Summary:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(Senate - September 09, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10060-S10082] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Pending: McCain Amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing of Federal elections. Amendment No. 3554 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the pending amendment is numbered 3554. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while we are on the Interior appropriations bill, the current amendment is the McCain-Feingold campaign financing amendment. Whether we will use all of the time of the Senate between now and the time for a vote on a motion for cloture on the amendment, I am not certain. However, it is very unlikely, I say to my colleagues, that we will debate contested amendments to the Interior appropriations bill before we have completed debate on McCain-Feingold. However, we are available to deal with amendments that can be worked out and agreed to which we will send up and deal with if there are any short spaces of time in which Members are not available to discuss the McCain-Feingold bill. Members who have interests in the Interior appropriations bill who have amendments that they think will be accepted or can be worked out should be in contact with me or with staff of the Appropriations Committee, and we will attempt to work them in whenever it is convenient to do so. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I mention a scheduling item. I am confident that the agreement we reached yesterday was that there would be a vote either late tomorrow afternoon or early evening. Now I am told that there may be some Members on the other side who want to have an earlier vote. Mr. President, I will not agree to such a thing. I believe that we need more than 2 days' debate on this issue even though we have been over this issue many times before. I just want to tell my colleagues on both sides, but particularly on the other side of the aisle, I understand there are personal commitments and we will try to accommodate those, but to have a vote earlier than very late tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening I think would not be in keeping with the agreement that we reached yesterday. This is not a happy time for America. It is not a happy time for the institutions of government, especially the Presidency, but also the Congress. We are going through a very wrenching and difficult episode which already, I think most of us would agree, ranks in the first order of crises that affect this country. And it affects us. As I have said on numerous occasions, all of us are tarred by a brush when the institutions of government are diminished and affected by scandal. But it also points out the criticality of us addressing this issue of campaign finance reform now rather than later. In today's newspaper, ``Reno Sets 90-day Clinton Probe'': Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday opened a preliminary investigation of President Clinton that could lead to an independent counsel probe of allegations that he orchestrated a plan to violate spending limits for his 1996 reelection campaign. . . .The new Clinton inquiry was triggered by a preliminary report last month from the Federal Election Commission auditors. The auditors concluded that the DNC ads about issues such as Medicare and the budget amounted to ``electioneering'' on the President's behalf, and the Clinton-Gore campaign should be required to reimburse the government for the entire $13.4 million it received in Federal matching funds. This morning, in most of the major newspapers in America, there is a poll that is conducted by the Terrence Group and Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates--one Democrat and one Republican polling group: ``What do you think is the number one problem today? Moral-religious issues, 14 percent; crime and drugs, 14 percent; economy and jobs, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, perhaps moral and religious issues have been a No. 1 priority in America before, but I don't think there is any doubt that that is the case today. ``Which of the following issues do you want Congress to focus on? Restoring moral values, 22 percent; improving education, 19 percent; reducing taxes and Federal spending, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, when 22 percent of the American people say they believe that restoring values is the No. 1 issue they want Congress to focus on, I don't believe they are just referring to the problems concerning the Presidency and that crisis. I think they are talking about the fact that they don't believe that they, as individual citizens, are represented here in the Congress in the legislative process. I think they believe that special interests rule. I believe they are concerned that no longer are their concerns paramount, but only those of major contributors. The effect of this was manifested just yesterday in my home State of Arizona in the primary that was held, as has been true throughout the country. It was the lowest voter turnout, as a percentage, of any time in the history of my State. I don't think that voters didn't turn out to vote in the primary in Arizona yesterday because of their anger-- which may be justified--at the President of the United States; I think they didn't turn out because they believe that the present system of financing campaigns results in an exclusion of them in the legislative process; their homes and their dreams and aspirations for themselves and their families are no longer reflected here in the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk, which is commonly known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, is amended by Senators Snowe and Jeffords. This amendment would begin to reform a severely broken campaign finance system. Early last month, the Members of the other body did what the Senate has failed to do, and that is to pass genuine campaign finance reform. By so doing, they have given Members of this body who support reform encouragement that Congress, at long last, may accede to the wishes of the majority in both Houses of Congress and to the wishes of the vast majority of the people we represent by repairing a campaign finance system that has become a national embarrassment and assails the integrity of the office that we are privileged to hold. I want to commend and thank Representatives Shays and Meehan, and many other Members of the other body, whose courage and determination have given us a chance to reclaim the respect of the American people. I appeal to all Members of the Senate to listen to the majority of our colleagues in the other body, and to the majority of Senators, and seize this historic opportunity to give the Nation a campaign finance system that is worthy of the world's greatest democracy. Mr. President, no Washington pundit thought that the House would actually [[Page S10061]] pass campaign finance reform, but it did. It was not an easy fight. But those in favor of reform prevailed. I hope the majority in the Senate that favors reform will be able to prevail here. A majority in the House passed reform because the American people demand it. Members of the House recognized that the current system is awash in money, exploited loopholes, and publicly perceived corruption. It is a system that no Member of Congress should take pride in defending. Before I discuss the matter more fully, I want to remind my colleagues of three points. One, for reform to become law, it must be bipartisan. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that affects both parties in a fair and equal manner. Two, reform must seek to reduce the role of money in politics. Spending on campaigns in current inflation-adjusted dollars continues to rise. In constant dollars, the amount spent on House and Senate races in 1976 was $318 million. By 1986 that total had risen to $645 million, and in 1996 it was $765 million. Including the Presidential races, over a billion dollars was spent in the last campaign. As the need for money escalates, the influence of those who have it rises exponentially. Three, reform must seek a level playing field between challengers and incumbents. Our bill achieves this by recognizing the fact that incumbents must always raise more money than challengers. As a general rule, the candidate with the most money wins the race. If money is forced to play a lesser role, then challengers will have a better chance. The amendment before the Senate achieves these three points. Is the measure perfect? No. Is it a legitimate start for discussion? Yes. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support cloture and allow the Senate to work its will, to improve the measure where necessary, and begin a real dialog with the House on what can and should be sent to the President for his signature. I want to repeat that this is the Senate's opportunity to not only do what is right but what is necessary. Washington has lately become synonymous with scandal, but for all the recent scintillating revelations, the real scandal--a scandal that will not go away--is the money that is and has been corrupting our elections. Unless this Senate finds the courage to act, that scandal will not subside. Some will come to the floor and state that we do not need to reform how campaigns are run. They will state instead that we should simply enforce the laws that already exist. Mr. President, with all due respect, this argument is specious. Republicans demanded that the welfare system be reformed not only because it was the right thing to do but because the system was riddled with loopholes and was being abused and exploited. We didn't sit back and simply challenge the executive branch to enforce the laws. We acted, we changed the law, and we changed it in our society for the better. Let's do the same now. I know that many colleagues think this refrain has become all too familiar, and they are correct. This is not the first time our campaign finance system has been in need of reform, and it will undoubtedly not be the last, because as time passes, the flaws and loopholes in the law become more evidence. It is at that time that the Congress has historically done what is needed; it has passed campaign finance reform. The underlying purpose of this movement for the publication of contributions made for campaign purposes is to limit expenditures in political contests to legitimate purposes and to lessen the use of money in political elections. So said Senator Culberson in 1908. Senator Culberson inserted into the Record many letters, many of which could have been written today: For some years there has been earnest agitation of the question of enforcing campaign contributions relating to national elections. A strong public sentiment has been created in favor of this important regulation. In obedience to this sentiment, a bill is now pending in Congress providing for the desired publicity. The question is whether the bill will be passed, defeated, or smothered. The letter continues: No party should be afraid to go before the country with a record of its campaign financiering. No candidate for office should hesitate to have the people know the sources of campaign money. In other words, such contributions should come only from legitimate sources, and only money from such sources would be accepted, if the facts had to be made public: Hence, the great importance of publicity. The people do not want successful candidates to owe their elections to special interests affected by the subsequent administrations of such candidates. Such favors and obligations they involve are absolutely against the principles of honest government, whether that government be national, State, or municipal. In the House that same year 1908, Congressman Sulzer stated: In my opinion, this publicity campaign contribution bill is one of the most important measures before this House. It is a bill for more honest elections, to more effectively safeguard the elected franchise, and it affects the entire people of this country. It concerns the honor of the country. The honest people of the land want it passed. All parties should favor it. Recent investigations conclusively demonstrate how important to all the people of the country is the speedy enactment of this bill. Remember, this statement was made in 1908. In every national contest of recent years the campaign has been a disgraceful scramble to see which party could raise the most money, not for legitimate expenses but to carry a system of political iniquity that will not and cannot bear the light of publicity. Political corruption dreads the sun of publicity and works in the secret of darkness . . . Napoleon said victory was on the side of the heaviest guns. There are many thoughtful people in this country who have been saying since 1896 that the political victory in our Presidential contest is on the side of the campaign committee which can raise the largest boodle fund. This important bill for publicity of campaign contributions is a nonpartisan measure. There should be no politics in it. We should all advocate from patriotic motives; but some of the gentlemen on the other side are injecting party politics into it, and are doing everything in their power to prevent the Members of this House who sincerely favor the bill from having the opportunity to vote for it. . . It is a shame the way this bill is being strangled to death. In 1908, Congress went on to do the people's bidding. It passed the campaign finance reform legislation. In 1947, Senator Ellender stood on this floor, and stated: It came to my attention as chairman of that committee--and this feeling is shared by committee members joining me in sponsoring this bill--that the present statutes dealing with elections, campaign expenditures, and contributions, and limitations thereon, are utterly inadequate and unrealistic and as now in force and do not begin to accomplish the purposes for which they were enacted. . . I may state, Mr. President, that our committee last year found that many corporations and some labor organizations had spent thousands of dollars in Federal elections, but we could not force them to report for the reason that the money expended was not considered as contributions. So this bill requires any money spent to be reported by whoever makes the expenditure. Experience has shown that some corporations and labor unions have spent money directly on behalf of a party or candidate and thus I invaded the application of the prohibition upon contributions. In 1947 the Congress, again, responded to the public's disdain for the way our campaigns are financed and passed campaign finance reform legislation. In 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Congress again passed campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, after what we know about the last election, it is time again to pass campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, recently there was given to me a memo that is public knowledge: The Democratic National Committee, Democratic National Committee Managing Trustee Events and Membership Requirements Events; two annual Managing Trustee Events where the President in Washington, DC, attended; two annual meetings, trustee event for the Vice President, et cetera. It is kind of a standard thing that you see on these kind of things. But the thing that is interesting about this is the fifth one down, ``Annual Economic Trade Missions.'' ``Managing trustees are invited to participate in foreign trade missions, which affords opportunities to join Party leaders in meeting with business leaders abroad.'' Another memorandum that was given to me of May 5, 1994, to Anne Cahill from Martha Phipps: White House Activities: In order to reach our very aggressive goal of $40 million this year, it would be very helpful if we could coordinate the following activities between the White House and Democratic National Committee: 1. Two reserved seats on Air Force [[Page S10062]] One; and, 2. Six seats at all White House private dinners. No. 4: ``Invitations to participate in official delegation trips abroad. Contact: Alexis Herman.'' Mr. President, that is wrong. We know that is wrong. And the people who did it knew that it was wrong at the time. That is not an appropriate use of official trade missions. This gives rise to all the speculation and allegations concerning the transfer of technology to China. It makes it much more logical or believable when you read about these kinds of things. Mr. President, I know this legislation is not perfect. I know that if given the