[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3610-3623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       Donor, Recipient and Parents: (Student) Benjamin Lipman 
     (age 9)
       Amount: $1,000
       Date: June 19, 1987
       Donor, Recipient and Parents: (Recipient) Pierre S. 
     ``Pete'' du Pont IV for President
       Donor, Recipient and Parents: (Parents) Ira A. Lipman 
     (father)
       Amount: $1,000
       Date: June 18, 1987
       Donor, Recipient and Parents: (Parents) Barbara Lipman 
     (mother)
       Amount: $1,000
       Date: June 18, 1987
       Explanation: That was a way ``to expose the children to 
     political candidates and get them involved in the process,'' 
     Ira Lipman said.
       All ages given were at time of donation
       Total includes maximum contributions for both primary and 
     general elections
       Sources: Analysis of Federal Election Commission records by 
     the Campaign Study Group, other public records and interviews


                      Contribution Proposal by FEC

       This is the Federal Election Commission's 1998 
     recommendation for legislation to prohibit contributions by 
     minors:
       Recommendation: The commission recommends that Congress 
     establish a presumption that contributors below age 16 are 
     not making contributions on their own behalf.
       Explanation: The commission has found that contributions 
     are sometimes given by parents in their children's names. 
     Congress should address this potential abuse by establishing 
     a minimum age for contributors, or otherwise provide 
     guidelines ensuring that parents are not making contributions 
     in the name of another.
       Source: FEC Annual Report

  Mr. LUGAR. Madam President, I rise today to speak on the campaign 
finance reform bill that is before us. I have been involved in 
elections for the school board, for mayor of a major city, for the U.S. 
Senate, and for the Republican presidential nomination. My experiences 
suggest that our present system is outdated and often distorted. Yet I 
have never believed that we should pass a bill just because it has been 
labeled ``reform.'' As dysfunctional as our current campaign finance 
system is, it can be made worse.
  But in 2001, the U.S. Senate held a genuine debate on campaign 
finance reform that embraced multiple points of view on the issue. 
Amendments were considered and debated on their merits. The underlying 
bill changed dramatically. The Senate reached a conclusion that could 
not have been predicted before the debate began.
  This conclusion did not correspond to the ideal system of even a 
single Senator. In reviewing the 28 votes that we cast on that bill, I 
found that I had disagreed with the position of every other Senator at 
least five times during the votes. I expect that most other Senators 
would find that they also took a unique path through the bill. We all 
have our own ideas about what a campaign finance system should look 
like. Although, I do not support every provision of this bill, on 
balance, I believe that it is a constructive attempt to improve a 
deeply flawed campaign finance system.
  Even as we move to pass this bill it is important to admit the 
limitations of our work. The compromise bill before us will not bring 
an end to corruption or attempts to influence politicians improperly. 
We should be skeptical of both extravagant claims of success and dire 
predictions of disaster.
  This update was necessary, in part because the lines between soft and 
hard money were becoming indistinguishable. The development of so-
called ``victory funds'' and other schemes for transferring party soft 
money to candidates was undermining the meaningfulness of hard money 
contribution limits. In addition, soft money fundraising clearly had 
been linked to malfeasance in the 1996 presidential election and had 
assumed a role within the campaign finance structure that almost 
guaranteed future instances of campaign finance violations and improper 
influence.
  The bill also takes the important step of raising contribution limits 
for candidates facing an opponent who commits large amounts of personal 
wealth to a campaign. Our current campaign finance system ensures huge 
advantages for independently wealthy candidates, because their personal 
funds are not subject to contribution limits. Parties now spend a great 
deal of energy recruiting millionaires to run for office, because it is 
the simplest way to apply millions of dollars--sometimes tens of 
millions--to a political race virtually free of regulation. As more 
restraints on fundraising are added, the incentive to recruit 
millionaire candidates increases. The risk is that personal wealth will 
become a qualification for candidacy--particularly with respect to the 
Senate. The millionaires amendment in this bill will not eliminate the 
advantage of wealthy candidates, but it will substantially reduce the 
current incentives that place personal wealth near the top of 
qualifications for candidacy.
  Despite some excellent provisions, this bill will not be implemented 
without concern. The history of campaign finance law does not provide 
optimism that restrictions aimed at preventing the entry of money into 
politics will succeed. Our experience has been that when one inlet for 
political money is closed or narrowed, that money flows into the system 
through other inlets. By increasing hard money limits left untouched 
since the mid-1970s, the bill encourages some soft money contributions 
to flow toward hard money, the most accountable form of political 
contribution. But we also will see increases in money flowing through 
interest groups and non-candidates who seek to influence an election 
but who cannot be held accountable by voters at the polls.
  In addition, any campaign finance reform proposal must come to grips 
with the U.S. Constitution and its guarantee of freedom of speech. 
Protection of political speech was at the heart of the founding of our 
nation. We have little leeway in passing laws that regulate the amount 
or content of political expression. The fact that Congress is charged 
in the Constitution with the responsibility to hold elections does not 
relieve it from the requirement that it do so in a manner that is 
consistent with free speech.
  I do not believe that it is possible for Congress to write a 
comprehensive campaign finance bill in this era without stimulating a 
Court challenge. With the passage of this bill, Congress has made a 
good faith attempt to improve disclosure and protections against 
corruption. However, even proponents should admit that this bill raises 
legitimate First Amendment questions that will have to be reviewed by 
the Supreme Court.
  This bill will not be the end of the campaign finance debate. I am 
hopeful,

[[Page 3611]]

however, that our experience with McCain-Feingold will improve the 
conduct of future debate. Too often, despite good intentions by many 
participants, the debate on campaign finance reform has not always been 
constructive. Too often the debate has centered on simplistic absolutes 
and cynical implications that all money is corrupting.
  We know that virtually every reform proposal involves complex trade-
offs between preventing corruption and protecting Constitutionally-
guaranteed freedoms of political expression. Americans don't like to 
think in these terms because we want to believe that measures to 
prevent corruption and ensure freedom of speech are goals that should 
not be subject to compromise. We don't like the idea of having to make 
hard choices that might result in less freedom or more corruption.
  Those who support stricter campaign finance laws should admit that 
many such proposals raise legitimate Constitutional questions, 
negatively impact First Amendment freedoms of expression, and could 
produce unintended consequences for political participation. Those who 
have supported the status quo, must recognize that our current system 
is seriously flawed and that campaign contributions have been 
corrupting in some very important cases.
  Campaign finance is an issue that demands elevated debate on the 
nature of freedom of speech and fair elections--the most basic 
instruments of our democracy. Reasonable people should be able to 
differ on prescriptions without questioning each other's motivations or 
integrity. The U.S. Senate should strive to be a model of civility and 
reasoned deliberation on this issue.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today we take an important first step 
toward reforming our campaign finance system. After an election in 
which $3 billion was spent in an effort to elect or defeat candidates, 
we are finally taking action to attempt to make our campaign finance 
laws meaningful. However, there are predictable consequences from this 
legislation that will not be positive and will require further 
attention to the issue of campaign finance reform.
  The money spent on the 2000 election should come as a surprise to no 
one. Soft money, an important target of this bill, has increased at a 
remarkable pace. Year after year, there has been a steady and dramatic 
increase in the amount of money raised and spent on elections. For 
example, in 1992, Democrats raised $30 million in soft money. In 1996, 
the Democrats more than tripled that amount and raised $107 million in 
soft money. In the 2000 Democrats raised $243 million in soft money.
  The Republican party has consistently proven itself to have even more 
fund-raising prowess than the Democrats, but the trends are exactly the 
same, with substantial increases year after year. In 1992, the 
Republican party raised $45 million in soft money. In 1996, they raised 
$120 million in soft money. And in 2000, the Republican party raised 
$244 million in soft money. The American people have become almost numb 
to these kinds of staggering figures, and they have come to expect 
fund-raising records to be broken with each election cycle. And, what 
is far worse for our Democracy is that the public also believes that 
this money buys access and influence that average citizens don't have.
  In addition to the overwhelming amounts of soft money that were 
raised and spent in 2000, hundreds of millions of dollars were also 
spent on so-called issue ads. Now, I'm not talking about television ads 
that truly discuss the issues of the day. I'm talking about ads that 
air just before an election that show candidates, surrounded by their 
families, American flags waving in the background, that tell of the 
candidates' service to the Nation, or heroic actions during a war. 
Anyone who sees an ad like this believes it is a campaign ad. But, 
because of a quirk in the law, even these most blatant of campaign ads 
are called issue ads. As such, the contributions that pay for them are 
unlimited and relatively undisclosed. Yet, in many cases, these ads 
shape the debate in a race, and they most certainly are intended to 
shape the outcome.
  Those ubiquitous television ads are purchased by all kinds of 
organized special interests to persuade the American people to vote for 
or against a candidate. These ads, usually negative, often inaccurate, 
are driving the political process today. Do they violate the spirit of 
the campaign finance laws in this country? They certainly do. But, 
don't take my word for it. Listen to the executive director of the 
National Rifle Association's Institute for Legislative Action, who 
said, ``It is foolish to believe there is a difference between issue 
advocacy and advocacy of a political candidate. What separates issue 
advocacy and political advocacy is a line in the sand drawn on a windy 
day.''
  The bill that we are sending to the President takes a step toward 
reform. It is important to know that it is also firmly rooted in prior 
laws. Federal law has prohibited corporations from contributing to 
Federal candidates since 1907. Labor unions likewise have been barred 
from contributing to candidates since 1943. In addition, the post-
Watergate campaign finance law caps individual contributions at $25,000 
per calendar year, and permits individuals to give no more than $20,000 
to a national party, $5,000 to a political action committee, and $2,000 
to a candidate. These limits were put in place after the country 
learned a hard lessen about the corrupting influence of money in 
politics.
  Nowhere in these laws are there any provisions for soft money. That 
aberration came into play in 1978 when the Federal Election Commission 
gave the Kansas Republican State Committee permission to use corporate 
and union funds to pay for a voter drive benefitting Federal as well as 
State candidates. The costs of the drive were to be split between hard 
money raised under Federal law and soft money raised under Kansas law. 
The FEC's decision in the Kansas case gives parties the option to spend 
soft money any time a Federal election coincides with a State or local 
race. A creation not of Congress, but of a weak, politically motivated 
Federal agency, soft money is a loophole to our system that is long 
overdue for eradication.
  Despite what the foes of this bill claim, banning soft money 
contributions does not violate the Constitution. The Supreme Court in 
Buckley versus Valeo held that limits on individual campaign 
contributions do not violate the first amendment. If a limit of $1000 
on contributions by individuals was upheld as constitutional, then a 
ban on contributions of $10,000, $100,000 or $1 million is also going 
to be upheld. Buckley, too, said that the risk of corruption or the 
appearance of corruption warranted limits on individual campaign 
contributions. Soft money contributions to political parties can be 
limited for the same reason.
  Like soft money, issue advocacy has a history that defies the intent 
of campaign finance laws. In what remains the seminal case on campaign 
finance, Buckley, the Supreme Court held that campaign finance 
limitations applied only to ``communications that in express terms 
advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for 
Federal office.'' A footnote to the opinion says that the limits apply 
when communications include terms ``such as `vote for,' `elect,' 
`support,' `cast your ballot for,' `Smith for Congress,' `vote 
against,' `defeat,' `reject.''' The phrases in the footnote have become 
known as the ``magic words'' without which a communication, no matter 
what its purpose or impact, is often classified as issue advocacy, thus 
falling outside the reach of the campaign finance laws.
  Until the 1992 election cycle, most for-profit, not-for-profit, and 
labor organizations did not attempt to get into electoral politics via 
issue advocacy. That year, one advocacy group pushed the envelope and 
aired what was, for all intents and purposes, a negative campaign ad 
attacking Bill Clinton. Because the ad never used Buckley's ``magic 
words,'' the Court of Appeals decided that the ad was a discussion of 
issues related rather than an exhortation to vote against Clinton in 
the upcoming Presidential election.
  That ad and others like it opened the flood gates to more so-called 
issue advocacy in 1996, when countless special interests started 
overwhelming the airwaves with millions of dollars in ads

