[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 52 (Tuesday, April 24, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Page S3833]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
FINAL PASSAGE OF S. 27
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, on Monday, April 2, the Senate took long
awaited action to approve legislation to address what the American
people believe is the single most egregious abuse of our campaign
finance system--that is the unlimited flow of soft money permeating our
elections system. If the McCain-Feingold legislation did nothing else
but close the soft money loophole, it would still be reform.
But my colleagues have accomplished much more in this legislation. I
congratulate Senators McCain and Feingold for their vision in
recognizing the powerfully negative influence of the money chase on our
political system and their dogged persistence and patience in striving
to craft a consensus on reform legislation that seeks to address the
worst aspects of the current system.
But the Senate would not have passed this bill were it not for the
equally determined leadership of Tom Daschle and the Democratic caucus.
No member has been more consistent in support of reform than our
leader, and no member has worked harder behind the scenes to hold the
Democratic caucus together in support of this measure.
At the same time, I must also acknowledge the powerful influence of
my colleague, the chairman of the Rules Committee, for his unstinting
devotion to the principles of free speech and his unyielding belief
that most, if not all, proposed campaign finance reforms are not only
unwise, but unconstitutional.
While a majority of this body clearly do not share Senator
McConnell's views, I appreciate his willingness to allow the debate to
continue unhindered, unlike debates in the past, by repeated cloture
votes.
This debate has exemplified the Senate at its best. The free flow of
debate, the unrestricted offering of well reasoned amendments, and the
opportunity for all members to be heard are the hallmarks of this, the
world's greatest deliberative body.
Finally, I must express my great respect to my colleagues in the
Democratic caucus, under the very able leadership of Senator Daschle,
who, along with a small group of courageous Senators across the aisle,
have put aside their own short-term political interests and voted time
and again in favor of comprehensive, commonsense, and badly-needed
campaign finance reform.
I predict that this debate will find its place in history as one of
the greatest Senate debates in the last decade, both in terms of its
content and its impact on our system of democracy.
I have been privileged and honored to serve as floor manager of this
measure, along with the Senator from Kentucky. As my colleague from
Kentucky has alluded, the stakes in this debate were considerable for
many interested parties.
And although members disagreed over the need for this measure, and
amendments to it, Senators were not disagreeable in their debate. I
thank my colleagues for their patience and cooperation throughout this
debate.
I also compliment my good friend, the Majority Leader, for his
willingness to allow the Senate to have a free-flowing debate. This
issue is of paramount importance to the continued health of this
democracy, and his willingness to provide for free and open debate on
the McCain-Feingold measure has produced, in this Senator's mind, an
even better bill than was originally brought to the Senate floor.
I am hopeful there will be an opportunity to make further
improvements in this measure in the House. Although I am supporting the
McCain-Feingold legislation, there are two provisions, in particular,
that cause me concern.
First is the so-called millionaire's provision which purports to
level the playing field for candidates who face wealthy challengers.
While that may be a laudable goal, the amendment ignores the fact that
many incumbents who face wealthy challengers are sitting on healthy
campaign treasuries, sometimes amounting to several million dollars. In
those instances, this amendment serves as an incumbent protection
provision.
As I stated before passage of the Durbin-Domenici-DeWine amendment to
fix this inequity, I am not satisfied that the Durbin amendment went
far enough to recognize the considerable war chests that some
incumbents have. I urge my colleagues in the House to carefully
consider this provision with an eye to improving it.
Secondly, although I reluctantly supported the Thompson-Feingold
amendment to increase the individual hard money contribution limits, I
did so only in the context of achieving broader reform. Quite simply,
the increase in the hard money limits was the price to be paid to gain
sufficient support from our Republican colleagues for banning soft
money and reining in so-called sham issue ads.
Of particular concern to me is the indexing of these increases which
only ensures the continuing upward spiral of money into our political
system. While I understand the desire of some to avoid a future debate
on reform, the fact that the hard money limits had not been increased
since 1974 is what created both the pressure and the opportunity for
this reform.
Again, I urge my colleagues in the House to consider these limits and
avoid the temptation to increase them ever higher; otherwise, there may
come a time when the price for reform becomes too great for this
Senator.
I am hopeful that the House will act expeditiously on this measure.
While I do not suggest that House members forego their responsibility
and right to thoroughly debate and amend this legislation, I encourage
them to do so in a manner that will allow this bill to reach the
President's desk before the end of this year.
I also thank the numerous staff who have assisted in facilitating
consideration of this measure, not the least of which are our
Democratic floor staff, including Marty Paone, Lula Davis, and Gary
Myrick, along with the outstanding Democratic cloakroom staff.
I also extend my special appreciation to Andrea LaRue of Senator
Daschle's staff. She, along with Mark Childress and Mark Patterson,
were invaluable in offering much needed expertise and guidance on this
legislation.
Of equal assistance were the staffs of Senators Feingold and McCain,
including Bob Schiff, Ann Choiniere and Mark Buse, as well as Laurie
Rubenstein of Senator Lieberman's staff and Linda Gustitus of Senator
Levin's staff.
I also wish to acknowledge the contributions of Senator McConnell's
staff, including Hunter Davis of his personal staff, and Tam Somerville
and Andrew Siff of the Rules Committee staff.
Finally, I thank Shawn Maher of my personal office staff, and
Veronica Gillespie, my Elections counsel on the Rules Committee staff,
as well as Kennie Gill, the Democratic staff director and chief counsel
of the Rules Committee.
One final point, Mr. President. The great justice, Learned Hand, once
spoke of liberty as the great equalizer among men. In his words, ``the
spirit of liberty is the . . . lesson . . . (mankind) has never
learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom
where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the
greatest.''
That, my colleagues, should be the ultimate test of whether any
matter considered by this body is worthy of support. The McCain-
Feingold legislation passes that test.
____________________