opportunity to offer amendments, many Members would do exactly that, and the measure could be improved. For example, I think there would be a majority vote in this body that would raise the individual spending limits to the level of $1,000, which it was in 1974, that some here may not agree with. But I believe the majority would. I believe that the Snowe-Jeffords amendment went a long way towards leveling the playing field as far as unions, businesses, and corporations are concerned. I know that there are other ways we could improve this legislation. I know that we can do that if my colleagues would vote for cloture. I appeal to my colleagues to muster the courage that led to reform in 1908, 1947, and 1974. Mr. President, I ran for public office first in 1982. It was not the kind of money in that campaign that I see today. When I meet a young man or woman who is interested in public office nowadays--I used to ask them, ``How do you feel about smaller government, taxes, less regulation?'' We would have discussions of the issues. Now there is only one question you ask a young man or woman who is interested in seeking public office. And I might add it seems to be fewer and fewer. The only question is, ``Where is the money? Where is the money?'' Because, if they don't have the money, obviously no matter how they stand on the issues, no matter how principled they are, and how impressive their resume might be, their chances of achieving public office are dramatically diminished. I know that many on this side of the aisle don't agree with all of the provisions of the amendment. I know they recognize that there is a problem--a problem that we have to address. This is our opportunity, and if we opt to gridlock over results, we will only fuel the cynicism of the American electorate. I want to point out again, every political expert is predicting that we will have the lowest voter turnout in this upcoming election than at any time in history. I think that is a sad commentary. I hope we will do what is right to take such steps as necessary to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Should we fail, we will have only ourselves to blame for the low esteem in which we are held by the American people. We will have done our part to degrade the high office to which we have been elected. We will by our inaction contribute to the alienation of the American people from the people who have sworn an oath to defend their interests. As I mentioned, Mr. President, yesterday was primary day in Arizona. Turn out was an all-time low, indicating another record-setting low turnout election day. I have no doubt whatsoever that the way in which we finance our campaigns has in no small measure contributed to the abysmal commentary of the health of our democracy. The people's contempt--there is no more charitable way to describe it--for us and for the way in which we attain our privileged place in government cannot be sustained perpetually. We will someday pay a high price for our inattention to this problem. We will forfeit our ability to lead the country as we meet the complicated challenges confronting us at the end of this century because we have so badly squandered the public respect necessary to persuade the Nation to take the often difficult actions that are required to defend the Nation's interests. Our ability to lead depends solely on the public's trust in us. Mr. President, people do not trust us today. And that breach, that calamity, is what the supporters of campaign finance reform intend to repair. I beg all of my colleagues to join in this effort and give our constituents a reason to again trust us, and to take pride in the institution we are so proud to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, some in the press have suggested there is a sense of momentum for this issue because it passed the House of Representatives. I would remind my colleagues that a measure similar to this passed the House in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and the 103d Congress. So it is not unusual, I would say, for the House of Representatives to pass this kind of legislation. It has happened before, and I would say it does not reveal any sense of momentum behind a plan that is constitutionally flawed. Speaking of the Constitution, we were on this same issue last fall and then we were on it again in February. The outcome was the same during those debates, and in a sense what we are doing is having the same debate once again. There have been suggestions, particularly on the other side, that the courts might be open to changing the Buckley case or revisiting it in some way. So I think it is always appropriate, when we have these periodic campaign finance debates, to bring my colleagues up to date on what has been happening in the courts. As we all know, the so-called reformers have been out around the country seeking to get new laws on the books at various States and localities, some by referendum, some by State statute. All of those, of course, are subsequently found in the courts, in litigation. So what I would like to do here at the outset is give my colleagues an update on what is happening in the courts; all of these court cases, by the way, reaffirming Buckley in one way or another. I would remind everyone--I think everyone in this Chamber surely knows the Buckley case, Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case in the area of campaign finance reform which has not been changed by any of the courts over the last almost 25 years. In fact, court decisions have deepened and broadened areas of permissible political speech over the quarter of a century since this landmark case, widely thought to have been written by Justice Brennan. So let me just run down a few cases that have been decided just since April of this year, since there is a good deal of litigation emanating from these State efforts to restrict the rights of people to be involved in political activity. On April 17, in Americans for Medical Rights v. Heller, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Nevada State Constitution could not be enforced so as to prevent issue advocacy groups from contributing more than $5,000 to a ballot initiative. This was a court response to an effort to try to shut up groups in criticizing politicians--very similar to the measure currently before us which seeks to make it essentially impossible for a group to criticize a politician in proximity to an election. On April 27, in Kruse v. Cincinnati, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Cincinnati ordinance placing spending caps on campaigns for city council violated the first amendment. This case is noteworthy. Here was a conscious effort on the part of the city council in Cincinnati to get a court, some court, to revisit the question of whether spending limits were permissible. This is something the Buckley case struck down forthwith, and forthrightly. That effort to get the court to reverse its decision was unsuccessful. On April 29, in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a State statute that attempted to regulate issue advocacy groups as unconstitutional. That is the same issue we have before us in the McCain-Feingold amendment, the effort by the Government to try to regulate constitutionally protected issue advocacy. On June 1, in FEC v. Akins, the Supreme Court held that voters have standing to challenge the FEC's dismissal of an administrative complaint. Although the Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the Court strongly suggested that a membership organization's communications with [[Page S10063]] its own members would not meet the definition of ``expenditures'' subject to regulation by Congress. In another case, on June 1, in Right to Life of Dutchess County v. FEC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York joined a chorus of many other Federal groups in striking down--striking down--an FEC regulation that prohibited corporate speech, even though that speech stopped short of the ``express advocacy'' standard adopted in the Buckley case. Then on June 4, in Russell v. Burris, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that contribution limits of $300 to certain State candidates violated the first amendment and that special privileges to so-called ``small donor'' PACs violated the equal protection clause. On June 11, in State of Washington v. 119 Vote No!, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a State statute which prohibits a person from sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact to be facially unconstitutional. On July 21, in Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a Virginia campaign finance statute could not reach the conduct of groups that engaged in issue advocacy. On July 23, in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a first amendment challenge of a State statute limiting campaign contributions was so likely to succeed that a preliminary injunction should issue preventing Missouri from enforcing the statute. On July 23, in Suster v. Marshall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enjoined the enforcement of a provision of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which capped spending in a judicial election for the Ohio Common Pleas Court at $75,000--again, a court decision striking down spending limits. On August 10, in Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. the State of Alaska, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska granted summary judgment, ruling Alaska's campaign finance reform legislation unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Finally, on August 11, in Vannatta v. Keisling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon ballot measure passed into law which prohibited State candidates from using or directing any contributions from out-of-district residents and penalizing candidates when more than 10 percent of their total funding comes from such individuals does not survive scrutiny under the first amendment. My reason for the recitation of these cases is these are cases just since April, and every single one of them, at least three of which are right on the point of issue advocacy, which is what we have before us today, have ruled these government restrictions unconstitutional. So there is virtually no chance--no chance--that the restrictions on citizens' ability to engage in issue advocacy contained in McCain- Feingold will be upheld as constitutional. There is certainly no evidence that the courts are moving in the direction of allowing governments at any level to restrain the voices of citizens at any time in proximity to an election or any other time. Mr. President, issue advocacy is, of course, as I said, constitutionally protected speech. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today are some of the most aggressive users of issue advocacy. These multimillion-dollar corporations express themselves without limitation at any point, both in the news sections and on the editorial pages. They are the practitioners of the first amendment. The problem with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today is that they think the first amendment only applies to them. It is amusing to look at the amount of space dedicated over the last 2 years by these three newspapers to their efforts to aid and abet those who would shut up citizens and make it difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights. Just looking at the New York Times, they have editorialized on the subject of campaign finance reform between July 1, 1997, and September 9, 1998, 82 times. The average number of days between campaign finance editorials in the New York Times is 8. On the average, every 8 days, the New York Times is lobbying for campaign finance reform, which they have a constitutional right to do. What is particularly amusing is the way in which they do it, which is remarkably similar to issue advocacy that groups engage in frequently on television. The typical issue ad says at the end of the ad, ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so ``and tell him to either keep on doing what he is doing'' or ``stop doing what he is doing.'' I thought it was particularly amusing that the April 21, 1998, editorial in the New York Times was just like issue advocacy. The same opportunity they would deny to anyone else, they engaged in themselves. They opined here about the importance of passing their version of campaign finance reform and then listed Members of the House and their phone numbers--exactly the kind of thing they don't want anybody else to do. Exactly the kind of thing they would prohibit every other American citizen from doing in proximity to an election, they are doing right here on the editorial page. Of course, the newspapers are exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act. I think they should be exempt, but I find it disingenuous in the extreme for them to engage in the very same practice. This is a huge, multi-, probably billion-dollar, American corporation, a corporation engaging in issue advocacy, putting the heat on elected officials, putting their phone numbers in there, saying call them--call them up and tell them to do this or not to do that. That is what they don't want anybody else in America to be able to do. Mr. President, part of what is at the root of this debate is: Who is going to have the opportunity to express themselves, who is going to be able to engage in political discourse, in this country? Just newspapers and nobody else? Boy, that would be a good deal for them. That is exactly what they have in mind, because they practice issue advocacy every day, and sometimes it is remarkably similar to the issue ads you see on television run by organized labor, or plaintiffs' lawyers, or you name it. ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so, ``and tell him to do'' this or do that, it said in the New York Times of April 21. The Washington Post has been not far behind, another megacorporation which exists for the purpose of influencing political discourse in this country. This big corporation, of course, like the other big corporation I just mentioned, the New York Times, is exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act, and this big corporation, too, would like to restrict the speech of other American citizens in order to enhance its own views. On the subject of campaign finance reform, going back to January 1, 1997, the Washington Post has written 53 editorials. The average number of days between editorials on campaign finance reform in the Washington Post is 12. So, Mr. President, every 12 days, this great, huge American corporation is lobbying the Congress to take a particular position on campaign finance reform. I defend their right to do it, but I find it amusing--if not really troubling more than amusing--that this kind of corporation should have this kind of influence and everybody else in society in proximity to an election would be essentially muffled from being able to mention a candidate's name in proximity to an election. So some big corporations would have an advantage; others a disadvantage. That is what the Washington Post would like--more power and more advantage. USA Today, another huge American corporation-- between January 1, 1997, and today, USA Today has run 25 editorials on the subject of campaign finance reform. That is an average of one every 25 days--another major American corporation seeking to influence the course of this legislation, which also supports McCain-Feingold, which would make it impossible for anybody else to do the same thing in proximity to an election. The USA Today editorial just yesterday was remarkably akin to an issue ad, Mr. President, remarkably akin to an issue ad, just like the New York Times editorial back in April I mentioned awhile ago. They state their case on the editorial page, and then they list all the Republican Senators, and particularly they highlight those [[Page S10064]] who are up for reelection this year. And they put their phone numbers by their names. Issue advocacy, Mr. President; within 60 days of an election. Under the bill they support, over at USA Today, nobody else in America could do this, could mention a candidate's name within 60 days of an election. So this big corporation would have its power further enhanced by the quieting of the voices of everybody else in America who sought to express themselves within 60 days of an election by maybe saying something unkind about some Member of Congress. So, Mr. President, there isn't any question; there is an enormous transfer of influence and power to the part of corporate America that owns and operates newspapers. Of course they are enthusiastic about this kind of legislation. This industry, the newspaper industry, which already has an enormous amount of power, would be dramatically more powerful if the kind of legislation we have before us were passed. Some would argue there is a media loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act because they are exempt from all of these restrictions that currently apply to everybody else, and certainly would be exempt of the greater restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on Americans of all kinds. Mr. President, there are some Americans who believe that newspapers are a bigger problem, a bigger problem than campaign contributors. There was an interesting article back on October 21, 1997--excuse me, Mr. President, it is a Rasmussen poll, an interesting finding. More than 80% of Americans would like to place restrictions on the way that newspapers cover political campaigns. In fact, restricting newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. Restrictions on newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. This is the American people in a poll in late 1997 discussing the influence of newspapers on the political process. Further, in the description of the poll finding, it says: One reason for the public desire to restrict newspapers is that Americans think reporters and editorial writers have a bigger impact on elections than campaign contributions. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. Not at the moment. The Rasmussen Research survey found that 68% of Americans believe newspaper editorials are more important than a $1,000 contribution. Only 17% think such contributions have a bigger impact. Americans may also support restrictions on reporters because more than seven-out-of-ten believe personal preferences of reporters influence their coverage of politics. In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe (by a 61% to 19% margin) that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. This comprehensive poll of American citizens on the influence of newspapers, in late 1997, found that Americans, by a margin of 61 percent to 19 percent, believe that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Mr. President, I am making these points somewhat tongue in cheek because, obviously, I am not advocating restrictions on newspapers. But what I find particularly outrageous is newspapers advocating restrictions on everyone else. Who are they to think that they are the only ones who are to have influence in the American political process? Richard Harwood of the Washington Post, on October 15, 1997, made some interesting points along those lines. Mr. Harwood said: It is fortunate for the press in the United States that the voice of the people is not the voice of God or the Supreme Court. That is because Americans, in the mass, believe in ``free speech'' and a ``free press'' only in theory. In practice they reject those concepts. That was the troubling conclusion drawn, ironically, from a major study of public opinion commissioned in 1990 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors as part of the observance of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. . . . .So this was a survey taken, I guess, by the Louis Harris organization for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. And Mr. Harwood points out the findings are, as he puts it, ``depressing.'' The first point in this survey of the American people, Harwood, in talking about the American people, said: If they had their way, ``the people''--meaning a majority of adults--would not allow journalists to practice their trade without first obtaining, as lawyers and doctors must, a license. The second finding of this survey: [The people] would confer on judges the power to impose fines on publishers and broadcasters for ``inaccurate and biased reporting''. . . . Third: They would empower government entities to monitor the work of journalists for fairness and compel us to ``give equal coverage to all sides of a controversial issue.'' They also favor the creation of local and national news councils to investigate complaints against the press and issue ``corrections'' of erroneous news reports. Harwood further points out, at the end of his article: So press freedoms remain, as in the past, dependent not on the goodwill of the masses but on the goodwill and philosophical disposition of the nine men and women of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I make those points to illustrate that the principal beneficiaries of the amendment before us are the huge corporations of America that control the press. They almost uniformly support legislation that would quiet the voices, at least in 60 days' proximity to an election, of all other American citizens, thereby enhancing the ability of newspapers to control the outcome of American elections. The good news, Mr. President, is we are not going to pass this legislation. The further good news is the courts would not uphold this legislation if we did pass it. I just mentioned three cases that have been handed down in the last 6 months indicating that Government restrictions on issue advocacy, tried by State governments, is clearly unconstitutional. But what is truly disturbing in this free country, Mr. President, is that these big corporations that own these newspapers are so aggressively advocating efforts to quiet the voices of other American citizens. It is truly alarming that in 1998 these big corporations, which already have enormous influence in our country, want to have even more. In fact, they want to have a monopoly on influence in proximity to an election. And as we all know, they are perfectly free to do editorials, both on the front page and on the editorial page--and do--up to and including the day before the election. And I defend their right to do it. But what is disturbing is they do not want to let anybody else have their say. So this legislation, Mr. President, dramatically benefits the fourth estate at the expense of other citizens in our country. Now, finally, before going to Senator Byrd, I have heard it said that we need to pass this kind of legislation. I have heard for over a decade we need to pass this kind of legislation in order to restore the faith of the American people in the Congress. In October of 1994, in the waning days of the end of Democrat control of this Congress, only 27 percent of the American people approved of the Congress. As of this past week, the congressional approval rating was 55 percent. Now, the 55 percent approval rating Congress has today comes after two Federal elections, 1994 and 1996, with record spending, three intervening filibusters of McCain-Feingold and its ancestor, Boren-Mitchell, and even the Clinton-Gore fundraising scandal. Clearly, Mr. President, there is no political imperative to pass campaign finance bills that are unconstitutional. To suggest that the Congress is still unpopular--which it isn't--or that when it was unpopular it was somehow related to this issue simply cannot be supported by the facts. Bill Schneider, a reputable pollster who works for CNN, back in February of this year had an interesting article in the National Journal. This was when the approval rating of Congress began to turn around. He pointed out in February 14 of this year: For the first time in at least 25 years, a majority of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Congress--perhaps the most ridiculed institution in America --has rarely gotten above a 40 per cent job-approval rating since 1974. Now, it's at 56 per cent. That was then; it is 55 percent now. ``What's going on here?'' said Bill Schneider. A balanced budget, a booming economy and--not the least important--a smaller government. ``We have the smallest government [[Page S10065]] in 35 years, but a more progressive one,'' the President said. Right now, trust in government is at its highest level since the Reagan era, when it was ``morning in America.'' Now, we clearly do not need to pass this unconstitutional legislation in order to deal with cynicism about the Congress, which enjoys a 55 percent approval rating. I might say that at the end of the Congress in 1994, I was personally involved in an all-night filibuster on September 30, 1994. I will never forget it. It is the only real filibuster we have had here in 10 years. It was an all-nighter. The cots were out. People were blurry eyed. But it was a remarkably uplifting event for those of us who were involved in it. We defeated Boren-Mitchell a mere 5 weeks before the greatest Republican congressional victory of this century. Suffice it to say, there is no connection between this issue and electoral success. The responses you get on polls on this issue depend on how you ask the question. This is an arcane, complicated subject, and it is the obligation and the responsibility of Members of the Senate to protect the Constitution, to protect political discourse in this country, and to do the right thing one more time. Mr. President, I am confident that, at the appropriate time, this amendment will be defeated. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might get consent to speak on another matter at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator has any notion about approximately how much time he would consume? Mr. BYRD. I guess it would be 45 minutes to an hour. It would give Senators a chance to get lunch. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say in all due respect to the most respected Senator from West Virginia, we have a limited amount of time to debate this issue. There are Senators who want to talk on it. I say in all respect to the Senator from West Virginia, we have just begun this debate. We just had the first opening statements. If we interrupt for 45 minutes to an hour, I think that would certainly disrupt this entire debate, which is of the greatest importance. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, in all great respect, would understand. Mr. BYRD. I do understand that. I have to be somewhere else from 1:30 on, for awhile. I had hoped that I might be able to speak out of order earlier. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me indicate, if I may, I will not object to this Senator's request. But let me say that after this address I do intend to object to any other discussions about other matters that do not have to do with the issue before us, before the scheduled cloture vote. But in this instance I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope that other Senators would permit me to proceed. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator at least wait until 12:30, if he has to be someplace at 1:30? We just began. There have been two statements that have been given on this very important issue. I understand and appreciate the seniority and respect and dignity that the Senator from West Virginia has, but this is incredibly disruptive, which I am sure the Senator from West Virginia can understand. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield so I might reply? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will remember that debate on the Interior bill is being interrupted here. I have no objection to that. And there was a request that there be no amendments until, I believe it was Friday or Thursday, at some point, or until we vote on cloture on this matter. I had no objection to that. But I could have objected. That debate was interrupted. I don't interrupt in debates very often. I hope the Senator will allow me to proceed in this instance. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because of the Senator from West Virginia, but the fact is we are debating an amendment just as we normally do. And we are under a unanimous consent agreement, which we normally do. The Senator from West Virginia could object to us going into session--we all know that-- because we function by unanimous consent. I think it is very unfortunate that when we have, really, now, a day and a half, and we just initiated debate on this very, very critical issue, the Senator has to do that at this time. I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield, I make the request I be recognized, upon the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Kentucky, for not to exceed 1 hour. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make brief remarks before the Senator from West Virginia begins. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I repeatedly asked the Senator from Kentucky if he would yield for a question about his statements about the case law, and he refused on several occasions. That is regrettable because I hope we will have a debate here, but I do appreciate his review of the case law. I think it is helpful, and I do want to hear Senator Byrd's remarks very shortly. Let me quickly point out that I heard the Senator from Kentucky discussing a Nevada case regarding restriction on spending on issue advocacy. But the bill before the Senate has no such restriction. So that case is not applicable to what is before the Senate. The Senator referred to the Cincinnati spending limits case. The problem is, our bill before the Senate does not have any spending limits in it. The Senator is arguing case law that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating here today. I think that is regrettable because this is supposed to be a debate about the amendment before the Senate. The Senator discussed a case involving in-state contributions. But there are no in-state limits included in this bill. And the same for the California case involving small donor---- Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. FEINGOLD. I will yield for a question, yes. Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Kentucky--if the Senator from Wisconsin was closely listening--didn't claim the cases were about issue advocacy. What the Senator from Kentucky said is that all the cases were further reinforcement of the Buckley decision and that several of the cases were about issue advocacy. Mr. FEINGOLD. None of the provisions that were specifically cited with regard to those cases has anything to do with the legislation before us. I will make the point now and continue to make the point throughout this debate that when case law is cited, it ought to have something to do with the matter before the Senate, or that clouds the issue of constitutionality in a way that is a disservice. If the Senator from Kentucky is going to make his arguments based on court cases, he should at least recognize and acknowledge that this version of the bill does not include many of the red herrings that he keeps presenting before the Senate. As we say in the law, these cases are readily distinguishable from the matter before us. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold amendment, in addition to Senators Thompson, Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, Senators Levin, Glenn, Lieberman, and Wellstone, who are long-time and vigorous supporters of this bill. [[Page S10066]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much look forward to the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia and appreciate his courtesy in allowing me to speak. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized for up to 60 minutes. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I thank, again, all Senators for allowing me to speak at this particular juncture. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Feingold pertaining to another subject are printed later in today's Record.) Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill was first introduced in the fall of 1995, just about 3 years ago. To date, thanks to the truly extraordinary efforts of our colleagues in the other House, we are as close as we have ever been to passing that bill and making a start on cleaning up the corrupt campaign finance system that has seemed so intractable for so long. As we stand here today, only eight votes stand between this bill and the President's desk--just eight votes. Only eight Senators out of all Members of the Congress are preventing this body from joining the other body in passing campaign finance reform. Eight Senators are blocking the Senate from banning soft money. Mr. President, the time for excuses is over. It is time to finish the job. It is time to pass campaign finance reform and send it on to the President. Let me first take a moment to remind my colleagues of what happened in the other body the week after we in the Senate left for the August recess. This campaign finance reform bill that all the pundits thought was dead and constantly claimed as dead actually passed the other body by a very strong vote. The vote was 252 to 179. That is right, Mr. President, 252 to 179 in the House. It wasn't even close. By any measure, the passage in the House of the Shays-Meehan version of the McCain-Feingold bill was a landslide. Sixty-one Republicans, over one- quarter of the Republican caucus in the entire House, voted for this bill. Mr. President, I think that should answer once and for all the allegation that the McCain-Feingold bill is a partisan piece of legislation. It is not. Sixty-one Republicans would not vote for a bill that is a Trojan horse for the Democratic Party. No, this bill has now been shown in both Houses to be a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. The House vote was the culmination of literally months of debate on campaign finance reform. The debate actually started, if you can believe this, on May 21 and did not conclude until August 6. There were 72 amendments offered to the House version of the Shays-Meehan bill. There were a total of 41 rollcall votes on those amendments. The House spent over 50 hours debating campaign finance reform, an amount of time that is almost unprecedented to spend on one bill over there. I think we do it fairly frequently here, but it is almost unprecedented in the House. The opponents of reform tried to take a page from the Senate playbook and openly proclaimed that they were going to try to kill the bill with amendments. Just like here, they offered poison pills and they tried to overwhelm the reformers with just the sheer number of amendments. They tried to drown them in amendments, but they failed, and they failed miserably. In the end, a reform bill emerged and passed the House that retained all of the essential features of the McCain-Feingold bill--a ban on soft money, improved disclosure of campaign contributions, codification of the Supreme Court Beck decision, and provisions designed to deal with campaign advertising that is dressed up as issue advertising. After many months of debate in the House, the bill has come back to the Senate. It is now on the calendar and is awaiting action. The majority leader objected to bringing up the House-passed version of McCain-Feingold, but, fortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Because we have the right as Senators to offer amendments to pending legislation, we were able to bring it up on this bill, and that is exactly what Senator McCain and I have done. We would have been delighted if the majority leader had agreed to bring up the House- passed version of the bill, and some comments that he made on ``Meet the Press'' this weekend suggested that he was going to do just that. But by offering our amendment, we will assure that the Senate will again vote on this issue, which is what the people of this country want. Once again, I want to say that I am very proud of the solid, 100- percent support of the Democratic Senators for this bill. I am grateful for the efforts of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, to keep this issue on the agenda and line up our caucus in support of the McCain- Feingold bill. But we are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do for our country. This campaign finance system is sapping the confidence of the American people in their Government. People have seen time and time again that these huge soft money contributions do influence the congressional agenda. They understand that we cannot act in the interest of average people if we are spending too much time trying to woo the big contributors. They know that soft money must be eliminated before it just totally swamps our elections and our legislature. It is absolutely critical that we finish the job now; that we finish the job now before the end of this Congress, otherwise, we will undoubtedly see an explosion of soft money fundraising as the parties get ready for the next big show, and that is the next Presidential election in the year 2000. If we go home and allow this soft money system to continue into the next Presidential election cycle, we will reap scandals that will make the scandals of 1996 look pale by comparison. Look at what has happened in this cycle already will give you a clue as to what is going to happen. Already in this cycle, according to Common Cause, the parties have raised a total of $116 million, and that is the most ever in a non-Presidential cycle. Soft money fundraising more than tripled from 1992 to 1996--from an already troubling amount of $86 million to the now staggering amount of $262 million. Based on that growth, some estimate that the parties could raise $600 million in soft money in the year 2000 cycle--$600 million. Over half a billion dollars in soft money is likely to be the consequence and the disgusting display in the year 2000. Mr. President, we already have a majority in this body, and with just eight more votes in the Senate we can stop this escalation of soft money. We can say to the political parties, Enough is enough. Go back to raising money under the limits established in the Federal Election Campaign Act. And then if somebody says, ``Well, we need more money,'' then start raising money from more people; get more people involved. Don't just extort more and more money from the major corporations and labor unions that are eager to curry favor with the Congress or the President. Mr. President, the American people are sick of tales of big money fundraisers. It is a terrible turnoff for a citizen of average means to read that people give $100,000, or $250,000 to sit at the head table with the President, or have a special meeting with the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. They do not want more stories like the story of Roger Tamraz who gave $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee hoping for the special access he needed to promote his pipeline project. Tamraz told the Governmental Affairs Committee that as he thought about it, the next time he would give $600,000 if he thought this would help his business and that getting special access was not just one of the reasons he gave to the DNC, he said it was the only reason he gave the $300,000 and would give $600,000--for special access. But these kinds of scandals are bound to come back again and again because our political parties, Mr. President, are addicted to soft money. They cannot get enough of it. And the reason is that they have found a way to make soft money work directly for them in Federal elections. This is an incredible [[Page S10067]] twist of a loophole that was established by the FEC in 1978. Remember that prior to 1996, most of the parties' soft money went into what were called party building activities--get out the vote drives, voter registration efforts, and the like. But then in 1996, the parties discovered the issue ad, and it was off to the races. Both Presidential campaigns directly benefited from these kinds of ads--you know, the ones that do not explicitly say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a candidate, but they are nonetheless obviously aimed at directly influencing an election, obviously intentionally intended to cause someone to vote specifically for one candidate or another. And they used party soft money to pay for the ads. Now, here is an irony, Mr. President. Just yesterday, Attorney General Reno announced yet another 90-day inquiry into the campaign finance scandals of the 1996 campaign. It has to do with issue ads run by the DNC, a portion of which were paid for with soft money. The allegation is that it was improper for the President to have participated in the development of that ad campaign. The McCain- Feingold amendment that is before us makes it very clear that such ads cannot be paid for with soft money and cannot be coordinated by the parties with their candidates. Yet some of the very people who are calling on the Attorney General to appoint this independent counsel are staunchly opposed to this amendment anyway. We also already have seen the parties and outside groups preparing to exploit the phony issue ad loophole in this election. Over the next month, more and more election ads will begin appearing around the country, but because of that loophole, in many cases there will be no disclosure either of the spending itself or of the identity of the donors who are really behind the ads. These issue ad campaigns, Mr. President, are blatantly targeted at specific elections, but again their creators intentionally avoid the elections law, but avoiding the so-called magic words of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' Here is an example. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported in July that the Republican Party is planning a $37 million issue advocacy campaign to begin running after Labor Day designed to help Republicans pick up seats in the House in November. Roll Call described the campaign as follows: Republican leaders are calling the plan ``Operation Break- Out:'' a comprehensive strategy to blanket as many as 50 to 60 battleground districts with ``issue advocacy'' television ads touting the GOP's success in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reforming welfare. The story then states that Republican officials predict that if Members help raise the $37 million, then the party will pick up as many as 25 additional seats. So they are candid. They are very upfront about the fact that this issue ad campaign is designed specifically to help elect more Republicans to the House, not just to talk about issues. So here you have the leaders of a national political party designing a huge media plan specifically to elect candidates from that party, and specifically planning to take advantage of the phony issue ad loophole so they can at least partially pay for the campaign with soft money. This is what the twin loopholes--soft money and phony issue ads--have led us to. And, of course, Mr. President, neither party is exem

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(Senate - September 09, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10060-S10082] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Pending: McCain Amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing of Federal elections. Amendment No. 3554 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the pending amendment is numbered 3554. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while we are on the Interior appropriations bill, the current amendment is the McCain-Feingold campaign financing amendment. Whether we will use all of the time of the Senate between now and the time for a vote on a motion for cloture on the amendment, I am not certain. However, it is very unlikely, I say to my colleagues, that we will debate contested amendments to the Interior appropriations bill before we have completed debate on McCain-Feingold. However, we are available to deal with amendments that can be worked out and agreed to which we will send up and deal with if there are any short spaces of time in which Members are not available to discuss the McCain-Feingold bill. Members who have interests in the Interior appropriations bill who have amendments that they think will be accepted or can be worked out should be in contact with me or with staff of the Appropriations Committee, and we will attempt to work them in whenever it is convenient to do so. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I mention a scheduling item. I am confident that the agreement we reached yesterday was that there would be a vote either late tomorrow afternoon or early evening. Now I am told that there may be some Members on the other side who want to have an earlier vote. Mr. President, I will not agree to such a thing. I believe that we need more than 2 days' debate on this issue even though we have been over this issue many times before. I just want to tell my colleagues on both sides, but particularly on the other side of the aisle, I understand there are personal commitments and we will try to accommodate those, but to have a vote earlier than very late tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening I think would not be in keeping with the agreement that we reached yesterday. This is not a happy time for America. It is not a happy time for the institutions of government, especially the Presidency, but also the Congress. We are going through a very wrenching and difficult episode which already, I think most of us would agree, ranks in the first order of crises that affect this country. And it affects us. As I have said on numerous occasions, all of us are tarred by a brush when the institutions of government are diminished and affected by scandal. But it also points out the criticality of us addressing this issue of campaign finance reform now rather than later. In today's newspaper, ``Reno Sets 90-day Clinton Probe'': Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday opened a preliminary investigation of President Clinton that could lead to an independent counsel probe of allegations that he orchestrated a plan to violate spending limits for his 1996 reelection campaign. . . .The new Clinton inquiry was triggered by a preliminary report last month from the Federal Election Commission auditors. The auditors concluded that the DNC ads about issues such as Medicare and the budget amounted to ``electioneering'' on the President's behalf, and the Clinton-Gore campaign should be required to reimburse the government for the entire $13.4 million it received in Federal matching funds. This morning, in most of the major newspapers in America, there is a poll that is conducted by the Terrence Group and Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates--one Democrat and one Republican polling group: ``What do you think is the number one problem today? Moral-religious issues, 14 percent; crime and drugs, 14 percent; economy and jobs, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, perhaps moral and religious issues have been a No. 1 priority in America before, but I don't think there is any doubt that that is the case today. ``Which of the following issues do you want Congress to focus on? Restoring moral values, 22 percent; improving education, 19 percent; reducing taxes and Federal spending, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, when 22 percent of the American people say they believe that restoring values is the No. 1 issue they want Congress to focus on, I don't believe they are just referring to the problems concerning the Presidency and that crisis. I think they are talking about the fact that they don't believe that they, as individual citizens, are represented here in the Congress in the legislative process. I think they believe that special interests rule. I believe they are concerned that no longer are their concerns paramount, but only those of major contributors. The effect of this was manifested just yesterday in my home State of Arizona in the primary that was held, as has been true throughout the country. It was the lowest voter turnout, as a percentage, of any time in the history of my State. I don't think that voters didn't turn out to vote in the primary in Arizona yesterday because of their anger-- which may be justified--at the President of the United States; I think they didn't turn out because they believe that the present system of financing campaigns results in an exclusion of them in the legislative process; their homes and their dreams and aspirations for themselves and their families are no longer reflected here in the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk, which is commonly known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, is amended by Senators Snowe and Jeffords. This amendment would begin to reform a severely broken campaign finance system. Early last month, the Members of the other body did what the Senate has failed to do, and that is to pass genuine campaign finance reform. By so doing, they have given Members of this body who support reform encouragement that Congress, at long last, may accede to the wishes of the majority in both Houses of Congress and to the wishes of the vast majority of the people we represent by repairing a campaign finance system that has become a national embarrassment and assails the integrity of the office that we are privileged to hold. I want to commend and thank Representatives Shays and Meehan, and many other Members of the other body, whose courage and determination have given us a chance to reclaim the respect of the American people. I appeal to all Members of the Senate to listen to the majority of our colleagues in the other body, and to the majority of Senators, and seize this historic opportunity to give the Nation a campaign finance system that is worthy of the world's greatest democracy. Mr. President, no Washington pundit thought that the House would actually [[Page S10061]] pass campaign finance reform, but it did. It was not an easy fight. But those in favor of reform prevailed. I hope the majority in the Senate that favors reform will be able to prevail here. A majority in the House passed reform because the American people demand it. Members of the House recognized that the current system is awash in money, exploited loopholes, and publicly perceived corruption. It is a system that no Member of Congress should take pride in defending. Before I discuss the matter more fully, I want to remind my colleagues of three points. One, for reform to become law, it must be bipartisan. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that affects both parties in a fair and equal manner. Two, reform must seek to reduce the role of money in politics. Spending on campaigns in current inflation-adjusted dollars continues to rise. In constant dollars, the amount spent on House and Senate races in 1976 was $318 million. By 1986 that total had risen to $645 million, and in 1996 it was $765 million. Including the Presidential races, over a billion dollars was spent in the last campaign. As the need for money escalates, the influence of those who have it rises exponentially. Three, reform must seek a level playing field between challengers and incumbents. Our bill achieves this by recognizing the fact that incumbents must always raise more money than challengers. As a general rule, the candidate with the most money wins the race. If money is forced to play a lesser role, then challengers will have a better chance. The amendment before the Senate achieves these three points. Is the measure perfect? No. Is it a legitimate start for discussion? Yes. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support cloture and allow the Senate to work its will, to improve the measure where necessary, and begin a real dialog with the House on what can and should be sent to the President for his signature. I want to repeat that this is the Senate's opportunity to not only do what is right but what is necessary. Washington has lately become synonymous with scandal, but for all the recent scintillating revelations, the real scandal--a scandal that will not go away--is the money that is and has been corrupting our elections. Unless this Senate finds the courage to act, that scandal will not subside. Some will come to the floor and state that we do not need to reform how campaigns are run. They will state instead that we should simply enforce the laws that already exist. Mr. President, with all due respect, this argument is specious. Republicans demanded that the welfare system be reformed not only because it was the right thing to do but because the system was riddled with loopholes and was being abused and exploited. We didn't sit back and simply challenge the executive branch to enforce the laws. We acted, we changed the law, and we changed it in our society for the better. Let's do the same now. I know that many colleagues think this refrain has become all too familiar, and they are correct. This is not the first time our campaign finance system has been in need of reform, and it will undoubtedly not be the last, because as time passes, the flaws and loopholes in the law become more evidence. It is at that time that the Congress has historically done what is needed; it has passed campaign finance reform. The underlying purpose of this movement for the publication of contributions made for campaign purposes is to limit expenditures in political contests to legitimate purposes and to lessen the use of money in political elections. So said Senator Culberson in 1908. Senator Culberson inserted into the Record many letters, many of which could have been written today: For some years there has been earnest agitation of the question of enforcing campaign contributions relating to national elections. A strong public sentiment has been created in favor of this important regulation. In obedience to this sentiment, a bill is now pending in Congress providing for the desired publicity. The question is whether the bill will be passed, defeated, or smothered. The letter continues: No party should be afraid to go before the country with a record of its campaign financiering. No candidate for office should hesitate to have the people know the sources of campaign money. In other words, such contributions should come only from legitimate sources, and only money from such sources would be accepted, if the facts had to be made public: Hence, the great importance of publicity. The people do not want successful candidates to owe their elections to special interests affected by the subsequent administrations of such candidates. Such favors and obligations they involve are absolutely against the principles of honest government, whether that government be national, State, or municipal. In the House that same year 1908, Congressman Sulzer stated: In my opinion, this publicity campaign contribution bill is one of the most important measures before this House. It is a bill for more honest elections, to more effectively safeguard the elected franchise, and it affects the entire people of this country. It concerns the honor of the country. The honest people of the land want it passed. All parties should favor it. Recent investigations conclusively demonstrate how important to all the people of the country is the speedy enactment of this bill. Remember, this statement was made in 1908. In every national contest of recent years the campaign has been a disgraceful scramble to see which party could raise the most money, not for legitimate expenses but to carry a system of political iniquity that will not and cannot bear the light of publicity. Political corruption dreads the sun of publicity and works in the secret of darkness . . . Napoleon said victory was on the side of the heaviest guns. There are many thoughtful people in this country who have been saying since 1896 that the political victory in our Presidential contest is on the side of the campaign committee which can raise the largest boodle fund. This important bill for publicity of campaign contributions is a nonpartisan measure. There should be no politics in it. We should all advocate from patriotic motives; but some of the gentlemen on the other side are injecting party politics into it, and are doing everything in their power to prevent the Members of this House who sincerely favor the bill from having the opportunity to vote for it. . . It is a shame the way this bill is being strangled to death. In 1908, Congress went on to do the people's bidding. It passed the campaign finance reform legislation. In 1947, Senator Ellender stood on this floor, and stated: It came to my attention as chairman of that committee--and this feeling is shared by committee members joining me in sponsoring this bill--that the present statutes dealing with elections, campaign expenditures, and contributions, and limitations thereon, are utterly inadequate and unrealistic and as now in force and do not begin to accomplish the purposes for which they were enacted. . . I may state, Mr. President, that our committee last year found that many corporations and some labor organizations had spent thousands of dollars in Federal elections, but we could not force them to report for the reason that the money expended was not considered as contributions. So this bill requires any money spent to be reported by whoever makes the expenditure. Experience has shown that some corporations and labor unions have spent money directly on behalf of a party or candidate and thus I invaded the application of the prohibition upon contributions. In 1947 the Congress, again, responded to the public's disdain for the way our campaigns are financed and passed campaign finance reform legislation. In 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Congress again passed campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, after what we know about the last election, it is time again to pass campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, recently there was given to me a memo that is public knowledge: The Democratic National Committee, Democratic National Committee Managing Trustee Events and Membership Requirements Events; two annual Managing Trustee Events where the President in Washington, DC, attended; two annual meetings, trustee event for the Vice President, et cetera. It is kind of a standard thing that you see on these kind of things. But the thing that is interesting about this is the fifth one down, ``Annual Economic Trade Missions.'' ``Managing trustees are invited to participate in foreign trade missions, which affords opportunities to join Party leaders in meeting with business leaders abroad.'' Another memorandum that was given to me of May 5, 1994, to Anne Cahill from Martha Phipps: White House Activities: In order to reach our very aggressive goal of $40 million this year, it would be very helpful if we could coordinate the following activities between the White House and Democratic National Committee: 1. Two reserved seats on Air Force [[Page S10062]] One; and, 2. Six seats at all White House private dinners. No. 4: ``Invitations to participate in official delegation trips abroad. Contact: Alexis Herman.'' Mr. President, that is wrong. We know that is wrong. And the people who did it knew that it was wrong at the time. That is not an appropriate use of official trade missions. This gives rise to all the speculation and allegations concerning the transfer of technology to China. It makes it much more logical or believable when you read about these kinds of things. Mr. President, I know this legislation is not perfect. I know that if given the opportunity to offer amendments, many Members would do exactly that, and the measure could be improved. For example, I think there would be a majority vote in this body that would raise the individual spending limits to the level of $1,000, which it was in 1974, that some here may not agree with. But I believe the majority would. I believe that the Snowe-Jeffords amendment went a long way towards leveling the playing field as far as unions, businesses, and corporations are concerned. I know that there are other ways we could improve this legislation. I know that we can do that if my colleagues would vote for cloture. I appeal to my colleagues to muster the courage that led to reform in 1908, 1947, and 1974. Mr. President, I ran for public office first in 1982. It was not the kind of money in that campaign that I see today. When I meet a young man or woman who is interested in public office nowadays--I used to ask them, ``How do you feel about smaller government, taxes, less regulation?'' We would have discussions of the issues. Now there is only one question you ask a young man or woman who is interested in seeking public office. And I might add it seems to be fewer and fewer. The only question is, ``Where is the money? Where is the money?'' Because, if they don't have the money, obviously no matter how they stand on the issues, no matter how principled they are, and how impressive their resume might be, their chances of achieving public office are dramatically diminished. I know that many on this side of the aisle don't agree with all of the provisions of the amendment. I know they recognize that there is a problem--a problem that we have to address. This is our opportunity, and if we opt to gridlock over results, we will only fuel the cynicism of the American electorate. I want to point out again, every political expert is predicting that we will have the lowest voter turnout in this upcoming election than at any time in history. I think that is a sad commentary. I hope we will do what is right to take such steps as necessary to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Should we fail, we will have only ourselves to blame for the low esteem in which we are held by the American people. We will have done our part to degrade the high office to which we have been elected. We will by our inaction contribute to the alienation of the American people from the people who have sworn an oath to defend their interests. As I mentioned, Mr. President, yesterday was primary day in Arizona. Turn out was an all-time low, indicating another record-setting low turnout election day. I have no doubt whatsoever that the way in which we finance our campaigns has in no small measure contributed to the abysmal commentary of the health of our democracy. The people's contempt--there is no more charitable way to describe it--for us and for the way in which we attain our privileged place in government cannot be sustained perpetually. We will someday pay a high price for our inattention to this problem. We will forfeit our ability to lead the country as we meet the complicated challenges confronting us at the end of this century because we have so badly squandered the public respect necessary to persuade the Nation to take the often difficult actions that are required to defend the Nation's interests. Our ability to lead depends solely on the public's trust in us. Mr. President, people do not trust us today. And that breach, that calamity, is what the supporters of campaign finance reform intend to repair. I beg all of my colleagues to join in this effort and give our constituents a reason to again trust us, and to take pride in the institution we are so proud to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, some in the press have suggested there is a sense of momentum for this issue because it passed the House of Representatives. I would remind my colleagues that a measure similar to this passed the House in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and the 103d Congress. So it is not unusual, I would say, for the House of Representatives to pass this kind of legislation. It has happened before, and I would say it does not reveal any sense of momentum behind a plan that is constitutionally flawed. Speaking of the Constitution, we were on this same issue last fall and then we were on it again in February. The outcome was the same during those debates, and in a sense what we are doing is having the same debate once again. There have been suggestions, particularly on the other side, that the courts might be open to changing the Buckley case or revisiting it in some way. So I think it is always appropriate, when we have these periodic campaign finance debates, to bring my colleagues up to date on what has been happening in the courts. As we all know, the so-called reformers have been out around the country seeking to get new laws on the books at various States and localities, some by referendum, some by State statute. All of those, of course, are subsequently found in the courts, in litigation. So what I would like to do here at the outset is give my colleagues an update on what is happening in the courts; all of these court cases, by the way, reaffirming Buckley in one way or another. I would remind everyone--I think everyone in this Chamber surely knows the Buckley case, Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case in the area of campaign finance reform which has not been changed by any of the courts over the last almost 25 years. In fact, court decisions have deepened and broadened areas of permissible political speech over the quarter of a century since this landmark case, widely thought to have been written by Justice Brennan. So let me just run down a few cases that have been decided just since April of this year, since there is a good deal of litigation emanating from these State efforts to restrict the rights of people to be involved in political activity. On April 17, in Americans for Medical Rights v. Heller, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Nevada State Constitution could not be enforced so as to prevent issue advocacy groups from contributing more than $5,000 to a ballot initiative. This was a court response to an effort to try to shut up groups in criticizing politicians--very similar to the measure currently before us which seeks to make it essentially impossible for a group to criticize a politician in proximity to an election. On April 27, in Kruse v. Cincinnati, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Cincinnati ordinance placing spending caps on campaigns