[[Page 3612]]

that looked like campaign ads, but, because they avoided those magic 
words, were deemed issue-ads.
  Opponents of this proposal will also argue that any effort to control 
or limit sham issue ads would violate the First Amendment. They argue 
that as long as you don't use the so-called ``magic words'' in Buckley, 
such as ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' you can say just about 
anything you want in an advertisement. But that is simply not what the 
Supreme Court said in Buckley. It said that one way to identify 
campaign speech that can be regulated is by looking at whether it uses 
words of express advocacy. But the Court never said that Congress was 
precluded from adopting another test so long as it was clear, precise 
and narrow.
  A final argument opponents of reform like to make is that we spend 
less on campaigns than we do on potato chips or laundry detergent. But 
I would ask the proponents of this argument whether what we are seeking 
in our democracy is electioneering that has no more depth or substance 
than a snack food commercial. Despite the ever-increasing sums spent on 
campaigns, we have not seen an improvement in campaign discourse, issue 
discussion or voter education. More money does not mean more ideas, 
more substance or more depth. Instead, it means more of what voters 
complain about most. More 30-second spots, more negativity and an 
increasingly longer campaign period. Less money might actually improve 
the quality of discourse, requiring candidates to more cautiously spend 
their resources. It might encourage more debates, as was the case in my 
own race against Bill Weld in 1996, and it would certainly focus the 
candidates' voter education efforts during the period shortly before 
the election, when most voters are tuned in, instead of starting the 
campaign 18 months before election day.
  Shays/Meehan takes an important step that begins to tackle the 
problems of soft money and issue advocacy. I support this legislation 
that has been championed by two very able colleagues, but I would note 
one serious shortcoming of the bill. It won't curb the rampant spending 
that drives the quest for money. Unfortunately, we all recognize that 
creating spending limits is not a simple proposition. In the 1976 
Buckley case, the Supreme Court struck spending limits as an 
unconstitutional restriction of political speech. An important caveat 
to its decision is that spending limits could be imposed in exchange 
for a public benefit. I wish we had at our disposal a number of 
bargaining chips, public benefits that we could trade in exchange for 
spending limits. However, unless the Supreme Court reverses itself, 
something I am certainly not expecting in the near future, we must 
accept that if we want to limit the amounts spent on campaigns, we must 
provide candidates with some sort of public grant.
  I realize that a lot of my colleagues aren't ready to embrace public 
funding as a way to finance our campaigns. But it is, in my opinion, 
the best constitutional means to the important end of limiting campaign 
spending and the contributions that go with it. Ultimately, I would 
support a system that provides full public funding for political 
candidates. I will continue to support clean money as the ultimate way 
to truly and completely purge our system of the negative influence of 
corporate money. I would also support a partial public funding system 
as a way to wean candidates from their reliance on hard money and get 
them used to campaigning under generous spending limits. I offered an 
amendment to McCain/Fiengold that would have provided sweeping reform 
in the form of a partial public funding system, but I recognize that we 
are a long way away from enacting such a program. Nevertheless I will 
continue to support and work for that type of reform as a way to end 
the cycle of unlimited money being raised and spent on our elections.
  This bill is a way to break free from the status quo. However, as 
with any reform measure, there are always going to be possibilities for 
abuse. The fact that some people will try to skirt the law is not a 
reason for us to fail to take this incremental movement towards 
repairing the system. But, it does mean we must ensure that this the 
first, rather than the last, step for fundamental reform. I have 
supported campaign finance reform for 18 years and I believe that even 
legislation that takes only a small step forward is necessary to begin 
to restore the dwindling faith the average American has in our 
political system. We can't go on leaving our citizens with the 
impression that the only kind of influence left in American politics is 
the kind you wield with a checkbook. I believe this bill reduces the 
power of the checkbook and I will therefore support it.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, today we are at the pivotal point where 
long-sought meaningful campaign finance reform is finally within reach. 
It's been a winding journey spanning seven years. I am pleased to have 
been part of the quest, and proud to have been an original cosponsor of 
the McCain-Feingold bills since my arrival in the Senate in January 
1997.
  It was a privilege to have been part of the two-week historic debate 
last March. As I remarked last year, the open and freewheeling debate 
on amendments in which we engaged was truly the United States Senate at 
its finest, and an experience I had hoped to enjoy when I sought this 
office.
  This bill isn't a magic elixir. It won't cure all ills. No one has 
suggested it is a gleaming pot at the end of the rainbow.
  Personally, I am disappointed that it doesn't include what I think is 
an essential ingredient of true reform: ensuring non-preemptible lowest 
unit broadcast rates for candidates, which this body approved 
overwhelmingly by a vote of 69-31 on March 21, 2001, one year ago 
tomorrow. Until we deal with both sides of the equation, the supply and 
the demand, I do not believe we will have solved the whole problem of 
money in politics.
  But this bill does go a long way to change the system set up over 27 
years ago, a system which over time has been severely exploited and 
eroded so far beyond the intent of Congress that the levels of 
unregulated soft money are growing at a far faster rate than increases 
in hard, regulated dollar donations.
  I stand in support of this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting to send this bill to President Bush.
  I also salute and congratulate Senators Russ Feingold and John 
McCain, valiant partners in a tireless, seven-year roller-coaster ride 
loaded with some spills and turns, filled with a few detours and 
disappointments. These two leaders are true models of how bipartisan 
tenacity and determination can triumph over adversity. I trust that the 
history books will reflect how their persistence and stewardship on 
this issue truly made a positive difference and profound impact.
  To them, I say, thank you. The American people owe you a debt of 
gratitude.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, as the Senate concludes debate on 
campaign finance reform, I want to commend Senator Daschle for his 
leadership in bringing this important issue to a successful conclusion. 
I thank Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their commitment and 
hard work in crafting meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform 
legislation.
  The enormous amounts of special interest money that flood our 
political system have become a cancer in our democracy. The voices of 
average citizens can barely be heard. Year after year, lobbyists and 
large corporations contribute hundreds of millions of dollars to 
political campaigns and dominate the airwaves with radio and TV ads 
promoting the causes of big business.
  During the 2000 election cycle alone, according to Federal Election 
Commission records, businesses contributed a total of $1.2 billion to 
political campaigns. A Wall Street Journal article reported that $296 
million, almost two-thirds of all ``soft money'' contributions given in 
the last election, came from just over 800 people, each of whom gave an 
average of $120,000. With sums of money like this pouring into our 
political system, it's no surprise that the average American family 
earning $50,000 a year feels alienated from the system and questions 
who's fighting for their interests.

[[Page 3613]]

  The first step in cleaning up our system is to close the gaping 
loophole that allows special interests to bypass existing contribution 
limits and give huge sums of money directly to candidates and parties. 
These so-called ``soft-money'' contributions have become increasingly 
influential in elections. From 1984 to 2000, soft money contributions 
have sky-rocketed from $22 million to $463 million--an increase of over 
2000 percent. We cannot restore accountability to our political system, 
until we bring an end to soft money. McCain-Feingold does just that.
  Another vital component of meaningful reform is ending special 
interest gimmickry in campaign advertising. Today, corporations, 
wealthy individuals, and others can spend unlimited amounts of money 
running political ads as long as they do not ask people to vote for or 
against a candidate. These phony issue ads, which are often confusing 
and misleading, have become the weapon of choice in the escalating war 
of negative campaigning. The limits McCain-Feingold places on these ads 
will help clean up the system and make it more accountable to the 
American people.
  Although the reforms in the McCain-Feingold bill are not a magic 
bullet that will solve all our problems, they do represent important 
and long over due changes to the system. Passage of campaign finance 
reform legislation is also a signal to the American people that their 
elected representatives can and will put the interests of the people 
above those of wealthy special interests.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Madam President, I rise to elaborate on my vote on 
H.R. 2356, the latest effort at campaign finance ``reform.'' I voted 
against the McCain-Feingold bill earlier this Congress, and I see 
little improvement in the bill we are currently debating. For this 
reason, I will vote against the latest attempt at campaign finance 
``reform.''
  I oppose this legislation on two grounds. First, the bill creates new 
loopholes for groups to exploit, and fails to create a level playing 
field in the political process. Second, the bill continues to impose 
unconstitutional restrictions upon every American's right to free 
speech and association. After 7 years of debate over this legislation, 
we are still left with a fundamentally flawed bill that attempts to 
strip away long-held protections cherished by Americans and restrict 
access to the marketplace of ideas.
  I am particularly dismayed that the proponents of this legislation 
have decided to create loopholes and exceptions for 501(c)(4) 
organizations. Some would suggest that the bill bans ``issue ads'' from 
corporate and nonprofit interest groups 30 days before a primary, and 
60 days before a general election. Yet, the crafters of the language 
have allowed non-profit advocacy groups, 501(c)(4) organizations, a 
free shot at candidates and limited restrictions on their poisonous 
``issue ads.'' As long as their advertisement is not targeted, by name, 
at a political candidate, they face no restriction 60 days, or even 1 
day, before an election.
  These independent groups will be allowed to accept special interest 
contributions, and then fill the airwaves with issue ads--often 
distorting facts in their attempt to attack a candidate's record. While 
these ads will not name a specific candidate, so as to not be deemed 
``targeted'' communications, they will continue to influence elections 
in the favor of special interest groups.
  Also, I continue to object to the proponents' efforts to extinguish 
constitutionally protected free speech rights. The last time Congress 
passed through a ``reform'' bill, in 1974, the Supreme Court 
eviscerated a majority of the provisions. They explicitly rejected as 
unconstitutional efforts to have the Government regulate ``issue 
advocacy,'' limit independent expenditures, and mandate limits on 
campaign spending.
  The Buckley Court wrote that:

       in a republic where the people [not their legislators] are 
     sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed 
     choices among candidates for office is essential, for those 
     elected will inevitably shape the course that we follow as a 
     nation.

