neuborne, John Powell, Charles 
           Morgan, Jr., Morton Halperin.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I think this is a very significant 
letter that undercuts this, frankly, false notion that the soft money 
ban and some of the other key provisions in our bill are 
unconstitutional.
  I am delighted now we have worked out the logjam on time and that the 
distinguished Senator from Arkansas is here to continue his remarks on 
this issue.
  Mr. BUMPERS. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.

[[Page S10172]]

  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, I want to lead off with one of Mo Udall's 
great statements: Everything that needs to be said has been said but 
everybody hasn't said it. So I want to get my two cents in before we 
vote on this measure this afternoon.
  A moment ago, I said everything about this issue I feel strongly 
about, except for one thing: While I strongly support this legislation, 
I also believe that the ultimate solution to this problem is public 
financing. Unhappily, I will no longer be a member of this 
distinguished body when this Country and Congress finally comes to its 
senses and realizes that until we go to public financing, our democracy 
is simply not going to work. I am reluctant to make an admission today, 
but I have always prided myself on standing up for things that 
oftentimes were unpopular but I felt strongly were right.
  I say to my colleagues, that I believe that one of the things that 
has sustained me is the reputation of having taken a tough stance from 
time to time. But since I announced that I would not seek reelection 
last June, and as I have walked on the Senate floor to vote, I have 
pondered how much the freedom of not running for reelection has 
influenced my vote. Now, that being said, I have cast many unpopular 
votes that have irritated the people of my State, on such subjects as 
the Panama Canal Treaty, and partial-birth abortion. However, after I 
announced I wouldn't run again, I have asked myself, How would I vote 
on this if I were up for reelection and knew I had to raise $3 or $4 
million?
  I believe there isn't a person in this body who can truthfully and 
frequently say they are willing to take on interest groups. After all, 
we are supposed to be servants of our constituents. But oftentimes 
there are interest groups back home we are trying to satisfy because 
they have a block of votes. We might vote their way. Even if we vote 
our conscious, the public can never be sure our votes were untainted.
  The second thing that influences our vote is how our support or 
opposition will affect our money supply. I saw a comparison in the 
paper this morning of two PACs, of House and Senate leaders and the 
amount of money that certain individual groups gave those leaders for 
their PACs. Staggering amounts of money. I don't care how altruistic it 
is for ``Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,'' it is foolish in the extreme 
to argue that this is a free speech debate. Mr. President, 94 percent 
of the people who run for office in this country win if they have more 
money than their opponents. A lot of good men and women are defeated 
every year in this country because they are not incumbents and they 
can't raise money. The people who give the big bucks don't like to give 
their money to challengers because they start out behind and usually 
stay behind. Of the 33 Senate races this year, I daresay there will be 
very, very few changes, in any, of those seats. In almost every 
instance, the candidate who has the most money and spends the most 
money will win the election.
  Sometimes I think about debates. I have the first amendment that we 
will consider on the Interior bill when we go back to it this 
afternoon. It is mine, and it is one that the mining industry of this 
country doesn't like. It is an environmental issue. I will make all of 
the arguments that I have made on this floor time and again, not only 
on that amendment but the whole issue of the 1872 mining law, which has 
been out of date for over 100 years now. God gave us one planet, only 
one. We don't get a second chance. Incidentally, I have always argued 
that the No. 1 problem in the world, of course, is population, but you 
can't argue that here because the first thing you hear is that somebody 
has converted it into an abortion argument. So we continue to neglect 
the No. 1 problem in the world; namely, the growing population of the 
planet. I saw a bumper sticker the other day that said, ``Help save the 