for city council violated the first amendment. This case is noteworthy. Here was a conscious effort on the part of the city council in Cincinnati to get a court, some court, to revisit the question of whether spending limits were permissible. This is something the Buckley case struck down forthwith, and forthrightly. That effort to get the court to reverse its decision was unsuccessful. On April 29, in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a State statute that attempted to regulate issue advocacy groups as unconstitutional. That is the same issue we have before us in the McCain-Feingold amendment, the effort by the Government to try to regulate constitutionally protected issue advocacy. On June 1, in FEC v. Akins, the Supreme Court held that voters have standing to challenge the FEC's dismissal of an administrative complaint. Although the Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the Court strongly suggested that a membership organization's communications with [[Page S10063]] its own members would not meet the definition of ``expenditures'' subject to regulation by Congress. In another case, on June 1, in Right to Life of Dutchess County v. FEC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York joined a chorus of many other Federal groups in striking down--striking down--an FEC regulation that prohibited corporate speech, even though that speech stopped short of the ``express advocacy'' standard adopted in the Buckley case. Then on June 4, in Russell v. Burris, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that contribution limits of $300 to certain State candidates violated the first amendment and that special privileges to so-called ``small donor'' PACs violated the equal protection clause. On June 11, in State of Washington v. 119 Vote No!, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a State statute which prohibits a person from sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact to be facially unconstitutional. On July 21, in Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a Virginia campaign finance statute could not reach the conduct of groups that engaged in issue advocacy. On July 23, in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a first amendment challenge of a State statute limiting campaign contributions was so likely to succeed that a preliminary injunction should issue preventing Missouri from enforcing the statute. On July 23, in Suster v. Marshall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enjoined the enforcement of a provision of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which capped spending in a judicial election for the Ohio Common Pleas Court at $75,000--again, a court decision striking down spending limits. On August 10, in Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. the State of Alaska, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska granted summary judgment, ruling Alaska's campaign finance reform legislation unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Finally, on August 11, in Vannatta v. Keisling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon ballot measure passed into law which prohibited State candidates from using or directing any contributions from out-of-district residents and penalizing candidates when more than 10 percent of their total funding comes from such individuals does not survive scrutiny under the first amendment. My reason for the recitation of these cases is these are cases just since April, and every single one of them, at least three of which are right on the point of issue advocacy, which is what we have before us today, have ruled these government restrictions unconstitutional. So there is virtually no chance--no chance--that the restrictions on citizens' ability to engage in issue advocacy contained in McCain- Feingold will be upheld as constitutional. There is certainly no evidence that the courts are moving in the direction of allowing governments at any level to restrain the voices of citizens at any time in proximity to an election or any other time. Mr. President, issue advocacy is, of course, as I said, constitutionally protected speech. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today are some of the most aggressive users of issue advocacy. These multimillion-dollar corporations express themselves without limitation at any point, both in the news sections and on the editorial pages. They are the practitioners of the first amendment. The problem with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today is that they think the first amendment only applies to them. It is amusing to look at the amount of space dedicated over the last 2 years by these three newspapers to their efforts to aid and abet those who would shut up citizens and make it difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights. Just looking at the New York Times, they have editorialized on the subject of campaign finance reform between July 1, 1997, and September 9, 1998, 82 times. The average number of days between campaign finance editorials in the New York Times is 8. On the average, every 8 days, the New York Times is lobbying for campaign finance reform, which they have a constitutional right to do. What is particularly amusing is the way in which they do it, which is remarkably similar to issue advocacy that groups engage in frequently on television. The typical issue ad says at the end of the ad, ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so ``and tell him to either keep on doing what he is doing'' or ``stop doing what he is doing.'' I thought it was particularly amusing that the April 21, 1998, editorial in the New York Times was just like issue advocacy. The same opportunity they would deny to anyone else, they engaged in themselves. They opined here about the importance of passing their version of campaign finance reform and then listed Members of the House and their phone numbers--exactly the kind of thing they don't want anybody else to do. Exactly the kind of thing they would prohibit every other American citizen from doing in proximity to an election, they are doing right here on the editorial page. Of course, the newspapers are exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act. I think they should be exempt, but I find it disingenuous in the extreme for them to engage in the very same practice. This is a huge, multi-, probably billion-dollar, American corporation, a corporation engaging in issue advocacy, putting the heat on elected officials, putting their phone numbers in there, saying call them--call them up and tell them to do this or not to do that. That is what they don't want anybody else in America to be able to do. Mr. President, part of what is at the root of this debate is: Who is going to have the opportunity to express themselves, who is going to be able to engage in political discourse, in this country? Just newspapers and nobody else? Boy, that would be a good deal for them. That is exactly what they have in mind, because they practice issue advocacy every day, and sometimes it is remarkably similar to the issue ads you see on television run by organized labor, or plaintiffs' lawyers, or you name it. ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so, ``and tell him to do'' this or do that, it said in the New York Times of April 21. The Washington Post has been not far behind, another megacorporation which exists for the purpose of influencing political discourse in this country. This big corporation, of course, like the other big corporation I just mentioned, the New York Times, is exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act, and this big corporation, too, would like to restrict the speech of other American citizens in order to enhance its own views. On the subject of campaign finance reform, going back to January 1, 1997, the Washington Post has written 53 editorials. The average number of days between editorials on campaign finance reform in the Washington Post is 12. So, Mr. President, every 12 days, this great, huge American corporation is lobbying the Congress to take a particular position on campaign finance reform. I defend their right to do it, but I find it amusing--if not really troubling more than amusing--that this kind of corporation should have this kind of influence and everybody else in society in proximity to an election would be essentially muffled from being able to mention a candidate's name in proximity to an election. So some big corporations would have an advantage; others a disadvantage. That is what the Washington Post would like--more power and more advantage. USA Today, another huge American corporation-- between January 1, 1997, and today, USA Today has run 25 editorials on the subject of campaign finance reform. That is an average of one every 25 days--another major American corporation seeking to influence the course of this legislation, which also supports McCain-Feingold, which would make it impossible for anybody else to do the same thing in proximity to an election. The USA Today editorial just yesterday was remarkably akin to an issue ad, Mr. President, remarkably akin to an issue ad, just like the New York Times editorial back in April I mentioned awhile ago. They state their case on the editorial page, and then they list all the Republican Senators, and particularly they highlight those [[Page S10064]] who are up for reelection this year. And they put their phone numbers by their names. Issue advocacy, Mr. President; within 60 days of an election. Under the bill they support, over at USA Today, nobody else in America could do this, could mention a candidate's name within 60 days of an election. So this big corporation would have its power further enhanced by the quieting of the voices of everybody else in America who sought to express themselves within 60 days of an election by maybe saying something unkind about some Member of Congress. So, Mr. President, there isn't any question; there is an enormous transfer of influence and power to the part of corporate America that owns and operates newspapers. Of course they are enthusiastic about this kind of legislation. This industry, the newspaper industry, which already has an enormous amount of power, would be dramatically more powerful if the kind of legislation we have before us were passed. Some would argue there is a media loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act because they are exempt from all of these restrictions that currently apply to everybody else, and certainly would be exempt of the greater restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on Americans of all kinds. Mr. President, there are some Americans who believe that newspapers are a bigger problem, a bigger problem than campaign contributors. There was an interesting article back on October 21, 1997--excuse me, Mr. President, it is a Rasmussen poll, an interesting finding. More than 80% of Americans would like to place restrictions on the way that newspapers cover political campaigns. In fact, restricting newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. Restrictions on newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. This is the American people in a poll in late 1997 discussing the influence of newspapers on the political process. Further, in the description of the poll finding, it says: One reason for the public desire to restrict newspapers is that Americans think reporters and editorial writers have a bigger impact on elections than campaign contributions. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. Not at the moment. The Rasmussen Research survey found that 68% of Americans believe newspaper editorials are more important than a $1,000 contribution. Only 17% think such contributions have a bigger impact. Americans may also support restrictions on reporters because more than seven-out-of-ten believe personal preferences of reporters influence their coverage of politics. In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe (by a 61% to 19% margin) that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. This comprehensive poll of American citizens on the influence of newspapers, in late 1997, found that Americans, by a margin of 61 percent to 19 percent, believe that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Mr. President, I am making these points somewhat tongue in cheek because, obviously, I am not advocating restrictions on newspapers. But what I find particularly outrageous is newspapers advocating restrictions on everyone else. Who are they to think that they are the only ones who are to have influence in the American political process? Richard Harwood of the Washington Post, on October 15, 1997, made some interesting points along those lines. Mr. Harwood said: It is fortunate for the press in the United States that the voice of the people is not the voice of God or the Supreme Court. That is because Americans, in the mass, believe in ``free speech'' and a ``free press'' only in theory. In practice they reject those concepts. That was the troubling conclusion drawn, ironically, from a major study of public opinion commissioned in 1990 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors as part of the observance of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. . . . .So this was a survey taken, I guess, by the Louis Harris organization for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. And Mr. Harwood points out the findings are, as he puts it, ``depressing.'' The first point in this survey of the American people, Harwood, in talking about the American people, said: If they had their way, ``the people''--meaning a majority of adults--would not allow journalists to practice their trade without first obtaining, as lawyers and doctors must, a license. The second finding of this survey: [The people] would confer on judges the power to impose fines on publishers and broadcasters for ``inaccurate and biased reporting''. . . . Third: They would empower government entities to monitor the work of journalists for fairness and compel us to ``give equal coverage to all sides of a controversial issue.'' They also favor the creation of local and national news councils to investigate complaints against the press and issue ``corrections'' of erroneous news reports. Harwood further points out, at the end of his article: So press freedoms remain, as in the past, dependent not on the goodwill of the masses but on the goodwill and philosophical disposition of the nine men and women of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I make those points to illustrate that the principal beneficiaries of the amendment before us are the huge corporations of America that control the press. They almost uniformly support legislation that would quiet the voices, at least in 60 days' proximity to an election, of all other American citizens, thereby enhancing the ability of newspapers to control the outcome of American elections. The good news, Mr. President, is we are not going to pass this legislation. The further good news is the courts would not uphold this legislation if we did pass it. I just mentioned three cases that have been handed down in the last 6 months indicating that Government restrictions on issue advocacy, tried by State governments, is clearly unconstitutional. But what is truly disturbing in this free country, Mr. President, is that these big corporations that own these newspapers are so aggressively advocating efforts to quiet the voices of other American citizens. It is truly alarming that in 1998 these big corporations, which already have enormous influence in our country, want to have even more. In fact, they want to have a monopoly on influence in proximity to an election. And as we all know, they are perfectly free to do editorials, both on the front page and on the editorial page--and do--up to and including the day before the election. And I defend their right to do it. But what is disturbing is they do not want to let anybody else have their say. So this legislation, Mr. President, dramatically benefits the fourth estate at the expense of other citizens in our country. Now, finally, before going to Senator Byrd, I have heard it said that we need to pass this kind of legislation. I have heard for over a decade we need to pass this kind of legislation in order to restore the faith of the American people in the Congress. In October of 1994, in the waning days of the end of Democrat control of this Congress, only 27 percent of the American people approved of the Congress. As of this past week, the congressional approval rating was 55 