  Participating in government--getting your voice heard, so to speak--
is one of the most valuable and treasured rights that each citizen 
enjoys. This is particularly true when an individual or group wants to 
express their views during the election of those who govern.
  Citizens, candidates, groups, and national parties all should have a 
voice in elections and government. It is at that moment, the moment 
when there is a true marketplace of ideas, that democracy lives up to 
its meaning. Any attempt to stifle comments, criticism, or expression 
is an attempt to limit speech. Political speech is speech, plain and 
simple.
  Efforts to regulate political speech are the real reason we're here 
in the first place. Today's abuses are the natural consequence of past 
attempts to suppress free speech. Current campaign finance laws are 
complex and antiquated.
  We need to be enforcing the laws that are currently on the books. We 
need to make sure that every political contribution is accounted for, 
and that disclosures are immediately posted for public scrutiny. 
Clearly the American public has a right to know who is paying for ads, 
and who is attempting to influence elections. Sunshine is what the 
political system needs--not restrictions on basic rights.
  The debate over campaign finance ``reform'' is not over, and I look 
forward to swift review of this measure by the Federal judiciary. I am 
confident that the courts, again, will protect the rights of citizens 
and preserve the openness of our political system.
  Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Madam President, I rise today to talk about 
campaign finance reform.
  As a veteran of four statewide campaigns, I believe, as many of my 
colleagues do, that the current campaign finance laws are--in a word--
defective. Our country was founded on the principles of freedom and 
justice. As I see it, the present system for financing federal 
campaigns undermines those very principles.
  I believe that in its current form, the campaign finance system tends 
to benefit politicians who are already in office---some folks call it 
incumbent insurance. I prefer to call it a problem.
  Thus, I whole-heartedly believe that the time has come for meaningful 
campaign finance reform. Before us today, we have a bill that purports 
to fix the system. Unfortunately, I do not believe the Shays-Meehan 
bill does the job. In fact, in some respects, I think this bill will 
make the current system worse.
  In the effort to find a culprit for the faults in the present 
campaign finance system, soft money has become a scapegoat. While I 
agree that unlimited soft money contributions raise important 
questions, banning soft money to the parties would be unproductive and, 
ultimately, ineffective. Chances are, if we succeed at blocking the 
flow of soft money from one direction, it will eventually be funneled 
into campaigns from another.
  Furthermore, some soft money contributions are used for get-out-the-
vote efforts--for the promotion of voter registration and party 
building--valuable efforts that encourage voter participation. Though 
some changes were made to ease the inevitable burden on GOTV and voter 
registration efforts, as a practical matter, the effects will still be 
devastating to the political parties and their activities.
  A more realistic approach in lieu of banning soft money would be to 
cap the contributions at $60,000, as prescribed by the Hagel-Nelson 
bill that we debated and voted upon last year. I would have offered 
that proposal as an amendment again this year, but I can count the 
votes as easily as everyone else. It failed last year, 60-40. The votes 
simply aren't there. I dislike this bill, but I don't want to hold up 
the inevitable.
  For that reason, I do support cloture on this bill. Although I 
believe it is fundamentally flawed, the bill before us should be 
allowed to stand or fall on its own merits--on a final vote that 
decides the direction this issue will take once and for all. We've been 
at a stalemate on this issue for too long and it is time to move on.
  As an individual who has spent a lot of time on the campaign trail, I 
have

[[Page 3614]]

put a great deal of thought into what I believe is the right direction 
for campaign finance reform. My campaign experience with one group in 
particular has bolstered my support for efforts to limit so-called 
``issue ads.'' This organization, funded by secret, undisclosed 
contributors, ran issue ads throughout my campaign distorting my 
position on one issue, which was unrelated and irrelevant to their 
purported purpose. This group was accountable to no one and did not 
have to disclose its true agenda. Because it operated in virtual 
secrecy, it was impossible to hold them accountable for distorting the 
truth.
  It only follows that I am pleased with the Snowe-Jeffords provision 
in the bill before us, which addresses some of the problems created by 
so-called issue ads funded by special interest groups and corporations. 
This provision will hold these groups more accountable for their ads by 
imposing strict broadcasting regulations and increasing disclosure 
requirements, effectively putting light where the sun doesn't shine in 
issue advocacy.
  Unfortunately, as many of my colleagues have pointed out, this 
provision is arguably the most susceptible to being struck down as 
unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. If the Shays-Meehan bill had a 
non-severable clause that would protect it from selective dissection by 
the Supreme Court--which we unsuccessfully tried to include in the 
McCain-Feingold bill last year--I would be much more inclined to 
support this bill.
  It now seems likely that parts of this bill will be struck down in 
court, creating, in effect an off-balance piece of legislation that 
will penalize some groups--the political parties--while giving ``issue 
advocacy'' groups more influence. This will alter the very basis of our 
political system and give disproportionate power to the least 
accountable groups around.
  I cannot support any legislation that will not only not fix our 
current problems but will create new ones by putting candidates of all 
parties at the mercy of these shadow groups, while at the same time 
taking away much of their ability to respond.
  Accordingly, I simply cannot vote for this bill.
  Mr. CORZINE. Madam President, today the Senate approved historic 
legislation that will change the way we manage our democracy in the new 
century. The changes called for in the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan 
legislation are long overdue and vitally important to restoring the 
integrity of our electoral process.
  For the past several years, the amount of unregulated soft money in 
our campaign system has reached staggering proportions. Soft money has 
had the insidious effect of holding too many political candidates 
accountable to large individual donors rather than the people they are 
elected to represent. In the 1999-2000 campaign season, $495.1 million 
poured into the coffers of both the Democrats and the Republicans. This 
was a truly bipartisan problem, and now we have a truly bipartisan 
solution. Soft money was a scourge on our political process that we are 
much better off without.
  Before I go further, let me express my gratitude to two brave 
Senators: Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and John McCain of Arizona. We all 
know that it was through their tireless work and their laser-like focus 
that this piece of legislation has become law. By the time I arrived in 
the Senate a little over a year ago, the groundwork had already been 
laid. The traps had already been run. Year after year, the two Senators 
who lent their names to McCain-Feingold came to the Senate floor to 
deliver stirring oratory on the importance of this legislation. But no 
bill was passed. They visited with their colleagues in closed-door 
meetings. But many Senators remained unconvinced. Now--finally--these 
two stalwarts can move on to other issues. McCain-Feingold has passed, 
and for that, they have my deepest gratitude and admiration.
  As happy as I am about the passage of this legislation, I would be 
remiss if I did not voice my regret at the failure of the final 
legislation to include a provision to address the skyrocketing cost of 
campaign advertisements. In recent years, television networks have 
reaped tremendous profits by exploiting the importance of broadcast 
advertising in the final weeks of a modern campaign. The price of 
airtime has become prohibitive to cash-strapped campaigns. And the 
simple fact of the matter is that media costs drive campaign costs. Any 
solution to the campaign finance problem is fundamentally incomplete if 
it fails to address what drives the demand for campaign money: 
expensive media.
  During Senate consideration of McCain-Feingold, I was proud to 
cosponsor an amendment introduced by the senior senator from New 
Jersey, Mr. Torricelli. That amendment would have required television 
networks to offer candidates for federal office commercial time that 
cannot be preempted at the lowest price offered to any advertiser. It 
is only appropriate that, in exchange for the lucrative stewardship of 
the public airwaves, broadcasters provide candidates access to the 
airwaves at a discounted rate. It is unfortunate that because Shays-
Meehan does not include the Torricelli provision, the lowest unit 
charge amendment will not become law at this time.
  But, this should not and will not be the last time campaign finance 
reform is debated on the Senate floor. We have many more important 
campaign finance issues to explore, from improving the access of 
candidates to broadcast media to introducing aspects of public 
financing into the system. I look forward to continuing to work to 
improve the system.
  Having said that this legislation is an important step in the right 
direction. I was proud to support it. And I again congratulate my 
colleagues, Senators Feingold and McCain, for their outstanding 
leadership.
  Mr. SARBANES. Madam President, last spring, after years of debate and 
delay, a majority of the Senate agreed with the American public that 
our system of campaign financing needs repair and passed a significant 
campaign finance reform bill. Last month, the House of Representative 
passed similar campaign finance reform legislation. Now the Senate has 
taken up this House bill, and today this body will pass a comprehensive 
campaign finance reform bill. This legislation is long overdue.
  With every passing election cycle, money plays a greater and greater 
role, and we run the risk of weakening the public's trust in our 
democratic system of government. In short, our constituents are losing 
faith in our ability to serve their interests over the interests of 
those who contribute to our campaigns. People are growing cynical about 
public life. They are staying away from the polling place in 
increasingly large numbers, in large part due to the perception that 
money, rather than the popular will, drives electoral outcomes. Under 
these circumstances, meaningful campaign finance reform becomes 
necessary to protect our system of government and our way of life.
  While no legislation can completely solve the problems in our 
campaign system, this campaign finance reform bill makes real progress 
in the fight against corruption. I wish to express my dismay that this 
issue requires a cloture vote. The Senate debated this legislation for 
two weeks last year, and voted 59-41 to pass it. Yet, some Republican 
Senators still seem bent on derailing this bill, a bill that is clearly 
the will of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and most 
importantly, the American people. After the cloture vote, the Senate 
will be able to do what it should have done long ago, pass meaningful 
campaign finance reform legislation.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I rise today to speak about campaign 
finance reform. I want to express my concerns about this legislation 
and explain why I decided to vote for it in spite of those concerns.
  I believe there are problems with the way we finance campaigns in 
this country. Many Americans feel there is too much money in politics. 
They believe this money is a corrupting influence on the politicians 
they send to represent them in Washington, D.C. Reports of politicians 
taking money from foreign sources, while already illegal, has