planet, kill yourself.'' Clearly, that is a pretty draconian way to 
save the planet. We ought to be talking sensibly about population 
growth, as we have been regarding campaign finance reform.
  I can go on and on about this, and will continue to do so until the 
taxpayers of this country understand that this is not an issue of free 
speech. If the American people buy this argument, they are essentially 
saying, ``I'm willing for somebody else to have more free speech than I 
do because they have more money.'' As we all know, about 90 percent of 
the people in this country can't afford to contribute and don't 
contribute.
  I had a few more remarks, but I understand the Senator from Georgia 
is pressed for time. I now yield the floor.
  Mr. COVERDELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I appreciate the suggestion by the 
Senator from Arkansas. I have to depart in a few minutes, so he may 
choose to continue his remarks at that point.
  Let me say that I respectfully disagree with the comments we just 
heard from the Senator from Arkansas, as does the Supreme Court of the 
United States. I am comfortable that if every member of the Founding 
Fathers were here today, they would rise up in a loud chorus. The first 
amendment to the Constitution, in the Bill of Rights, makes it 
absolutely and abundantly and succinctly clear that there shall be 
freedom of speech. It doesn't define that somebody has this big a 
bucket and somebody has something else. It doesn't say a newspaper has 
the right to say anything it chooses, but some other kind of company 
will be constrained and managed by the Government.
  Of all the things that I believe the forefathers were most concerned 
about, it was the management of expression, the management of speech. 
They were very careful. They were going to protect the American 
citizens' right to assemble. Until the late 1700s, in Great Britain two 
people could not get together in a club or in an association. Why? 
Because the government was afraid of people coming together. They might 
think up ideas; they might want to talk about them. So they said there 
will be freedom of speech, there will be freedom of the press, there 
will be a right to assemble, and there will be a right to petition the 
government--they didn't say it, but without fear. These four things are 
in the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. They are probably, to 
this day, the core of the American Constitution.
  This has been tested over and over, and the Supreme Court has said 
that expression costs money. If you are going to have a town hall 
meeting, you have to rent the town hall. If you want to covey a message 
to a large audience, you can't go door to door; you are going to have 
to do it in a television ad or a newspaper ad. By the way, what is the 
difference between a corporation that publishes a newspaper or runs a 
television station and a corporation that makes tractors? Does one have 
a higher standing? Not under the Constitution. The outfit that makes 
tractors can spend money and express themselves just like a newspaper. 
Heaven help us if we ever come to the point where the only institution 
in our country that has freedom of speech is the media. If everything a 
political person does or a Government official does is only interpreted 
by the media, heaven help us. I used to say, if you are for the 
Government managing what people say, you better know the manager. You 
better know the manager.
  This whole issue is dominated by the subject of freedom of speech. I 
heard the distinguished Senator from Kentucky say many times that if 
this ever became law, it won't last. The Supreme Court will strike it 
down, which is probably the case, but it ought not to become law. It 
ought not to become law. Anybody reading the rulings of the Supreme 
Court understands very clearly that expression and financing expression 
are one and the same and cannot be separated.
  The last institution in the world that the forefathers would have 
ever wanted to manage speech is the Government. In fact, if you look at 
the Constitution from top to bottom, it is designed to protect us from 
Government--our own Government. They fought a revolution over this. 
They knew well what was happening in Europe. They looked over and saw 
what was happening in Ireland and said that is not going to happen in 
America. Of all the language in the Constitution, the most carefully 
crafted language for which there can be no question about its 
interpretation is the first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Freedom of 
speech shall not be abridged.

