[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 104 (Wednesday, July 21, 1999)]
[Senate]
[Page S8924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, yesterday, a unanimous consent request was 
propounded with respect to the Senate's consideration of campaign 
finance reform legislation. I objected to the request and I want to 
explain to my colleagues why I did so.
  There is no more important work for this institution than passing 
campaign finance reform. Despite our good efforts in 1974, following 
the debacle of Watergate, to limit the influence of money in our 
political system, we are currently operating without effective limits. 
We have a law that sets out reasonable limits at $1,000 for 
individuals, $5,000 for PACs, and $25,000 to a national party. But 
those limits are easily evaded by the unlimited contributions of soft 
money. We have, in effect, no limits today.
  The 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act has, in effect, been repealed. 
To return our elections to issues and people and away from money, we 
must pass campaign finance reform. Since the time agreement is critical 
to determining how and when we take up campaign finance reform, and 
perhaps its ultimate success, I wanted to be sure that I understood 
what the agreement contained. I objected initially on the basis of 
needing time to review the agreement. Having read the agreement, I do 
continue my objection to the original unanimous consent proposal, 
because I believe the agreement is inadequate for the necessary 
consideration of campaign finance reform.
  I am well aware of the opponents' desire to filibuster the McCain-
Feingold bill, a bill which is supported by a majority of the Members 
of the Senate. The opponents have every right to do that, and I respect 
that right. But supporters of campaign finance reform have every right 
not to back down in the face of a filibuster.
  The unanimous consent agreement proposed that each of us agree that 
the McCain-Feingold proposal be withdrawn if we do not get 60 votes on 
the first try to close off a filibuster. But as long as we have a 
majority of the Members of the Senate supporting passage of campaign 
finance reform, we should be able to defeat efforts to withdraw the 
McCain-Feingold bill from Senate consideration. Opponents can 
filibuster, but supporters don't have to agree in advance to withdraw 
in the face of that filibuster.
  The unanimous consent agreement, however, would require supporters to 
agree to withdraw if we don't achieve, on the first try, the 60 votes 
necessary to close off the filibuster.
  The unanimous consent agreement said that not sooner than the third 
calendar day of consideration a cloture motion may be filed on the 
McCain-Feingold bill, and if cloture is not invoked, the bill will be 
placed back on the calendar. It then said that it will not be in order 
during the remainder of the first session of the 106th Congress for the 
Senate to consider issues relevant to campaign reform. This agreement 
would lock the Senate into relying on the one cloture vote to determine 
whether the fight for campaign finance reform, this year, lives or 
dies.
  I cannot agree with that proposal. If we can't at first get 60 votes 
to close off the filibuster, I can't agree to putting the McCain-
Feingold bill back on the calendar and just calling it quits for the 
year. The proposed time agreement would have us do that.
  If it takes an all-out battle to keep campaign finance reform on the 
front burner of this Congress, I believe we should be prepared to wage 
such a battle. Opponents say they are prepared to wage such a battle in 
opposition. Supporters surely feel just as passionately in support of 
this bill as opponents do in opposition.
  Another term of the agreement with respect to the consideration of 
amendments is also unacceptable to me. The proposed agreement says:

       If an amendment is not tabled, it will be in order to lay 
     aside such amendment for two calendar days.

  The unusual provision allowing an amendment which the Senate has 
failed to table to be laid aside for 2 days puts in question whether 
such amendments will be voted on after they are not tabled prior to the 
cloture vote. I am afraid this provision would cause more mischief than 
facilitate serious consideration of key campaign finance issues.
  I objected--and do object--to the unanimous consent agreement which 
was proposed yesterday. But I am, of course, willing to work with 
colleagues to try to address the concerns that I have.
  Again, I want to emphasize that I am speaking as one Senator who was 
asked to participate in a unanimous consent agreement. The proponents, 
the sponsors of the bill, of course, with the leadership, have every 
right to work out any arrangement they see fit.
  But to ask unanimous consent from this Senator to agree to proceeding 
in this form is something to which I objected, and do object, as a 
Senator.
  I thank the Chair.
  I note the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative assistant proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________