[[Page 3615]]

served to strengthen the perception that money rules the political 
process.
  The large number of extremely wealthy candidates who spend large 
amounts of their own money to finance their campaigns reinforces this 
perception. Many people believe that candidates are attempting to buy 
their way into office. For that reason, I am very pleased that the 
version we will be voting on contains my wealthy-candidate provision. 
By enacting this common sense provision, the playing field will be 
leveled for candidates who are not able to spend unlimited amounts of 
their own money. Instead, this legislation will raise the limits on 
contributions to their campaigns in proportion to the amount of 
personal money that the wealthy candidate spends.
  Reports of large donations by corporations and unions lead many to 
believe that access to politicians is for sale only to the highest 
bidders. Many will argue that a few corrupt politicians are the problem 
rather than the system. I believe this is true, but for many 
disenchanted voters, perception is reality. Because people are 
disgusted with the system, many choose not to participate. Our system 
is lesser for that lack of participation.
  It is for these reasons that I have decided to vote for Campaign 
Finance Reform.
  When I voted for McCain-Feingold in the Spring of last year, I did so 
with reservations. I also expressed my hope that the House would 
improve on it and, if it came back to the Senate, we would have an 
opportunity to clear up any remaining problems.
  While this legislation did pass the House, and the House did improve 
it in some ways, the House did not address all of my concerns. In the 
original Senate-passed version, we added the Levin amendment so State 
parties could compete with other outside groups. Unfortunately, the 
House weakened this provision, and now the State parties will be at a 
significant disadvantage when it comes to promoting candidates and 
issues. I think it is only fair that these two groups should be able to 
compete on a level playing field.
  An additional concern I have with this legislation is the 
``Coordination'' provision. As this legislation currently defines it, 
there will be a great deal of uncertainty about what is considered 
``coordination'' between a candidate and parties or outside groups. I 
believe we should keep the current rule which requires agreement or 
formal collaboration to establish ``coordination.''
  Perhaps my greatest concern is about the constitutionality of the 
provision that prohibits ``electioneering communication'' within the 
last 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary. There is 
very little doubt that the constitutionality of this and other 
provisions will be challenged shortly after this legislation is signed 
into law. Fortunately, the expedited review clause requires anyone who 
challenges the constitutionality of this legislation file suit in the 
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. A three-judge panel 
will decide the case and any appeal will be directly to the U.S. 
Supreme Court. This expedited review process will ensure that all 
questions about the constitutionality of this legislation will be 
resolved swiftly so that any unconstitutional provisions are quickly 
stricken.
  Normally, the Senate would have the opportunity to make the small 
changes that most agree would make this legislation much more 
effective. I am disappointed that the most adamant Senate proponents of 
this legislation bunkered down to prevent any improvements. I 
understand that they are concerned about the success of this 
legislation should it go to back to the House or to conference. 
Unfortunately, this concern will probably prevent us from doing as good 
a job as we should have. This leaves us with two disappointing choices: 
send an imperfect bill to the President or do nothing at all. I will 
vote for this legislation because I believe in this instance we must at 
least take a step forward.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, the Senate is poised to pass H.R. 
2356, the bipartisan campaign finance reform bill. The momentum for the 
bill is building. The President has indicated that he is inclined to 
sign this bill. We could be on the brink of enacting the first 
significant campaign reforms in a generation.
  I would like to make a couple of observations: First, I want to 
salute the sponsors of S. 27, the Senate companion measure, Senators 
McCain and Feingold. We are considering this bill only because of the 
sheer force of their collective will. They have suffered innumerable 
set-backs pushing for this legislation over the past several years. But 
they never got discouraged; they never let up. Their dedication to this 
cause has been extraordinary.
  Second, numerous public opinion polls have indicated that the 
American people overwhelmingly support campaign reform, but do not rank 
the issue as a priority. I think that's because they have grown 
discouraged about the likelihood of Congress passing such reform. 
Maybe, just maybe, we will show the American people that we are capable 
of beating the odds, of coming together and doing something difficult.
  House Resolution 2356, the ``Shays-Meehan'' bill, is sufficiently 
similar to S. 27 that Senators who support campaign finance reform 
ought to have no hesitation voting for final passage.
  Most importantly, both bills get so-called ``soft money'' out of 
Federal elections. The bill we are about to pass prohibits all soft 
money contributions from corporations, labor unions, and individuals to 
the national political parties or candidates for Federal office.
  Furthermore, State political parties that are permitted under State 
law to collect these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from 
spending them on any activities relating to a Federal election.
  The soft money ban is the most significant, and necessary, campaign 
finance reform we can make. Soft money threatens to overwhelm our 
system and the public's confidence in its integrity.
  In 1988, Michael Dukakis, the Democratic candidate for President, and 
Vice President Bush, the Republican candidate, raised a total of $45 
million in unregulated soft money donations.
  Just 8 years later, President Clinton raised $124 million and the 
Republican candidate for President, former Senator Dole, raised $138 
million.
  In the 1999-2000 election cycle, Democrats raised $245 million, and 
Republicans raised just under $250 million.
  One of the very biggest soft money donors during the 1999-2000 cycle 
was Enron.
  In its 1976 ruling in Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld 
limits on so-called ``hard money'' campaign contributions. The Court 
argued that such contributions, unregulated, could lead to corruption 
through quid pro quo relationships, or at least the appearance of 
corruption, which is also harmful to a democracy.
  Well, if we are worried about corruption, or the appearance of 
corruption, with regard to hard money contributions, which are limited 
and disclosed, we ought to be doubly worried about soft money 
contributions, which can be unlimited, and are largely undisclosed.
  Fortunately, we are about to put an end to soft money contributions.
  The soft money ban will work because we came to a reasonable 
compromise with regard to raising some of the existing hard money 
contribution limits by modest amounts, and indexing those limits for 
inflation.
  I am proud that I helped to negotiate that compromise, along with the 
senior Senator from Tennessee and several other Members from both sides 
of the aisle.
  The Senate voted 84-16 to approve the compromise we worked out.
  Our compromise: doubles the limit on hard money contributions to 
individual candidates from $1,000 per election to $2,000 per election; 
increases the annual limit on hard money contributions to the national 
party committees by $5,000, to $25,000; increases the annual aggregate 
limit on all hard money contributions by $12,500, to $37,500; doubles 
the amount that the national party committees can contribute to 
candidates, from $17,500 to $35,000; and indexes these new limits for 
inflation.
  So under the Thompson-Feinstein amendment to S. 27, the individual 
aggregate contribution limit, the amount that can be given to PACs, 
parties, and

[[Page 3616]]

candidates combined, is increased from the current $25,000 per year to 
$37,500 per year.
  That is a $75,000 per cycle limit, but only $37,500 of that can be 
given to candidates because all contributions to candidates are charged 
against the aggregate in the year of the election.
  The House bill creates a $95,000 per cycle aggregate limit. Of that, 
$37,500 can be given to candidates and $57,500 can be given to parties 
and PACs. But to actually max out, an individual must contribute 
$20,000 of the aggregate to national party committees.
  This all sounds very complicated, but the net change is that the 
House bill adds an additional $20,000 per cycle to the aggregate limit, 
but that increase is reserved for contributions national parties. That 
is a reasonable change.
  The hard money increases will reinvigorate individual giving. They 
will reduce the incessant need for fund-raising. They will give 
candidates and parties the resources they need to respond to 
independent campaigns. They will reduce the relative influence of PACs.
  The Thompson-Feinstein amendment, by increasing the limit on 
individual and national party committee contributions to Federal 
candidates, will reduce the need for raising campaign funds from 
political action committees, PACs.
  Our amendment, therefore, will reduce the relative influence of PACs, 
making it easier to replace PAC monies with funds raised from 
individual donors.
  The concern about PACs seems unimportant now, compared with the 
problems that soft money, independent expenditures, and issue advocacy 
present. But we shouldn't dismiss the fact that PACs retain 
considerable influence in our system.
  I know that some campaign reform advocates are uncomfortable raising 
any hard money contribution limits by any amount.
  I would argue that modest increases are imperative for the simple 
reason that the current limits were established under the Federal 
Election Campaign Act, FECA, Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-443, and 
haven't been changed since. That was 27 years ago!
  I have spoken previously about how the costs of campaigning have 
risen much faster than ordinary inflation over the past 27 years these 
limits have been frozen.
  The advantage of modestly lifting some of the limits is that doing so 
will reduce the time candidates have to spend fund-raising, time better 
spent with, prospective, constituents.
  During the 2000 election, my campaign had over 100 fund-raisers. That 
took time. Time to call. Time to attend. Time to say thanks. And that 
was time I couldn't spend doing what my constituents want me to do.
  The task of raising hard money in small contributions unadjusted for 
inflation is just too daunting, for incumbents and challengers alike.
  Particularly in the larger States such as California, where extensive 
television and radio advertising is imperative, it is not uncommon for 
Senators to begin fund-raising for the next election right after the 
present one ends and they often find themselves ``dialing for dollars'' 
instead of attending to other duties.
  Let's be honest with each other and the American people: campaigning 
for office will continue to get more and more expensive because 
television spots are getting more and more expensive.
  Regrettably, one action the House took during its consideration of 
H.R. 2356 was to strip the provision Senator Torricelli successfully 
offered to S. 27 that entitled candidates and political parties to 
receive the ``lowest unit rate'' for non-preemptible broadcast 
advertisements within 45 days of a primary election or 60 days of a 
general election.
  Under the House bill broadcast television, radio, cable, and 
satellite providers will be able to continue charging candidates and 
national committees of political parties higher advertising rates.
  I am disappointed the House took this action but will support the 
bill nonetheless. A half of a loaf of bread is better than no bread.
  Independent campaigns conducted by groups that are accountable to no 
one threaten to drown out any attempt by candidates or the parties to 
communicate with voters.
  Spending on issue advocacy by these groups, according to the 
Congressional Research Service, rose from $135 million in 1996 to as 
much as $340 million in 1998. Then it rose again, to $509 million in 
2000. Most of this money is used for attack ads that the American 
people have come to loathe.
  It is likely that spending on so-called issue advocacy, most of which 
is thinly disguised electioneering, probably will surpass hard money 
spending, and very soon. It has already surpassed soft money spending.
  Clearly, the playing field is being skewed. More and more people are 
turning to the undisclosed, unregulated independent campaign.
  The attacks come and no one knows who is actually paying for them. I 
believe this is unethical. I believe it is unjust. I believe it is 
unreasonable and it must end.
  Fortunately, the House kept intact the ``Snowe-Jeffords'' provisions 
regarding these sham issue ads.
  The House bill defines ``electioneering communications'' as any 
broadcast, cable, or satellite communications which refer to a clearly 
identified candidate for Federal office and are made within 60 days of 
a general election or 30 days of a primary.
  Anyone making electioneering communications costing $10,000 a year or 
more must disclose to the Federal Election Commission, FEC, the sponsor 
of the communication within 24 hours, and the names of those who 
contribute $1,000 or more to the sponsor within that election cycle.
  The bill prohibits union or corporate treasury funds from being used 
for electioneering communications.
  The bill we are about to pass will staunch the millions of 
unregulated soft dollars that currently flow into the coffers of our 
political parties, and replace a modest portion of that money with 
contributions that are fully regulated and disclosed under the existing 
provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  People aren't concerned about individual contributions of $1,000, and 
I don't think they will be concerned about donations of $2,000.
  No, what concerns people the most about the current system are the 
checks for $250,000, or $500,000, or even $1 million flowing into 
political parties.
  These gigantic contributions are what warp our politics and cause 
people to lose faith in our Government and they must be halted. They 
give the appearance of corruption.
  I represent California, which has more people, 34 million, than 21 
other States combined. I just finished my 12th political campaign. For 
the 4th time in 10 years, I ran statewide. Running for office in 
California is expensive: I have had to raise more than $55 million in 
those four campaigns.
  I can tell you from my experiences over the years that I am committed 
to campaign reform, and I am heartened that we are about to pass H.R. 
256.
  Is it a perfect bill? No. Will it be subject to challenges in court? 
Undoubtedly. But I think it is a strong bill and I'm optimistic that it 
will withstand the courts' scrutiny. And as I said earlier, it is our 
best chance at reform in a generation.
  Campaign reform goes to the heart of our democracy. The way we 
currently finance and conduct our campaigns is a cancer metastasizing 
throughout the body politic.
  It discourages people from running for office and it disgusts voters. 
So they simply tune out, in larger and larger numbers.
  Discouragement, disgust, frustration, apathy, these feelings don't 
bolster our democracy, they weaken it.
  We have an opportunity here, a rare opportunity, to do the right 
thing and pass H.R. 2356.
  Mr. DODD. Madam President, today is, in fact, an historic day. As the 
Senate prepares to go to final passage on the McCain-Feingold/Shays-
Meehan legislation on campaign finance reform, we are taking necessary 
action that the American people have been seeking for years.