[[Page S10173]]

  This legislation does that. It abridges and begins to manage who can 
say what, when they can say it, and how much of it they can say. And 
any Government official ought to be very wary of a situation where one 
group of Americans can say anything they choose, at any time, with any 
intensity, and another group of Americans can only say what somebody 
else decided they should say, when they should say it, and how much.
  Mr. President, I could never support anything like that, as 
frustrated as we all get. Every American, at some point, has been 
affronted by freedom of speech. It has been frustrating to them to hear 
what somebody says or how they express themselves. I have been and 
everybody else has been. But better to suffer the frustration than to 
give that liberty to somebody to manage speech. America would never be 
the same.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BUMPERS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arkansas.
  Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, let me just conclude my remarks by 
reiterating something I said earlier about the issue of free speech. We 
all know that the difficulty is a constitutional one because the courts 
have ruled that this is a free speech issue. But it can be overcome. It 
can be overcome with the McCain-Feingold bill. It can be overcome with 
public financing. There are all kinds of ways to amend the way we 
finance campaigns in this country without violating free speech. But 
let me just ask my constituents--no, let me ask my colleagues--no, my 
colleagues have already made up their minds. Let me ask the American 
people: Do you think we have a nice, democratic, fair system of 
electing Members of the House and Senate when some fat cat can give a 
candidate $4,000; he and his wife can give a candidate $4,000--$2,000 
for the primary, $2,000 for the general. I ask you, how much can a 
working man making $10 an hour on an assembly line give? The question 
answers itself. If he has a wife and two kids, he can't give anything. 
I don't care how much he may love a candidate; he is not in a position, 
at $10 an hour, to be making political contributions.
  The second question: When a candidate gets $4,000 from a fat cat--
when legislation is being considered in the U.S. Congress, who will get 
the candidate's attention? The poor stiff with a wife and two children 
to feed, educate and clothe and who is trying to make a living? How 
much attention is he going to get compared to the guy who gave $4,000? 
Now, that is an illustration that is palpably clear to everybody.
  Herman Talmadge, one of the great Senators who served here, had a lot 
of sayings in making speeches. He said, ``If you want your audience to 
pay attention, you've got to throw the corn where the hogs can get to 
it.'' You have to say it so people can understand it. What I just said 
is understandable. It is essentially as much a one-line description of 
what this debate is about as anything I can conjure up.
  The guy that gave $4,000 gets a lot of free speech, and a lot of the 
free speech he gets goes right into the ear of the Senator or the 
Congressman that got the $4,000. And when the phone call comes into the 
office from the poor guy making $10 an hour, with a wife and kids, 
because he wants a passport or because he knows a friend from Bolivia 
that is being mistreated under the immigration laws, do you know where 
his phone call goes if it is answered at all? It goes back to the 
staff. Where does the call go from the guy who gave $4,000? You and I 
both know where it goes. It goes directly into the office of the 
Senator. Do you call that free speech? Do you call that a democracy?
  It is impossible to keep up with the campaign finance laws as they 
are written today. One of the things Al Gore is charged with is making 
a phone call from his office to solicit money.
  I am not going to say anymore about that because everybody here 
understands that. The President is under investigation now under a 90-
day sort of determination by the Attorney General as to whether or not 
in 1996 his campaign coordinated some ads with the Democratic National 
Committee.
  Today my side is going to lose. The way we finance campaigns is going 
to continue exactly as it has been since the memory of mind runneth 
not, and investigations of either Democrats, or Republicans, or both 
will continue. It is impossible to level the laws of this country, and 
in this very hostile partisan environment.
  Sometimes I think about offering a resolution in the Senate saying it 
is the sense of the Senate that there are some Democrats who have not 
yet been investigated and we want to know why.
  We will continue to lose this debate until the American people wake 
up not only to the corruption of the financing laws of the country, but 
to the fact that their democracy is disappearing right under their 
nose.
  It is so difficult at times to get people to focus on something that 
is a little bit complicated. They don't understand. Since it doesn't 
really relate to them, they just do not want to be bothered.
  Republicans--I will hand it to them. They are zealots. Rain or shine, 
they go vote. My party--we have to ride in the sunshine. In all 
fairness, I have to say that we represent a lot of people who do not 
own automobiles. They oftentimes don't have ways to get to the polls, 
unless some of that campaign money is given to drivers to go out and 
get them and bring them in.
  I saw a poll that showed that 71 percent of all Republicans say they 
are going to vote, and about 60 percent of the Democrats say they are 
not going to vote. Unless that figure changes, I can tell you what this 
election is going to do. I assume the President has to take some 
responsibility for that. I just do not know. He is my friend, and that 
is a separate subject. We will deal with that later.
  But even absent the Starr report, absent Monica Lewinsky, we had a 
plateful for the American people to ingest. Part of that plateful is 
corruption, which is, in my opinion, as threatening to the Nation as 
the Kenneth Starr report is.
  I suspect this country is in a bit of a funk today. I haven't looked 
at the market yet. It started off down this morning. I think that is 
all the result of people being upset and depressed--and, is the country 
leaderless? How is this all going to come out? Is it going to take 5 or 
6 months to get this resolved? All of those things.
  Tonight, when you listen to the news, that is all you will hear. 
Tomorrow night, when you listen to the news, that is all you will hear.
  And here is something that goes right to the heart of whether we 
survive as a democracy, or not. Frankly--I hate to condemn the public--
they are not paying attention. Every poll shows it. What is the most 
important thing to you? Campaign finance is about tenth on the list. 
Democrats keep trying to make it a big issue, trying to get people to 
pay attention to it, and in all fairness, seven or eight Republicans. 
But how can you expect them to when they hear absolutely nothing on the 
evening news but Monica Lewinsky and Kenneth Starr's report. As I say, 
I am not condemning the American people. That is just the way we are 
made. That salacious stuff is a lot more exciting than talking about 
campaign finance reform, which is complex.
  Mr. President, I have said all that I want to say, and all that I 
need to say. But I especially wanted to put in the part about free 
speech.
  It is so tragic that everybody here knows who is getting the free 
speech, and everybody knows whose voice is not heard because of the way 
we finance campaigns. I say that we ought to go to public financing. 
That way every person in this country who is a taxpayer would know that 
his vote was as important as anybody else's. His voice would be as 
important as anybody else's. As long as it is the richest and the 
wealthiest people who determine the outcome of elections in this 
country, where do you think we are headed? I will leave that question 
with you.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kyl). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased to rise today to express my

