[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.

                          ____________________