[[Page 3617]]

  Today's Senate action will accomplish a fundamental rewrite of our 
Nations Federal campaign finance laws. The Senate will approve 
legislation addressing what the American people believe is the single 
most egregious abuse of our campaign financing system, the raising and 
spending of unlimited and unregulated ``soft money'' in our Federal 
elections.
  The exploding use of soft money that permeates our campaign system is 
having a corrupting influence suggesting that large contributions by 
donors to officeholders, candidates, and political parties provide 
those donors with preferred access and influence over public policy.
  The average voter of average means who cannot contribute thousands of 
dollars to campaigns has neither the access nor influence in 
Washington. Even the mere appearance of corruption erodes public 
confidence in the integrity of our electoral process and the 
independence of our democracy.
  The use of ``soft money'' is not the only problem. This legislation 
is not the only answer. But it is the answer around which a majority of 
members could coalesce.
  If the Shays-Meehan legislation does nothing else but eviscerate the 
soft money loophole, it would still be effective and real reform.
  But my colleagues in both Chambers have accomplished much more with 
this legislation. I enumerate the provisions that are most important in 
this Senator's opinion: First and foremost, the bill essentially bans 
the raising, spending and transferring of unregulated and unlimited 
``soft money'' by national parties in Federal elections.
  The bill prohibits the use of soft money to purchase any broadcast 
advertisement that mentions a Federal candidate within 30 days of a 
primary and 60 days of a general election.
  The bill prohibits the use of treasury funds of corporations, labor 
unions, and nonprofit interest organizations to purchase broadcast, 
cable or satellite television advertisements that mention a Federal 
candidate, target the ad to the candidate's voting population and air 
within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election.
  The bill allows an exception for the use of soft money by State and 
local parties to conduct get out the vote and voter registration 
activities that do not mention a Federal candidate so long as no single 
donor contributes more than $10,000 per year.
  The bill deems as a contribution any communication that is 
coordinated with candidates or political parties. The bill also 
requires the Federal Election Commission to promulgate new rules on 
coordination.
  The bill enhances full disclosure of the money flow. It requires 
disclosure to the Federal Election Commission within 24 hours by any 
one who makes an independent expenditure that is more than $10,000 for 
broadcast, cable or satellite ads within 20 days of a general election.
  The bill increases certain contribution limits. It doubles the 
individual contribution limits, from $1,000 to $2,000 per election, to 
Presidential, Senate, and House candidates and indexes the limit to 
inflation;
  The individual limit is increased from $20,000 to $25,000 to national 
committees of a political party; and
  The aggregate individual contribution limit to parties, PACs, and 
candidates per year is increased from $25,000 per year to $95,000 per 
election cycle, including not more than $37,000 to candidates and 
$20,000 for the national party committees.
  The bill triples hard-money limits for House candidates facing 
wealthy, self-financed candidates spending $350,000 of their own money 
on a campaign. Senate candidates would qualify for up to six times the 
individual limit depending on the amount spent by their wealthy 
opponents and the population of their State.
  Finally, the effective date is this November 6, 2002, one day after 
the congressional general elections. In addition, the effective date is 
January 1, 2003 for any changes to the contribution limits. This means 
that the 2002 Federal elections will be unaffected by this new law.
  As I noted previously, while I may disagree with certain aspects of a 
few provisions, I fully support this legislation as the best effort 
that Congress can make to enact real campaign finance reform.
  There are two provisions, in particular, that continue to cause me 
some concern.
  First is the so-called ``millionaire's provision'' which purports to 
level the playing field for candidates who face wealthy challengers. 
Arguably a laudable goal, the provision ignores the fact that many 
incumbent who face wealthy challengers have healthy campaign 
treasuries, sometimes amounting to several million dollars. In such 
cases, this provision serves mainly as an incumbent protection 
provision. There continues to be no recognition of the considerable war 
chests that some incumbents have ready for use in Federal elections. 
This kind of provision works against the public policy goals of 
campaign finance reform.
  Second, although I reluctantly supported the Senate amendment to 
increase the individual hard money contribution limits, I did so only 
in the context of achieving broader reform.
  Quite simply, at that time, 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 placing proper restrictions on 
so-called sham issue ads.
  Of particular concern to me is the indexing of these contribution 
increases to inflation. That only ensures the continuing upward spiral 
of more money into our campaign finance system.
  Notwithstanding these two concerns, I am convinced that this 
legislation is narrowly tailored to strike the appropriate, and a 
constitutionally sound, balance between the two competing values 
scrutinized by the Supreme Court in Buckley v. Valeo, protecting free 
speech and limiting the ``actuality and the appearance of corruption.''
  It has been decades since Congress took similar comprehensive action 
with the enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The 
one thing we cannot afford to do is wait any longer, now is the time to 
enact the McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan legislation. The American people 
have waited long enough.
  I am privileged and honored to be part of the majority in support of 
campaign finance in general and this legislation in particular. In 
fact, there has never been a perfect campaign financing system because 
adjustments will always have to be made as legal and factual ingenuity 
outpaces the laws.
  It is an issue I have supported over the years since arriving in the 
Congress, including my time in both the House as well as the Senate.
  I stand ready to do what I can to make reform a reality in the 107th 
Congress.
  This final debate may find its place in history, along with the 
Senate debate during the weeks of March 19, 2001-April 2, 2001, as one 
of the greatest Senate debates in the last decade, both in terms of 
substance and 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, Senator Mitch McConnell. 
As my colleague from Kentucky has alluded to, the stakes in this 
legislation are considerable for many interested parties.
  I thank all of my colleagues for their patience and cooperation 
throughout this winding-down process and compliment them all for a 
difficult job well done in enacting comprehensive campaign finance 
reform.
  First, I must acknowledge that the Senate would not be here today in 
this historic posture if not for the determined leadership of Tom 
Daschle. No individual Member has been more consistent in support of 
campaign finance reform than our leader. And, no Member has worked 
harder behind the scenes to hold the Democratic caucus together in 
support of this issue.
  Majority Leader Daschle took several procedural actions to formally 
ensure timely final passage of this measure before recess. The talk of 
overnights and virtually ``around the clock'' sessions to accommodate a 
filibuster, if necessary, were not a threat