[[Page S10174]]

concerns about the pending McCain-Feingold amendment.
  Since the beginning of the 105th Congress, I have heard from 
Minnesotans on a variety of important issues such as high taxes and the 
future of social security. Despite the public outcry by my constituents 
to address these issues important to America's working families, I am 
very concerned that the Senate is again debating a proposal to regulate 
political speech.
  I commend Senators McCain and Feingold for their deeply held views 
that the only way to restore the public's trust in their government is 
to reform the system for financing our federal campaigns. As someone 
who has heard first-hand of the public's growing mistrust of their 
government, I strongly agree with their belief that the people's trust 
in their government should be restored and their participation in our 
democracy encouraged.
  However, I respectfully disagree with their approach to the passage 
of new campaign finance laws.
  By the way, these new laws become even more restrictive on who can be 
involved, what they can say, and how they can be a participant in the 
public policies of this country.
  The people's faith in the Government can be restored, I believe, by 
encouraging greater enforcement of our existing campaign finance laws, 
rather than going out and trying to ignore the laws that were 
broken, and passing new laws that again would only silence those 
Americans who wish to have their voices heard.

  Each time the Senate has considered a version of the McCain-Feingold 
proposal, Minnesotans have contacted me in large numbers not in support 
of its passage but out of great concern for its potential impact upon 
their first amendment right of free speech guaranteed by the U.S. 
Constitution. Moreover, they have demanded that Congress focus more on 
the allegations of campaign finance irregularities during the 1996 
campaign cycle rather than passing new campaign finance laws. In other 
words, not to brush over those laws that were broken or those who broke 
those laws and try to camouflage this by saying all we have to do is 
pass new campaign finance laws and everything will be fixed. That is 
like trying to pass new laws every day to take care of old problems. We 
need to get to the source of the problem.
  In this regard, I am encouraged by Attorney General Reno's recent 
decision to initiate a 90-day investigation of whether President 
Clinton's involvement in Democratic National Committee campaign 
advertisements in 1996 circumvented election laws. And the Attorney 
General should also be commended for continuing the Justice 
Department's investigation of whether Vice President Gore unlawfully 
raised campaign contributions from the White House, and the activities 
of former White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Harold Ickes, during the 
1996 campaign cycle.
  Current law works if we enforce it. Despite the modifications that 
proponents of McCain-Feingold have made to improve support for this 
initiative, my views on its basic premise have not changed. Similar to 
the previous versions of this bill, this proposal will discourage 
rather than promote greater participation in the democratic process. 
They always talk about big money and how that controls the process and 
how we should be encouraging and what we should be doing to encourage 
more people, those $10-an-hour workers who we have heard about in the 
Chamber today, to become a voice no matter how small, and to 
participate in the political process. The way they can do that is 
through PACs, political action committees, and that is where a lot of 
people with little incomes can put their money together to have a 
stronger voice in how their government works and how it operates, and 
we should encourage that, not discourage it.
  Most fundamentally, the McCain-Feingold proposal continues to be 
based upon the belief that there is too much money spent on American 
elections--too much money. About $3.50 per person per year is spent on 
campaigns, totally, in this country. That is less money than we spend 
on a Value Meal at McDonald's.
  I remember talking to somebody about the United Nations. We spend 
about $3.81 per person per year supporting the United Nations, and 
everybody thinks we get a great deal out of that. But yet we spend less 
money per person to support our way of government in this country, and 
somehow they say that is spending too much money. So the whole 
political process in this country is worth less to the supporters of 
the McCain-Feingold bill than our support perhaps, say, for the United 
Nations. I think we need to support this form of government and 
encourage more people to participate, not to close the door and say 
that this is how you can participate or we are going to manage what you 
say, how you say it, when you can say it, and who can afford to say it.
  If we accept this assumption, then Congress has decided to assert 
questionable authority to suppress the rights of Americans to become 
involved in the political process and suppress the rights of many 
Americans to have their voices heard.
  As my colleagues know, the belief that there is government 
justification for regulating the costs of political campaigns was 
rejected by the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Buckley v. Valeo. 
The importance of conveying the ideas of those who seek office to the 
electorate is critical and was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in 
Buckley. And in Buckley the Court declared that ``a restriction on the 
amount of money a person or groups can spend on political communication 
during a campaign necessarily reduces the quantity of expression by 
restricting the number of issues discussed, the depth of their 
exploration, and the size of the audience reached. This is because 
virtually every means of communicating ideas in today's mass society 
requires the expenditure of money.''
  That is from the Buckley v. Valeo Court decision. They label this 
bill as an effort to protect and preserve democracy. They say that 
democracy is disappearing because of this. But this bill would not 
protect free speech. It would only limit free speech. I would like to 
ask those watching today that if you can restrict the speech of one 
American today, whose speech can you restrict tomorrow? Are you going 
to give the government this much control and say, well, let's do it 
today to protect this process, but in doing this we are going to have 
to take away some of your freedoms? We are going to have to impose 
restrictions. We are going to manage those who want to participate in 
the political process. And if we can do that today, who is going to 
come tomorrow and say, well, let's squeeze these restrictions a little 
more? And then who is going to come the next day and say, well, let's 
squeeze these restrictions a little more? And pretty soon we are going 
to take the ability of free speech, to participate in our political 
process, away from Americans. And then who is going to have a voice? Is 
it going to be the media, the newspapers, television? Are they going to 
be the ones that define my campaign or Senator McCain's campaign or 
maybe Senator Feingold's campaign? I think we need to have that 
freedom.
  For these reasons, I remain concerned about the core provision of the 
McCain-Feingold bill which continues to place, again, questionable new 
restrictions upon the ability of national parties to support State and 
local party activities as well. We should not pursue a suspect 
expansion of government control of national parties; rather, recognize 
that political parties enjoy the same rights as individuals to 
participate in the democratic process.
  For nearly two decades, political parties have been allowed to raise 
money for party building and similar activities without limits on the 
size of contributions. Additionally, the Supreme Court decision in 
Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC, in which the 
Court found that Congress may not limit independent expenditures by 
political parties, makes it questionable whether these restrictions 
would be constitutional.
  We have a responsibility to the American people to help restore their 
faith in government. However, this cannot be accomplished by placing 
new and expansive restrictions on the communication of ideas or the 
issue of free speech. And above all else, we should not use violations 
of existing laws that have raised a lot of this concern and ire of 
Americans over campaign financing--those violations of existing laws 
should not be used as an argument today to suppress our right of free 
speech.

[[Page S10175]]