[[Page 3618]]

but a reality. Campaign finance is serious business. It is a major 
priority on the majority leader's agenda.
  It is only with his leadership that the Senate's work was completed 
by not only guaranteeing a timely vote on the legislation but also 
guaranteeing an opportunity for all Members to represent their views on 
the matter. I further compliment the majority leader for his 
willingness to provide the opportunity for a free debate even in the 
rush of final passage. This issue is of paramount importance to the 
continued health of this democracy.
  The majority leader's handling of this winding-down process of 
campaign finance debate exemplified the Senate at its best. The 
freeflow of ideas, the unrestricted opportunity to offer and debate 
amendments, and the ability of all Members to be heard are the 
hallmarks of this Senate, the world's greatest deliberative body.
  At the same time, I must also acknowledge the powerful influence of 
my colleague, the ranking member of the Rules Committee, for his 
devotion to the principles of free speech and association. His 
unyielding belief that most, if not all, proposed campaign finance 
reforms are not only unwise, but unconstitutional.
  I think all my colleagues would agree that Senator McConnell is a 
formidable advocate for his position. While we hear from the good 
Senator today, we are sure to hear from him in the future, even if in a 
different capacity.
  I congratulate my esteemed colleagues and good friends and the 
foremost leaders in campaign finance reform. Since 1995, the Senate 
leaders of campaign finance reform are Senator John McCain of Arizona 
and Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin. In the house, the leaders are 
Congressman Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Congressman Martin 
Meehan of Massachusetts.
  I acknowledge them for their vision in recognizing the powerfully 
negative influence of the money chase in our financing system. Their 
dogged persistence and patience in striving to craft a consensus on 
reform legislation that addresses the worst aspects of the current 
system is now paying off.
  I must express my great respect to my colleagues in the Democratic 
caucus, under the very able leadership of Majority Leader Daschle, 
along with a small group of courageous Senators across the aisle, who 
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 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 want to extend my special appreciation to Jennifer Duck and 
Michelle Ballantyne of Senator Daschle's staff, along with Mark 
Childress and Mark Patterson, who were invaluable in offering much 
needed expertise and guidance on bringing this legislation to final 
passage.
  Of equal assistance with both the substance and the procedures for 
this legislation were the staff of Senators Feingold and McCain, 
including Bob Schiff, Ann Choiniere and Jeanne Bumpus.
  I also want to acknowledge the contributions of Senator McConnell's 
staff, including Hunter Davis of his personal staff, and Tam 
Somerville, Brian Lewis, and Leon Sequeira of the Rules Committee 
minority staff.
  Finally, I want to thank Shawn Maher and Sheryl Cohen of my personal 
office staff, and Kennie Gill, the Democratic staff director and chief 
counsel of the rules committee as well as Veronica Gillespie, my 
elections counsel on the rules committee staff.
  This has been one of the most remarkable legislative experiences I 
have had the pleasure of working on during my time in the Senate. For 
all these reasons, I am privileged and honored to be associated with 
this legislation. But I must emphasize, the primary winners are all 
American citizens.
  Mr. BENNETT. Madam President, like the Senator from Kentucky, I have 
done everything I could throughout my time in the Senate to see that 
this bill does not become law. As the Senator from Kentucky, I can 
count and have thrown in the towel and become somewhat philosophical 
about it.
  I read in the newspapers about lawyers who are meeting down on K 
street even as we speak drawing up their alternative plan on the 
assumption that the President will sign this measure. It becomes very 
clear that the amount of money in politics will not diminish as a 
result of this bill. It will simply stop flowing to political parties, 
where it is regulated and reported, and start flowing into dark corners 
where we will have no idea how it is gathered. We will have no idea who 
is behind it, and we will see it pop up in campaigns in ways that 
political parties would never use.
  That, I believe, is a genuine and proper aspect of the future that we 
face.
  It makes no difference to me personally because this is an incumbent 
protection bill. It virtually guarantees that parties will be 
handicapped in their effort to recruit challengers since the parties 
can no longer promise the challengers the kind of support they have 
been giving in the past. Challengers will be thrown into the never-
never land of depending upon unknown special interest groups to come in 
without coordination and hopefully help the challenger. But as we have 
seen in my own State of Utah, many times the ads run by these special 
interest groups actually damage the people they are supposed to help.
  When the money was spent by parties, the challenger could call the 
party and say: Knock it off. But when it is spent by a special interest 
group, the challenger loses control of his campaign and is at the mercy 
of unknown forces and unreported money.
  That, I believe, is the future. But that is not why I have been so 
vigorous in opposing this bill. It is not why the Senator from Kentucky 
has been so vigorous in opposing this bill.
  We both took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the 
United States when we came to this body. I believe that oath is the 
most serious statement I have ever made in this Chamber.
  The Senator from Kentucky has led this fight fearlessly and 
courageously. The driving force has been our conviction that this bill 
is an affront to James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and the others who 
created the Constitution and who gave us freedom of speech in the first 
amendment in the first place.
  If you read the 10th Federalist, which I have done in this Chamber, 
you find that Madison lays out very specifically and very clearly how 
the factions can control democracy if they are not handled in a proper 
way. The most significant proper way to deal with the scourge of 
factions is to have full disclosure and full understanding of what is 
going on with this. With this bill, we drive political money into the 
dark corners.
  While it is a sad day, in my view, it is nonetheless a good day. Like 
the Senator from Kentucky, I believe I have fought the good fight. I 
have lost, as has he, but I have been proud to be one of his 
lieutenants as he has been the captain of this fight. He is going to 
carry the fight on through the courts, which is his constitutional 
right. I believe the courts will side with him, and the positions he 
has taken in this debate more often than they will differ.
  We will have a future. The Republic still lives. We will not see 
anything change for the better, in my view. And those of us who have 
stood on principle walk out with our heads held high.
  I congratulate the other side. They have fought fair. They have 
fought vigorously. I have had a number of conversations with Senator 
Feingold in which we have both expressed our affection for each other 
but our deep disagreement on this issue. I trust that affection will 
continue even as the disagreement does.
  I close by paying tribute to Senator McConnell for the leadership he 
has shown, for the valiance that he has demonstrated, and for, in my 
view, the constitutional loyalty and fidelity he has given the United 
States in this time.

[[Page 3619]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah, who 
has been in every one of these debates over the last decade. He has 
been a stalwart, articulate supporter of the first amendment. I am 
grateful for his friendship and for his kind words about our work on 
this great cause. I assure him, as expressed, that it is not over yet. 
We have another day in court. I thank the Senator from Utah for his 
kind words.
  I understand I have a minute remaining. Is that right?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to use those 2 minutes as the last speaker on this side of the 
issue. I don't intend to be the last speaker before the vote but the 
last speaker on this side of the issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin 
for yielding time and offer my congratulations to Senator Feingold and 
Senator McCain for an extraordinary effort against all the odds over a 
long period of time which brings the Senate to this moment.
  Like many of my colleagues, I intend to join in only a matter of 
moments in voting for the most fundamental campaign finance reform to 
reach this Congress in several decades. It is an important moment for 
the Congress. It is an attempt to restore public confidence and also to 
give ourselves a sense of confidence.
  None of us feels good about the financial pressures under which this 
institution operates. None of us feels good knowing that the public 
believes that all Americans do not stand equally in the eyes of the 
Senate. It is a situation that cannot endure.
  Today, we decide that it will not endure. I have supported every form 
of campaign finance reform for each of the 20 years in which I have 
served in the Congress. This is the most important.
  There are critical components of the legislation that I think make a 
great contribution: Elimination of soft money, raising the hard money 
limits, and the controlling of independent expenditures in the final 
weeks of a campaign. But I also think it is important not to raise 
expectations that all problems are being solved or that this is the 
last time our generation will need to make adjustments in the manner in 
which campaigns operate in America.
  First, the legislative fight over campaign finance reform is about to 
end. The judicial fight is about to begin. All of us recognize that the 
attempt to control independent expenditures may not be constitutional. 
If the courts indeed find that this is an infringement on free speech, 
the delicate balance of this legislation will be broken. Soft money 
will have been eliminated and fundraising by the political parties will 
be controlled. But independent groups would largely operate without 
restriction. It would be regrettable. I believe the courts will be in 
error. But it could happen. If it happens, and if the courts rule that 
the control of independent expenditures is unconstitutional, there is a 
risk that both the political parties and Federal candidates are to be 
nothing more than spectators in American elections with interest groups 
controlling the debate, raising the funds, and distorting the process.
  The challenge for this Congress, if that is the ruling of the court, 
is that we must return and find a way to ensure that candidates and 
political parties are not dominated by these independent voices.
  Second, this is an extraordinary victory for the controlling of 
campaign fundraising in large amounts to restore some sense of equality 
among donors, and, more importantly, among citizens.
  But the greatest unfinished aspect of the agenda in political reform 
is campaign spending. Campaign fundraising will never be brought into 
permissible limits with an acceptable demand on candidate time or 
amounts of money raised until the fundamental problem of campaign 
expenditures is addressed.
  This Senate met that responsibility. By a vote of 69 to 31, the 
Senate voted to reduce the cost of television advertising to the lowest 
unit cost. It was a critical reform, because most Federal candidates 
will tell you, it isn't just how much money is being raised, it is the 
time spent raising it, the extraordinary amounts of money that need to 
be accumulated. And 85 percent of that money is going to television 
networks.
  In an extraordinary act of hypocrisy, the same television networks, 
which have championed the cause of campaign finance reform, spent 
millions of dollars on lobbyists and exerted the very kind of financial 
pressure this legislation is intended to eliminate in saving themselves 
from being part of campaign finance reform.
  The provisions reducing the cost of television advertising were 
eliminated in the House of Representatives. We must never give up on 
that fight. Without these provisions reducing the costs of Federal 
campaigns by some manner or some form, money will find its way into the 
political system.
  In this legislation, we may vote to eliminate soft money to political 
parties, but if that demand remains on Federal candidates, some system 
will be invented or found, some loophole developed, to get the money 
into the system.
  I am proud to vote for this legislation. But I challenge the Senate, 
as McCain-Feingold is passed: Make it the beginning of a reform, not 
the end of reform. Let us return, next year, or even in the coming 
months, and challenge ourselves to do better: reduce the cost of 
campaigns, continue to find the mechanisms to assure every American 
that they have an equal chance and an equal voice to be heard.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. I 
certainly agree, there is much more to be done in our generation on 
campaign finance reform. I look forward to participating in that.
  Madam President, how much time do we have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I need.
  Madam President, I thank the many Members of this body, past and 
present, who have helped to bring us to this moment. Most important, as 
I mentioned in my other statement, the most important person I have to 
thank is, of course, my friend, John McCain.
  I also thank our earliest supporters, who gave their support to the 
McCain-Feingold bill when it was first introduced in the 104th 
Congress, Senators such as John Glenn, Paul Simon, Nancy Kassebaum-
Baker and Alan Simpson, who gave us crucial bipartisan support when 
this effort was just getting off the ground. This kind of bipartisan 
bill wasn't totally unprecedented. But it was pretty unusual, and the 
support of those distinguished Senators lent important credibility to 
our effort in its early days.
  I particularly thank Senator Carl Levin for his leadership and 
support during every debate we have had on this bill since 1996. His 
insight on the substance of the issue, and on the workings of this body 
have been absolutely crucial to the advancement of this legislation. 
Senator Levin is as tenacious and committed as any Member of this body. 
We truly would not be here today if he were not on our team.
  I also thank our distinguished colleague, Senator Susan Collins, for 
her invaluable contributions to this effort. She came on board our bill 
as a freshman Senator in 1997, despite tremendous pressure from her 
caucus. Over the years, we have met together with many of our 
colleagues. She has been a tireless advocate for reform, a terrific 
ally in this fight, and I am proud to call her a friend and a 
colleague.
  I, again, thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who has been a steadfast 
supporter of reform, and who helped to