  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, no one has been more active in the 
vineyards of the first amendment than the Senator from Minnesota. I 
thank him for his important contribution to this debate and his astute 
observation that to the extent the parties and groups are quieted, the 
voices are enhanced on the other side, or that is anybody's voice that 
is not quieted is necessarily enhanced by that action, and in 
particular the fourth estate, our friends in the press, who love this 
issue, would have a dramatic increase in political clout as a result of 
the quieting of the voices of so many other Americans.
  So I thank my friend from Minnesota for his observations.
  Mr. GRAMS. I thank the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the fundamental notion underlying the 
McCain-Feingold bill is that politicians should be allowed to control 
all of the political speech in proximity to an election except for that 
by the press. The press would be free and unfettered in engaging in 
issue advocacy, in endorsing candidates, and doing anything it wanted 
to under the first amendment at any time, up to and including the last 
60 days before an election. I do not dispute that. I think they should 
have that right. But I find it disingenuous at best--absurd, the more 
you think about it--that the press would like to quiet the voices of 
others.
  First, they would like to quiet the voices of the parties by 
eliminating so-called soft money. Mr. President, ``soft money'' is a 
pejorative term for non-Federal money. This is a Federal system. There 
are State elections, there are local elections; the two great national 
parties frequently care who gets elected Governor of Arizona or who 
gets elected to the city council in Phoenix. The notion that the 
Federal Government should federalize the two great national parties is 
absurd, inappropriate, and unwise.
  In addition to that, it would provide for the Federal Election 
Commission the power to supervise every election in America. In other 
words, we would federalize the entire American political system. This 
kind of notion of Federal power grabs and the quieting of voices also 
applies to what the McCain-Feingold bill seeks to do to individuals and 
groups.
  Under this bill, it would be very difficult if not impossible for 
individuals to express themselves, or groups to express themselves, 
within 60 days of an election. ``Quiet those voices, too,'' the 
politicians say. So we will quiet the parties by making it impossible 
for them to involve themselves in State and local elections, and make 
it impossible for them to engage in issue advocacy, constitutionally 
protected speech, and we will also reach over to the issue advocacy of 
everybody else and we will make it impossible for them to criticize any 
of us within 60 days of an election.
  This is a great idea for incumbents. We all would like to control our 
elections, and this would sure give us a way to do it. We would not 
have to worry any longer about those nasty interest groups that don't 
like our voting records going out there in the last 2 months before an 
election and saying bad things about us; we would shut them up. We 
wouldn't have our political party coming in to defend us or, for that 
matter, the other political party coming in to attack us; we would shut 
them up.
  In short, we would just sort of hermetically seal the environment for 
60 days before an election, with the exception of the New York Times, 
the Washington Post, USA Today, and all the other folks who would still 
be free--as they should be free--under the first amendment to have 
their say at any point in the course of a year, including the last 60 
days before an election.
  Mr. President, this is terrible public policy--terrible public 
policy--disguised as some kind of positive reform. The good news is, we 
are not going to pass this bill, but if we had passed it, the issue 
advocacy restrictions on outside groups would certainly not survive the 
first Federal district court in which it landed, and I guarantee you, 
it would land there very, very quickly. When something is so clearly 
and obviously unconstitutional, it seems to me that the Senate ought 
not to pass it.
  With regard to the political parties, why in the world, Mr. 
President, should we prevent the political parties from engaging in 
issue advocacy? Everybody else in America will be able to do it, 
because I guarantee you, the restrictions on independent groups in this 
bill would be struck down. There is not a serious constitutional lawyer 
in the country who doubts that.
  Everybody would be free to have their say in the last 60 days before 
an election: Outside groups, because the restrictions on them would 
certainly fall as unconstitutional; the newspapers, because no one 
really wants to shut them up. We don't frequently like what they have 
to say, but they have a right to say it. But the political parties are 
conceivably taken off the playing field--the one entity in American 
politics that, for example, is willing to support challengers, those 
trying to come from nowhere to get elected. It is not easy to be a 
challenger. The one entity out there willing to support challengers is 
the political parties. We ought not to be making them weaker, we ought 
to be encouraging them to be strengthened.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes, 50 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from 
Idaho.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Sometimes the wrong debate happens at the wrong time, and the debate 
that we have heard on this floor for the last several days, in my 
opinion, is the wrong debate for a lot of reasons. We shouldn't be 
talking about changing laws, but enforcing the very laws we have.
  I think all of us watched as the Congress decided to change campaign 
laws a good number of years ago to make them much tougher and tighter, 
to create reporting thresholds, and to make sure that the public was 
well aware what went on in the campaign business of our country and in 
the fundraising business of our country.
  Several of our colleagues have already spoken today about the ongoing 
investigations into campaign finance abuses. Those abuses didn't happen 
because the laws were inadequate. It doesn't mean that you are going to 
get character change all of a sudden because of a myriad of new laws 
that this Congress might pass.
  Now the spin machines are using the issue of campaign finance reform 
to suggest that the entire system is crooked and corrupt. Mr. 
President, and American citizens, that just ``ain't'' so. There are 
some people in the system who have chosen to corrupt it, but the 
campaign system we have today is alive and well, as it should be. Most 
of us play by the rules, and the rules are tough, and they are 
exacting. The reason they ought to be is to assure the right of all 
political candidates to speak out and to make sure that the American 
public can have, as they should have, the proper access to the 
political process.
  The votes that are going to occur on this floor in the next few 
moments are absolutely critical. I am frustrated by many of my 
colleagues who stand up and suggest that the political system that we 
have today is a corrupt system. It has been corrupted by some, and 
those who are corrupting it are under investigation today. But clearly 
it is a system that works--it works very well--reporting to the public, 
as we should, what is the right and responsible thing to do, 
particularly at a time in our history when confidence has been shaken 
in some of our institutions.
  It is absolutely imperative that we do not put new restrictions into 
the ability of the politician, the public person, to communicate with 
his or her