[[Page 3620]]

build crucial momentum for this legislation with his leadership on the 
527 disclosure bill in the last Congress. The success of that 
legislation was a great breakthrough after so many years when any 
reform effort was stonewalled by our opponents. The day that bill 
passed the Senate, I remember thinking that enactment of the McCain-
Feingold bill was not going to be far behind.
  And, of course, the great breakthrough at the beginning of this 
Congress was the day when Senator Thad Cochran joined us in introducing 
this bill. I have great respect for Senator Cochran, and his support on 
this bill has been invaluable. I cannot thank him enough for his 
commitment to this legislation. Once he joined our effort, he was with 
us with every ounce of determination and grace that he brings to all of 
his work here in the Senate.
  One of our newest Members, Senator Maria Cantwell, also gave us 
important momentum when she made campaign finance reform a central 
issue in her campaign, and gave this bill her strong support. After her 
victory, the oft repeated claim that no Senator has ever lost an 
election over this issue could simply no longer be made.
  Senator John Edwards and Senator Chuck Schumer have both been 
terrific assets on this issue, especially right here on the Senate 
floor. Both of them have devoted a great deal of their time, and skill 
as debaters, to this bill, and I am very grateful for their efforts.
  The efforts of Senator Olympia Snowe and Senator Jim Jeffords to 
craft the provision on phony issue ads that came to be known as the 
Snowe-Jeffords legislation have been essential to this bill. They 
worked tirelessly to put together a balanced provision that gets at the 
root of the issue ad problem, and I thank them for their tremendous 
contribution. The Snowe-Jeffords provision is an integral part of our 
bill, and their mastery of this topic was invaluable to us.
  I am deeply grateful to Senator Fred Thompson for his longstanding 
and steadfast support of this bill, and for his great skill and 
fairness in negotiating an agreement on hard money limits that the vast 
majority of this body could support. Without that agreement, we simply 
could not have moved this bill through the Senate. I also pay special 
tribute to Senator Thompson for the work he did investigating the 1996 
campaign finance scandals. Senator Thompson cut his political teeth 
with his work on another great scandal in our Nation's history known as 
watergate, but his work in 1997 showed the Nation that the campaign 
finance issue is truly a bipartisan problem with a bipartisan solution. 
We will miss Fred Thompson leadership in the Senate.
  I also thank Senator Chris Dodd for his tremendous work as floor 
manager on the Democratic side, especially during the extraordinary and 
sometimes unpredictable debate we had last year. He led us through 
those 2 weeks with grace and humor and a fierce passion for reform that 
I deeply respect and for which I am deeply grateful.
  I of course, thank the Democratic Leader, Senator Tom Daschle, and 
his very able staff, for everything they have done to bring about the 
success of this legislation. In the fall of 1997, the entire Democratic 
Caucus united behind this legislation, and that unity has been crucial 
to our success.
  We are soon to have the vote on final passage because Tom Daschle was 
true to the principles of this party and led our caucus to follow 
through on our commitment we made to reform 4\1/2\ years ago. I am 
proud of the bipartisan effort we have made, but I am also proud to be 
a Democrat, and I deeply appreciate the solid support of my caucus on 
this issue.
  This list of thank-yous would not be complete without thanking my own 
staff. They have worked tirelessly to help me move this legislation 
forward, and they have done so with great skill and dedication. First I 
thank my chief counsel, Bob Schiff, for the outstanding contributions 
he has made to this legislation and to the cause of reform, and for the 
various all- night efforts he had to put in to get this thing done. I 
also thank my chief of staff, Mary Murphy, and other staffers, past and 
present, who have worked to make this moment possible, including Kitty 
Thomas, Andy Kutler, Sumner Slichter, Bill Dauster, Susanne Martinez, 
and Tom Walls. I also thank Jeanne Bumpus, Mark Salter, Mark Buse, and 
other members of Senator McCain's staff, past and present--in some ways 
it seemed as if we merged our staffs to accomplish this--and I thank 
them for their outstanding contributions to this bill. They have been a 
pleasure to work with. Many other current and former staffers from my 
office, and from other Senate and House offices, have also made vital 
contributions to the progress of this bill. Madam President, I ask 
unanimous consent that a list of their names be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       From Senator Feingold's staff and former staff: Mary 
     Bottari, Laura Grund, Ari Geller, Ben Hawkinson, Rebecca 
     Kratz, Anne McMahon, Brian O'Leary, Mary Frances Repko, 
     Thomas Reynolds, Mary Ann Richmond, Hillary Wenzler, Kirsten 
     White, Trevor Miller, Brad Jaffe, Tom McCormick, Rea Holmes, 
     Rebecca Kratz, and many others who have worked for Senator 
     Feingold and currently are on his staff.
       Other Senate Staff: Linda Gustitus, Elise Bean, Andrea 
     LaRue, Laurie Rubenstein, Michael Bopp, Mary Mitshow, Steve 
     Diamond, Jane Calderwood, John Richter, Eric Buehlmann, 
     Hannah Sistare, Bill Outhier, Brad Pruitt, Maureen Mahon, 
     Martin Siegel, Sharon Levin, Beth Stein, Nancy Ives, Glenn 
     Ivey.
       From the House staff: Amy Rosenbaum, Glen Shor, Dan Manatt, 
     Paul Pimental, Katie Levinson, Alison Rak, Kristin Miller, 
     Len Wolfsen, Kit Judge, Steve Elmendorf, George Candanis.
       From the Congressional Research Service: Joe Cantor and 
     Paige Whitaker.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I deeply appreciate the hard work of 
so many Members of the other body who fought for years to pass this 
legislation. Of course, especially, my thanks and those of Senator 
McCain go to Representatives Chris Shays and Marty Meehan for their 
determination and outstanding leadership on this issue, as well as to 
the House Minority Leader, Dick Gephardt.
  I also recognize the contributions made by many other House Members, 
including Representatives Zach Wamp, Mike Castle, Lindsey Graham, Nancy 
Pelosi, Jim Matheson, Harold Ford, Sander Levin, Jim Turner, Jim Leach, 
Jim Greenwood, Sherwood Boehlert, Amo Houghton, Nancy Johnson, Mark 
Kirk, Tom Petri, Todd Platts, Marge Roukema, Rob Simmons, John Lewis, 
Charlie Stenholm, Barney Frank, Steny Hoyer, John Conyers, and 
Silvestre Reyes, and former Representatives Tom Campbell and Linda 
Smith.
  Our bill also benefitted immeasurably from the incredible effort put 
in by outside organizations in support of this legislation. I recognize 
the outstanding contributions made by Fred Werthheimer and Democracy 
21. I also thank Don Simon, Scott Harshbarger, Meredith McGehee, Matt 
Keller and the staff of Common Cause for their tireless work to pass 
this legislation. Joan Claybrook and the staff of Public Citizen, 
including Frank Clemente and Steve Weissman, made crucial contributions 
to the progress of this bill. I also very much appreciate the work of 
Jerome Kohlberg, Cheryl Perrin, and Elaine Franklin of Campaign for 
America and Charles Kolb and Ed Kangas of the Committee for Economic 
Development to move this legislation forward.
  I realize that is a long list of people and organizations to thank. 
But it has been almost 7 years, and the praise I offer is well 
deserved. Without the work of these people, not just during this 
Congress but over many years, we would not have reached this exciting 
moment for reform and for our democracy.
  How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Wyden). Twenty-one minutes.
  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. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.

[[Page 3621]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it gives me enormous pleasure to yield 
15 minutes for the last major comments on this bill on our side to the 
man who made it all happen and started the whole thing and carried it 
to the finish, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend for 
yielding this time to me. I am grateful to my colleagues and the many 
people who have brought us to this point. This legislation will provide 
much-needed reform of our Federal election campaign laws.
  With the stroke of the President's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of 
millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that have caused 
Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives.
  This is a good bill. It is a legally sound bill. It is a fair bill 
that benefits neither party but that profits our political system and 
that will, I hope, help to restore the public's faith in government.
  So much has been said about the substance of this bill which has been 
hashed out literally for years and considered and reconsidered and 
perfected on the Senate floor in preparation for House passage. 
Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to a 
few people who have made this happen.
  First, I extend my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my friend 
Senator Feingold for his unwavering commitment to this cause. He has 
been a wise counsel and a stalwart partner through these years, and I 
will forever be proud to have my name associated with him on this issue 
and other reform issues.
  On occasion, politicians step up and match rhetoric with actions. 
Russ Feingold, at a time when there was about to be a flood of soft 
money advertising into his State in a very close and hard-fought 
political campaign, said no. Russ Feingold showed enormous courage 
because he was willing to put his political career on the line for what 
he believed.
  I thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for his steadfast 
support that enabled us to pass the McCain-Feingold bill last April and 
to bring it back this week for a final vote. I thank the Republican 
leader, Senator Lott, for his commitment to an open debate and for 
keeping the process fair. The majority and minority whips, Senators 
Reid and Nickles, have my sincere thanks as well.
  Senator Dodd managed our side of the debate with his typical skill 
and good humor. I thank Senator Levin as well for his critical 
contributions to the compromises that attracted majority support for 
the bill in both Houses of Congress.
  I am grateful to all my colleagues, supporters and opponents alike, 
for their contributions to the bill and to the debate. I would like to 
personally thank Senate Republican supporters, particularly Senator 
Thompson whom I will miss more than I can say. His friendship and wise 
counsel have been not only important to me as a Senator but were a 
critical element in achieving the legislative result we achieved in the 
Senate.
  To Senator Cochran, one of the senior Members and most well liked and 
respected Members of the Senate, who came on board on this issue at a 
time when we needed the credibility of a man of his stature, I will 
always be grateful. Senators Snowe and Collins, I think the State of 
Maine can be proud of both of those Senators, including Senator Snowe's 
contribution over one of the more difficult aspects of this 
legislation, the so-called Snowe-Jeffords amendment, without which it 
would not have been possible to pass this legislation.
  I am grateful for the valued support of Senators Specter, Chafee, 
Fitzgerald, Lugar, and Domenici, who gave legitimacy to our claims of 
bipartisan cooperation. I am grateful again, as I am so often, to 
Senator Chuck Hagel. It takes a brave and committed soul to take it 
upon himself, as he did a few weeks ago, to attempt to facilitate a 
resolution to this measure between myself and the other supporters of 
this bill and Senator McConnell. It is in large part due to his efforts 
that we have that resolution today.
  Senate passage of a bill, of course, is only half--or less than half, 
really--of the legislative battle. If it were not for the untiring work 
of Congressmen Chris Shays and Marty Meehan, the House sponsors of this 
legislation, we would not be here today. I will always hold them in the 
highest regard for their tenacious, unrelenting commitment to our 
shared goal. House minority leader Gephardt worked many long hours to 
hold the support of the vast majority of his caucus, and I am greatly 
indebted to him.
  I salute also the Members who signed the discharge petition that 
forced House consideration of this bill, and the brave Republicans in 
particular who voted for its passage.
  As I told my colleague Senator McConnell a few weeks ago, I won't 
miss our annual contests on this issue. No one in his right mind would 
want to continue against so formidable a foe. I can only hope, however, 
that should I ever find myself again in a pitched legislative battle--
shy as I am of entering into them--that my opponent is as principled as 
Senator Mitch McConnell. It has been a worthy effort by all involved, 
and I will always appreciate the dedication shown by all of my 
colleagues in their efforts to champion their beliefs.
  I am compelled to mention a few indispensable supporters. In 
particular, I thank Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21; all the good, 
dedicated folks at Common Cause: Scott Harshbarger, Meredith McGeehee, 
Matt Keller, and Don Simon, including Scott Harshbarger's talented and 
wonderful predecessor Ann McBride; Jerry Kolberg's Campaign for 
America; and the Committee for Economic Development. I am thankful also 
to Trevor Potter, a former FEC Commissioner, for his insight and sound 
political advice, and to Rick Davis who kept us focused on the big 
picture and provided invaluable strategic advice.
  I can't begin to name the many thousands of people not in this 
Chamber who have fought so hard and long and who gathered under the 
umbrella of a group called Americans for Reform. I want to mention the 
efforts by AARP, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, a broad 
coalition of religious organizations, Carla Eudy and the staff and 
supporters of Straight Talk America, for their tireless contributions 
in this effort and the honor of their friendship. Thanks also to my 
friend John Weaver for his help and guidance.
  I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of the staffers 
of the Senators who contributed significantly to this legislative 
effort.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                            Senate Staffers:

       Senator Cochran--Brad Prewitt and Clayton Heil.
       Senator Collins--Michael Bopp and Lynn Dondis.
       Senator Daschle--Andrea LaRue and Mark Childress.
       Senator Dodd--Kennie Gill and Veronica Gillespie.
       Senator Feingold--Mary Murphy, Bob Schiff, Bill Dauster.
       Senator Feinstein--Gray Maxwell and Mark Kadesh.
       Senator Hagel--Chad Woff.
       Senator Jeffords--Eric Buehlmann.
       Senator Levin--Linda Gustitus, and Ken Saccoccia.
       Senator Lieberman--Laurie Rubenstein.
       Senator Lott--Sharon Soderstrom.
       Senator McCain--Mark Buse, Mark Salter, Brooke Sikora, Joe 
     Donoghue, and Ann Begeman.
       Senator McConnell--Tamara Somerville, Hunter Bates, Andrew 
     Siff, and Brian Lewis.
       Senator Schumer--Martin Siegel.
       Senator Snowe--Jane Calderwood and John Richter.
       Senator Thompson--Bill Outhier, Hannah Sistare, and Fred 
     Ansell.

  Mr. McCAIN. In particular, I thank Mary Murphy and Bob Schiff, of 
Senator Feingold's staff, for all their work on this issue over the 
years. Let me also express my heartfelt gratitude to my former staffer 
Mark Buse, who recently left the Hill after working by my side on this 
issue for many years. This would not have been possible without him. I 
thank as well Mark's successor as Republican staff director

[[Page 3622]]

on the Commerce Committee, Jeanne Bumpus, who, in an incredibly short 
period of time, became expert on the many issues involved in this 
legislation and was an invaluable support to me.
  I also want to thank my administrative assistant and alter ego, Mark 
Salter, for his continued efforts not only here but in a broad variety 
of ways. I am grateful for his friendship.
  Mr. President, the proponents of this legislation have had, and 
continue to have, one purpose: to enact fair, bipartisan, campaign 
finance reform that seeks no special advantage for one party or 
another. Once we complete the Senate debate and vote on final passage, 
it will be up to the President to take the action that his spokesmen 
and advisors have led us to believe he will take--to sign the bill into 
law. It is my hope that he will deem it appropriate to do this.
  The supporters of campaign finance reform have differences about what 
constitutes ideal reform, but we have subordinated those differences to 
the common good. We all recognized one very simple truth: that campaign 
contributions from a single source that run to the hundreds of 
thousands or millions of dollars are not healthy to a democracy. Is 
that not self-evident? It is to the American people Mr. President. It 
is to the people.
  The reforms I believe we are about to pass will not cure public 
cynicism about politics. Nor will it completely free politics from 
influence peddling or the appearance of it. But I believe it might 
cause many Americans who are at present quite disaffected from the 
practices and institutions of our democracy to begin to see that their 
elected representatives value their reputations more than their 
incumbency. And maybe that recognition will cause them to exercise 
their franchise more faithfully, to identify more closely with 
political parties, to raise their expectations for the work we do. 
Maybe it will even encourage more Americans to seek public office, not 
for the privileges bestowed on election winners, but for the honor of 
serving a great nation. If by today's vote we make even small progress 
in this direction, I think we have rendered good service to our 
country, and I am proud of it.
  I respectfully ask my colleagues for their votes in support of final 
passage of this bill.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative 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, I understand I have 2 minutes left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, regretfully, this bill is going to pass 
and, in all likelihood, be signed by the President. I say 
``regretfully'' because, for those who wanted to reduce the amount of 
money in politics, this certainly will not do that. Not even close. It 
will dramatically take money away from the parties and then shift it to 
outside groups. The reason we know how much soft money the parties 
raise is because it is disclosed. But we will not know how much is 
given to the outside groups and who gives it because it is not 
disclosed. After this bill passes, outside groups will continue to 
raise unlimited amounts of soft money from all sources. In fact, 
Members of Congress will be able to raise unlimited amounts of soft 
money for those groups. It will be completely legal, and permitted by 
this legislation.
  We could have dealt with the issue of corruption, or the appearance 
of corruption--and I have to say ``appearance'' because there has been 
no evidence whatsoever of actual corruption--we could have dealt with 
an appearance problem by capping soft money, just as we capped hard 
money 25 years ago. That would have allowed the six national party 
committees to still be national committees, to still be able to support 
State and local candidates with non-Federal dollars. But, no, we 
decided to completely eliminate nonfederal money to the parties only--
certainly a step not required to deal with the alleged appearance of 
corruption.
  So, first, this bill will greatly weaken the parties and shift those 
resources to outside groups that will continue to engage in issue 
advocacy, as they have a constitutional right to do, with unlimited and 
undisclosed soft money.
  Ironically, the bill allows Members of Congress to raise that 
unlimited soft money for outside groups but not political parties. We 
are now able to do more for outside groups than we are able to do for 
our own political parties.
  Secondly, the bill seeks to impose a gag order on groups that have 
the audacity to mention people like us within 60 days of an election, 
by saying they have to go to the Federal Government--to register with 
the Federal Election Commission--and raise hard dollars just so they 
can mention candidates like us within 60 days of an election.
  For those two reasons, and for many more, I urge colleagues to vote 
no on final passage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, thanks to the courtesy of Senator 
McCain, it is my honor to bring the debate to a close. I will make a 
few brief comments and perhaps we can proceed to final passage of the 
bill.
  First of all, I wish to indicate my respect for the Senator from 
Kentucky. This has been a tremendous battle. We have had in this 
Chamber 3 weeks in the last 2 years debating this issue. I think it has 
been a very good process, and I certainly take seriously his arguments. 
Although we may have to pursue this matter in the courts, as we have 
done in some other matters, it is always an honorable venture.
  The main point I make, in conclusion, is that I believe in maybe 20 
or 30 years people will say: You know, there was a time when Members of 
Congress could actually ask people for $100,000, $500,000, or a 
million-dollar contribution, and it was perfectly legal. I think it 
will remind people of the stories we have heard about how there used to 
be briefcases full of cash floating around this building.
  It is almost unbelievable that there ever was a time in our recent 
history--in the last few years--when these kinds of almost inherently 
corrupt contributions could be given from corporate treasuries, union 
treasuries, or by individuals. It was a loophole that completely 
swallowed all the laws we had. They were imperfect laws. The hard money 
rules were the rules we had concerns about when we started this 
initiative. We wanted to fix that.
  This soft money system grew in such a way that we invited some of the 
greatest corruption in the history of our country. So it is my hope 
that 25 or 50 years from now people will say: How could you have 
possibly had a time when unlimited contributions were allowed? I look 
forward to people saying that.
  The reason I mention that time in the future is that, more than 
anything else, I care about this issue because of the young people in 
this country. I care about it because, believe it or not, I was once 
18. I am looking at the pages here who help us. When I was 16, 17, 18, 
I thought maybe I would have a chance to go into politics someday. Not 
a single person ever said to me: Well, you have to be a millionaire or 
you have to be able to access $500,000 or a million-dollar 
contribution. I was a person of average means, so it looked to be an 
area that maybe I could go into, and it excited me.
  Nothing has bothered me more in my public career than the thought 
that young people, looking to the future, might think that it is 
necessary to be multimillionaires or somehow have access to the soft 
money system, in order to participate--being able to participate as a 
voter and, yes, even being able to participate as a candidate as part 
of the American dream.
  Today, we hope to return a little bit of that dream to you. Yes, 
someday, as

[[Page 3623]]

John McCain has said, you are going to have to clean it up again 
because every 20 or 30 years the system needs some work.
  In the name of the young people of this country, whom I know will 
provide the enthusiasm to support future reforms, I want to bring the 
debate to a close.
  I yield the floor and the remainder of my time.
  I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there are no amendments to be offered, the 
question is on third reading and passage of the bill.
  The bill (H.R. 2356) was ordered to a third reading and was read the 
third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered and the clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 60, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--60

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
  The bill (H.R. 2356) was passed.
  Mr. REID. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  (Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries.)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Expressions of approval or disapproval are not 
permitted in the gallery.

                          ____________________