[[Page S10176]]

constituents in an open and frank manner. Existing law allows that. I 
don't think we need to be tampering with our first amendment or 
suggesting in some way that we can make it a lot better. We just simply 
need those few who corrupt the system to abide by the laws as they are 
currently written and currently administered.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky has 30 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
Idaho for his contribution to this debate and the other Senators who 
spoke on our behalf during this discussion. This is a very important 
issue affecting the first amendment and the rights of all Americans to 
speak in the political process. I am confident that the motion to 
invoke cloture will not succeed.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin controls the time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield such time as the Senator from 
Arizona requires.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first, let me begin by thanking all those 
who have fought so very hard to pass campaign finance reform, both 
within this body and without. I specifically mention by name the 
measure's cosponsors: Senator Thompson, Senator Snowe, Senator Collins, 
Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, and Senator Jeffords. All have 
expended great energy to keep this issue before the Senate.
  Also, I again thank my colleagues in the House, Congressman Shays and 
Congressman Meehan. We would not be doing what we are doing today if it 
had not been for their signal and unpredicted victory.
  Most importantly, I thank my partner on this 4-year journey, the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Russ Feingold. His work on this issue has been 
outdone by none. His efforts are tireless, and he deserves great praise 
for bringing us to this point today. Together we have worked to do the 
bidding of the majority of the American people. We worked to pass 
legislation that is supported by majorities in both Houses, although a 
minority has continued to thwart our efforts. But time is on our side.
  Yesterday and today, I have quoted previous debates on this subject. 
One fact that is clear in every one of these debates is that, with 
persistence, we will prevail. I hope we prevail today. If we do not, I 
will be back to offer campaign finance reform legislation again and 
again and again. Neither I nor the Senator from Wisconsin will relent. 
The will of the American people, their desire to see what they perceive 
as a corrupt election system cleaned up, cannot be perpetually ignored. 
The public wants us to act.
  Low voter turnout--and we will perhaps see the lowest voter turnout 
this century, this November--is ample proof of the growing cynicism of 
the electorate. That cynicism, if left unchecked, will grow to contempt 
and shake the foundations of this great Nation. Let us not 
procrastinate further. Let us confound public cynicism and accede to 
the country's wishes today.
  The Senate was conceived by our Founding Fathers as an institution 
that acts deliberatively. Certainly we have seen this occur on this 
matter. But it was not conceived to block indefinitely the will of the 
people. Many significant matters have been slowed or stalled in this 
body. Many have taken years to pass. Campaign finance is undoubtedly 
one of those subjects. But to repeat myself yet again, this body will 
act and pass campaign finance reform. If not today, then soon. It will 
happen. Delay is not resolution, merely postponement of the inevitable 
and thus pointless.

  Until we recognize the futility of procrastination, the money chase 
in this hallowed Capitol, the debasement of the White House, the 
selling of trade missions, the never-ending series of fundraising 
scandals that leads the public more and more to believe that elected 
officials only represent monied special interests will not end.
  Congress can and must and will change this system. If we do not act, 
there will be more scandals, both parties will be further tainted by 
this system, no one will be left unscathed, and that fact will force 
this body to do what is right.
  When do we as a body come to realize that something must be done? And 
to my Republican colleagues: When will we realize it was our ideas, not 
our fundraising prowess, that got us to power? The American public 
granted us the majorities in both Houses because, I would argue, our 
ideas were superior to those of the opposition. Our ideas represented 
what a majority of Americans felt and believed. We do not need to fear 
a new campaign finance regime so long as we continue to best represent 
the public interests. And because I so strongly believe that fact, I 
appeal to my Republican colleagues to support cloture and allow us to 
move forward on this matter.
  Finally, Mr. President, let me close by again putting my colleagues 
on notice. If we cannot move forward today, we will soon. To those who 
will proclaim the issue dead, nothing--I repeat, nothing--is further 
from the truth. As long as I am privileged to serve in this great 
institution, we will revisit campaign finance reform again and again. 
We will revisit the subject until it becomes the law of the land. We 
will revisit it because the will of the majority over time always 
prevails. And we will revisit it because it is the right thing to do.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time is remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has 3 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Let me take this opportunity to thank all of the cosponsors and all 
the supporters of this bill, especially the senior Senator from Arizona 
who came here with the idea for this legislation I guess it is now 4 
years ago.
  I thank everyone for their efforts in the past but, more importantly, 
for their continued efforts in the future, including this year, on 
trying to finish the job. So I have a feeling of gratitude, not only 
for what we have done but for what we will accomplish before we are 
done.
  Let me take the very brief time I have just to refer to a statement 
by the Senator from Idaho which I think really sums up this whole 
issue. He just got done saying on the floor that the current campaign 
system is ``a system that works very well.'' He said, ``The campaign 
finance system is alive and well, as it should be.'' That is what the 
Senator from Idaho said.
  Well, if you agree with that statement, I guess you will want to vote 
against cloture. But that is not what the American people believe. They 
think this system is broken. And it is not just a few people who are 
corrupting the system, it is the system that is corrupt, and we have to 
do something about it now.
  So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. The time 
has come for the additional eight Senators to allow the majority of 
both Houses of the Congress to send this bill on to the President.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining. Does he 
wish to yield the time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I reserve the time.
  I yield the remaining time I have to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the struggle for life for campaign finance 
reform is going to be determined by a test of wills between the 
bipartisan majority that believes in it, reflecting the will of the 
American people, and the minority that will attempt to filibuster this 
bill to death.
  The supporters of campaign finance reform need not withdraw, should 
not withdraw, and I believe and hope will not withdraw the bill if the 
filibuster survives this cloture vote. It will then be up to the 
filibusterers to continue the filibuster. Hopefully, over time they 
will see that the American people are determined to change a system 
which is not only corrupt but has a corruption which permeates and 
undermines public confidence in our democratic electoral process.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, pursuant to rule 
XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate

[[Page S10177]]

the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provision of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the pending 
     campaign finance reform amendment:
         Trent Lott, Connie Mack, Ben Nighthorse Campbell, Thad 
           Cochran, Wayne Allard, Rod Grams, Larry E. Craig, Kay 
           Bailey Hutchison, James M. Inhofe, Richard G. Lugar, 
           Mitch McConnell, Jeff Sessions, Rick Santorum, Don 
           Nickles, Dan Coats, and Lauch Faircloth.


                            Call Of The Roll

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call under the rule has been waived.


                                  Vote

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate 
that debate on amendment No. 3554 to S. 2237, the Interior 
appropriations bill, shall be brought to a close? The yeas and nays are 
required under the rule. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 52, nays 48, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 264 Leg.]

                                YEAS--52

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Collins
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Snowe
     Specter
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--48

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Burns
     Campbell
     Coats
     Cochran
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Faircloth
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kempthorne
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). On this vote, the yeas are 52, 
the nays are 48.
  Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Florida, Mr. Graham, is 
recognized in morning business for 1 hour.
  The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, upon the conclusion of the time of the 
Senator from Florida, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business will be the Interior 
appropriations bill.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the current amendment, the Feingold amendment, be 
the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That will be the pending question.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Florida is 
recognized.

                          ____________________