percent. Now, the 55 percent approval rating Congress has today comes after two Federal elections, 1994 and 1996, with record spending, three intervening filibusters of McCain-Feingold and its ancestor, Boren-Mitchell, and even the Clinton-Gore fundraising scandal. Clearly, Mr. President, there is no political imperative to pass campaign finance bills that are unconstitutional. To suggest that the Congress is still unpopular--which it isn't--or that when it was unpopular it was somehow related to this issue simply cannot be supported by the facts. Bill Schneider, a reputable pollster who works for CNN, back in February of this year had an interesting article in the National Journal. This was when the approval rating of Congress began to turn around. He pointed out in February 14 of this year: For the first time in at least 25 years, a majority of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Congress--perhaps the most ridiculed institution in America --has rarely gotten above a 40 per cent job-approval rating since 1974. Now, it's at 56 per cent. That was then; it is 55 percent now. ``What's going on here?'' said Bill Schneider. A balanced budget, a booming economy and--not the least important--a smaller government. ``We have the smallest government [[Page S10065]] in 35 years, but a more progressive one,'' the President said. Right now, trust in government is at its highest level since the Reagan era, when it was ``morning in America.'' Now, we clearly do not need to pass this unconstitutional legislation in order to deal with cynicism about the Congress, which enjoys a 55 percent approval rating. I might say that at the end of the Congress in 1994, I was personally involved in an all-night filibuster on September 30, 1994. I will never forget it. It is the only real filibuster we have had here in 10 years. It was an all-nighter. The cots were out. People were blurry eyed. But it was a remarkably uplifting event for those of us who were involved in it. We defeated Boren-Mitchell a mere 5 weeks before the greatest Republican congressional victory of this century. Suffice it to say, there is no connection between this issue and electoral success. The responses you get on polls on this issue depend on how you ask the question. This is an arcane, complicated subject, and it is the obligation and the responsibility of Members of the Senate to protect the Constitution, to protect political discourse in this country, and to do the right thing one more time. Mr. President, I am confident that, at the appropriate time, this amendment will be defeated. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might get consent to speak on another matter at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator has any notion about approximately how much time he would consume? Mr. BYRD. I guess it would be 45 minutes to an hour. It would give Senators a chance to get lunch. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say in all due respect to the most respected Senator from West Virginia, we have a limited amount of time to debate this issue. There are Senators who want to talk on it. I say in all respect to the Senator from West Virginia, we have just begun this debate. We just had the first opening statements. If we interrupt for 45 minutes to an hour, I think that would certainly disrupt this entire debate, which is of the greatest importance. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, in all great respect, would understand. Mr. BYRD. I do understand that. I have to be somewhere else from 1:30 on, for awhile. I had hoped that I might be able to speak out of order earlier. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me indicate, if I may, I will not object to this Senator's request. But let me say that after this address I do intend to object to any other discussions about other matters that do not have to do with the issue before us, before the scheduled cloture vote. But in this instance I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope that other Senators would permit me to proceed. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator at least wait until 12:30, if he has to be someplace at 1:30? We just began. There have been two statements that have been given on this very important issue. I understand and appreciate the seniority and respect and dignity that the Senator from West Virginia has, but this is incredibly disruptive, which I am sure the Senator from West Virginia can understand. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield so I might reply? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will remember that debate on the Interior bill is being interrupted here. I have no objection to that. And there was a request that there be no amendments until, I believe it was Friday or Thursday, at some point, or until we vote on cloture on this matter. I had no objection to that. But I could have objected. That debate was interrupted. I don't interrupt in debates very often. I hope the Senator will allow me to proceed in this instance. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because of the Senator from West Virginia, but the fact is we are debating an amendment just as we normally do. And we are under a unanimous consent agreement, which we normally do. The Senator from West Virginia could object to us going into session--we all know that-- because we function by unanimous consent. I think it is very unfortunate that when we have, really, now, a day and a half, and we just initiated debate on this very, very critical issue, the Senator has to do that at this time. I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield, I make the request I be recognized, upon the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Kentucky, for not to exceed 1 hour. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make brief remarks before the Senator from West Virginia begins. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I repeatedly asked the Senator from Kentucky if he would yield for a question about his statements about the case law, and he refused on several occasions. That is regrettable because I hope we will have a debate here, but I do appreciate his review of the case law. I think it is helpful, and I do want to hear Senator Byrd's remarks very shortly. Let me quickly point out that I heard the Senator from Kentucky discussing a Nevada case regarding restriction on spending on issue advocacy. But the bill before the Senate has no such restriction. So that case is not applicable to what is before the Senate. The Senator referred to the Cincinnati spending limits case. The problem is, our bill before the Senate does not have any spending limits in it. The Senator is arguing case law that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating here today. I think that is regrettable because this is supposed to be a debate about the amendment before the Senate. The Senator discussed a case involving in-state contributions. But there are no in-state limits included in this bill. And the same for the California case involving small donor---- Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. FEINGOLD. I will yield for a question, yes. Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Kentucky--if the Senator from Wisconsin was closely listening--didn't claim the cases were about issue advocacy. What the Senator from Kentucky said is that all the cases were further reinforcement of the Buckley decision and that several of the cases were about issue advocacy. Mr. FEINGOLD. None of the provisions that were specifically cited with regard to those cases has anything to do with the legislation before us. I will make the point now and continue to make the point throughout this debate that when case law is cited, it ought to have something to do with the matter before the Senate, or that clouds the issue of constitutionality in a way that is a disservice. If the Senator from Kentucky is going to make his arguments based on court cases, he should at least recognize and acknowledge that this version of the bill does not include many of the red herrings that he keeps presenting before the Senate. As we say in the law, these cases are readily distinguishable from the matter before us. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold amendment, in addition to Senators Thompson, Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, Senators Levin, Glenn, Lieberman, and Wellstone, who are long-time and vigorous supporters of this bill. [[Page S10066]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much look forward to the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia and appreciate his courtesy in allowing me to speak. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized for up to 60 minutes. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I thank, again, all Senators for allowing me to speak at this particular juncture. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Feingold pertaining to another subject are printed later in today's Record.) Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill was first introduced in the fall of 1995, just about 3 years ago. To date, thanks to the truly extraordinary efforts of our colleagues in the other House, we are as close as we have ever been to passing that bill and making a start on cleaning up the corrupt campaign finance system that has seemed so intractable for so long. As we stand here today, only eight votes stand between this bill and the President's desk--just eight votes. Only eight Senators out of all Members of the Congress are preventing this body from joining the other body in passing campaign finance reform. Eight Senators are blocking the Senate from banning soft money. Mr. President, the time for excuses is over. It is time to finish the job. It is time to pass campaign finance reform and send it on to the President. Let me first take a moment to remind my colleagues of what happened in the other body the week after we in the Senate left for the August recess. This campaign finance reform bill that all the pundits thought was dead and constantly claimed as dead actually passed the other body by a very strong vote. The vote was 252 to 179. That is right, Mr. President, 252 to 179 in the House. It wasn't even close. By any measure, the passage in the House of the Shays-Meehan version of the McCain-Feingold bill was a landslide. Sixty-one Republicans, over one- quarter of the Republican caucus in the entire House, voted for this bill. Mr. President, I think that should answer once and for all the allegation that the McCain-Feingold bill is a partisan piece of legislation. It is not. Sixty-one Republicans would not vote for a bill that is a Trojan horse for the Democratic Party. No, this bill has now been shown in both Houses to be a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. The House vote was the culmination of literally months of debate on campaign finance reform. The debate actually started, if you can believe this, on May 21 and did not conclude until August 6. There were 72 amendments offered to the House version of the Shays-Meehan bill. There were a total of 41 rollcall votes on those amendments. The House spent over 50 hours debating campaign finance reform, an amount of time that is almost unprecedented to spend on one bill over there. I think we do it fairly frequently here, but it is almost unprecedented in the House. The opponents of reform tried to take a page from the Senate playbook and openly proclaimed that they were going to try to kill the bill with amendments. Just like here, they offered poison pills and they tried to overwhelm the reformers with just the sheer number of amendments. They tried to drown them in amendments, but they failed, and they failed miserably. In the end, a reform bill emerged and passed the House that retained all of the essential features of the McCain-Feingold bill--a ban on soft money, improved disclosure of campaign contributions, codification of the Supreme Court Beck decision, and provisions designed to deal with campaign advertising that is dressed up as issue advertising. After many months of debate in the House, the bill has come back to the Senate. It is now on the calendar and is awaiting action. The majority leader objected to bringing up the House-passed version of McCain-Feingold, but, fortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Because we have the right as Senators to offer amendments to pending legislation, we were able to bring it up on this bill, and that is exactly what Senator McCain and I have done. We would have been delighted if the majority leader had agreed to bring up the House- passed version of the bill, and some comments that he made on ``Meet the Press'' this weekend suggested that he was going to do just that. But by offering our amendment, we will assure that the Senate will again vote on this issue, which is what the people of this country want. Once again, I want to say that I am very proud of the solid, 100- percent support of the Democratic Senators for this bill. I am grateful for the efforts of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, to keep this issue on the agenda and line up our caucus in support of the McCain- Feingold bill. But we are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do for our country. This campaign finance system is sapping the confidence of the American people in their Government. People have seen time and time again that these huge soft money contributions do influence the congressional agenda. They understand that we cannot act in the interest of average people if we are spending too much time trying to woo the big contributors. They know that soft money must be eliminated before it just totally swamps our elections and our legislature. It is absolutely critical that we finish the job now; that we finish the job now before the end of this Congress, otherwise, we will undoubtedly see an explosion of soft money fundraising as the parties get ready for the next big show, and that is the next Presidential election in the year 2000. If we go home and allow this soft money system to continue into the next Presidential election cycle, we will reap scandals that will make the scandals of 1996 look pale by comparison. Look at what has happened in this cycle already will give you a clue as to what is going to happen. Already in this cycle, according to Common Cause, the parties have raised a total of $116 million, and that is the most ever in a non-Presidential cycle. Soft money fundraising more than tripled from 1992 to 1996--from an already troubling amount of $86 million to the now staggering amount of $262 million. Based on that growth, some estimate that the parties could raise $600 million in soft money in the year 2000 cycle--$600 million. Over half a billion dollars in soft money is likely to be the consequence and the disgusting display in the year 2000. Mr. President, we already have a majority in this body, and with just eight more votes in the Senate we can stop this escalation of soft money. We can say to the political parties, Enough is enough. Go back to raising money under the limits established in the Federal Election Campaign Act. And then if somebody says, ``Well, we need more money,'' then start raising money from more people; get more people involved. Don't just extort more and more money from the major corporations and labor unions that are eager to curry favor with the Congress or the President. Mr. President, the American people are sick of tales of big money fundraisers. It is a terrible turnoff for a citizen of average means to read that people give $100,000, or $250,000 to sit at the head table with the President, or have a special meeting with the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. They do not want more stories like the story of Roger Tamraz who gave $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee hoping for the special access he needed to promote his pipeline project. Tamraz told the Governmental Affairs Committee that as he thought about it, the next time he would give $600,000 if he thought this would help his business and that getting special access was not just one of the reasons he gave to the DNC, he said it was the only reason he gave the $300,000 and would give $600,000--for special access. But these kinds of scandals are bound to come back again and again because our political parties, Mr. President, are addicted to soft money. They cannot get enough of it. And the reason is that they have found a way to make soft money work directly for them in Federal elections. This is an incredible [[Page S10067]] twist of a loophole that was established by the FEC in 1978. Remember that prior to 1996, most of the parties' soft money went into what were called party building activities--get out the vote drives, voter registration efforts, and the like. But then in 1996, the parties discovered the issue ad, and it was off to the races. Both Presidential campaigns directly benefited from these kinds of ads--you know, the ones that do not explicitly say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a candidate, but they are nonetheless obviously aimed at directly influencing an election, obviously intentionally intended to cause someone to vote specifically for one candidate or another. And they used party soft money to pay for the ads. Now, here is an irony, Mr. President. Just yesterday, Attorney General Reno announced yet another 90-day inquiry into the campaign finance scandals of the 1996 campaign. It has to do with issue ads run by the DNC, a portion of which were paid for with soft money. The allegation is that it was improper for the President to have participated in the development of that ad campaign. The McCain- Feingold amendment that is before us makes it very clear that such ads cannot be paid for with soft money and cannot be coordinated by the parties with their candidates. Yet some of the very people who are calling on the Attorney General to appoint this independent counsel are staunchly opposed to this amendment anyway. We also already have seen the parties and outside groups preparing to exploit the phony issue ad loophole in this election. Over the next month, more and more election ads will begin appearing around the country, but because of that loophole, in many cases there will be no disclosure either of the spending itself or of the identity of the donors who are really behind the ads. These issue ad campaigns, Mr. President, are blatantly targeted at specific elections, but again their creators intentionally avoid the elections law, but avoiding the so-called magic words of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' Here is an example. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported in July that the Republican Party is planning a $37 million issue advocacy campaign to begin running after Labor Day designed to help Republicans pick up seats in the House in November. Roll Call described the campaign as follows: Republican leaders are calling the plan ``Operation Break- Out:'' a comprehensive strategy to blanket as many as 50 to 60 battleground districts with ``issue advocacy'' television ads touting the GOP's success in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reforming welfare. The story then states that Republican officials predict that if Members help raise the $37 million, then the party will pick up as many as 25 additional seats. So they are candid. They are very upfront about the fact that this issue ad campaign is designed specifically to help elect more Republicans to the House, not just to talk about issues. So here you have the leaders of a national political party designing a huge media plan specifically to elect candidates from that party, and specifically planning to take advantage of the phony issue ad loophole so they can at least partially pay for the campaign with soft money. This is what the twin loopholes--soft money and phony issue ads--have led us to. And, of course, Mr. President, neither par

Summary:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(Senate - September 09, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10060-S10082] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Pending: McCain Amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing of Federal elections. Amendment No. 3554 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the pending amendment is numbered 3554. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while we are on the Interior appropriations bill, the current amendment is the McCain-Feingold campaign financing amendment. Whether we will use all of the time of the Senate between now and the time for a vote on a motion for cloture on the amendment, I am not certain. However, it is very unlikely, I say to my colleagues, that we will debate contested amendments to the Interior appropriations bill before we have completed debate on McCain-Feingold. However, we are available to deal with amendments that can be worked out and agreed to which we will send up and deal with if there are any short spaces of time in which Members are not available to discuss the McCain-Feingold bill. Members who have interests in the Interior appropriations bill who have amendments that they think will be accepted or can be worked out should be in contact with me or with staff of the Appropriations Committee, and we will attempt to work them in whenever it is convenient to do so. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I mention a scheduling item. I am confident that the agreement we reached yesterday was that there would be a vote either late tomorrow afternoon or early evening. Now I am told that there may be some Members on the other side who want to have an earlier vote. Mr. President, I will not agree to such a thing. I believe that we need more than 2 days' debate on this issue even though we have been over this issue many times before. I just want to tell my colleagues on both sides, but particularly on the other side of the aisle, I understand there are personal commitments and we will try to accommodate those, but to have a vote earlier than very late tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening I think would not be in keeping with the agreement that we reached yesterday. This is not a happy time for America. It is not a happy time for the institutions of government, especially the Presidency, but also the Congress. We are going through a very wrenching and difficult episode which already, I think most of us would agree, ranks in the first order of crises that affect this country. And it affects us. As I have said on numerous occasions, all of us are tarred by a brush when the institutions of government are diminished and affected by scandal. But it also points out the criticality of us addressing this issue of campaign finance reform now rather than later. In today's newspaper, ``Reno Sets 90-day Clinton Probe'': Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday opened a preliminary investigation of President Clinton that could lead to an independent counsel probe of allegations that he orchestrated a plan to violate spending limits for his 1996 reelection campaign. . . .The new Clinton inquiry was triggered by a preliminary report last month from the Federal Election Commission auditors. The auditors concluded that the DNC ads about issues such as Medicare and the budget amounted to ``electioneering'' on the President's behalf, and the Clinton-Gore campaign should be required to reimburse the government for the entire $13.4 million it received in Federal matching funds. This morning, in most of the major newspapers in America, there is a poll that is conducted by the Terrence Group and Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates--one Democrat and one Republican polling group: ``What do you think is the number one problem today? Moral-religious issues, 14 percent; crime and drugs, 14 percent; economy and jobs, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, perhaps moral and religious issues have been a No. 1 priority in America before, but I don't think there is any doubt that that is the case today. ``Which of the following issues do you want Congress to focus on? Restoring moral values, 22 percent; improving education, 19 percent; reducing taxes and Federal spending, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, when 22 percent of the American people say they believe that restoring values is the No. 1 issue they want Congress to focus on, I don't believe they are just referring to the problems concerning the Presidency and that crisis. I think they are talking about the fact that they don't believe that they, as individual citizens, are represented here in the Congress in the legislative process. I think they believe that special interests rule. I believe they are concerned that no longer are their concerns paramount, but only those of major contributors. The effect of this was manifested just yesterday in my home State of Arizona in the primary that was held, as has been true throughout the country. It was the lowest voter turnout, as a percentage, of any time in the history of my State. I don't think that voters didn't turn out to vote in the primary in Arizona yesterday because of their anger-- which may be justified--at the President of the United States; I think they didn't turn out because they believe that the present system of financing campaigns results in an exclusion of them in the legislative process; their homes and their dreams and aspirations for themselves and their families are no longer reflected here in the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk, which is commonly known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, is amended by Senators Snowe and Jeffords. This amendment would begin to reform a severely broken campaign finance system. Early last month, the Members of the other body did what the Senate has failed to do, and that is to pass genuine campaign finance reform. By so doing, they have given Members of this body who support reform encouragement that Congress, at long last, may accede to the wishes of the majority in both Houses of Congress and to the wishes of the vast majority of the people we represent by repairing a campaign finance system that has become a national embarrassment and assails the integrity of the office that we are privileged to hold. I want to commend and thank Representatives Shays and Meehan, and many other Members of the other body, whose courage and determination have given us a chance to reclaim the respect of the American people. I appeal to all Members of the Senate to listen to the majority of our colleagues in the other body, and to the majority of Senators, and seize this historic opportunity to give the Nation a campaign finance system that is worthy of the world's greatest democracy. Mr. President, no Washington pundit thought that the House would actually [[Page S10061]] pass campaign finance reform, but it did. It was not an easy fight. But those in favor of reform prevailed. I hope the majority in the Senate that favors reform will be able to prevail here. A majority in the House passed reform because the American people demand it. Members of the House recognized that the current system is awash in money, exploited loopholes, and publicly perceived corruption. It is a system that no Member of Congress should take pride in defending. Before I discuss the matter more fully, I want to remind my colleagues of three points. One, for reform to become law, it must be bipartisan. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that affects both parties in a fair and equal manner. Two, reform must seek to reduce the role of money in politics. Spending on campaigns in current inflation-adjusted dollars continues to rise. In constant dollars, the amount spent on House and Senate races in 1976 was $318 million. By 1986 that total had risen to $645 million, and in 1996 it was $765 million. Including the Presidential races, over a billion dollars was spent in the last campaign. As the need for money escalates, the influence of those who have it rises exponentially. Three, reform must seek a level playing field between challengers and incumbents. Our bill achieves this by recognizing the fact that incumbents must always raise more money than challengers. As a general rule, the candidate with the most money wins the race. If money is forced to play a lesser role, then challengers will have a better chance. The amendment before the Senate achieves these three points. Is the measure perfect? No. Is it a legitimate start for discussion? Yes. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support cloture and allow the Senate to work its will, to improve the measure where necessary, and begin a real dialog with the House on what can and should be sent to the President for his signature. I want to repeat that this is the Senate's opportunity to not only do what is right but what is necessary. Washington has lately become synonymous with scandal, but for all the recent scintillating revelations, the real scandal--a scandal that will not go away--is the money that is and has been corrupting our elections. Unless this Senate finds the courage to act, that scandal will not subside. Some will come to the floor and state that we do not need to reform how campaigns are run. They will state instead that we should simply enforce the laws that already exist. Mr. President, with all due respect, this argument is specious. Republicans demanded that the welfare system be reformed not only because it was the right thing to do but because the system was riddled with loopholes and was being abused and exploited. We didn't sit back and simply challenge the executive branch to enforce the laws. We acted, we changed the law, and we changed it in our society for the better. Let's do the same now. I know that many colleagues think this refrain has become all too familiar, and they are correct. This is not the first time our campaign finance system has been in need of reform, and it will undoubtedly not be the last, because as time passes, the flaws and loopholes in the law become more evidence. It is at that time that the Congress has historically done what is needed; it has passed campaign finance reform. The underlying purpose of this movement for the publication of contributions made for campaign purposes is to limit expenditures in political contests to legitimate purposes and to lessen the use of money in political elections. So said Senator Culberson in 1908. Senator Culberson inserted into the Record many letters, many of which could have been written today: For some years there has been earnest agitation of the question of enforcing campaign contributions relating to national elections. A strong public sentiment has been created in favor of this important regulation. In obedience to this sentiment, a bill is now pending in Congress providing for the desired publicity. The question is whether the bill will be passed, defeated, or smothered. The letter continues: No party should be afraid to go before the country with a record of its campaign financiering. No candidate for office should hesitate to have the people know the sources of campaign money. In other words, such contributions should come only from legitimate sources, and only money from such sources would be accepted, if the facts had to be made public: Hence, the great importance of publicity. The people do not want successful candidates to owe their elections to special interests affected by the subsequent administrations of such candidates. Such favors and obligations they involve are absolutely against the principles of honest government, whether that government be national, State, or municipal. In the House that same year 1908, Congressman Sulzer stated: In my opinion, this publicity campaign contribution bill is one of the most important measures before this House. It is a bill for more honest elections, to more effectively safeguard the elected franchise, and it affects the entire people of this country. It concerns the honor of the country. The honest people of the land want it passed. All parties should favor it. Recent investigations conclusively demonstrate how important to all the people of the country is the speedy enactment of this bill. Remember, this statement was made in 1908. In every national contest of recent years the campaign has been a disgraceful scramble to see which party could raise the most money, not for legitimate expenses but to carry a system of political iniquity that will not and cannot bear the light of publicity. Political corruption dreads the sun of publicity and works in the secret of darkness . . . Napoleon said victory was on the side of the heaviest guns. There are many thoughtful people in this country who have been saying since 1896 that the political victory in our Presidential contest is on the side of the campaign committee which can raise the largest boodle fund. This important bill for publicity of campaign contributions is a nonpartisan measure. There should be no politics in it. We should all advocate from patriotic motives; but some of the gentlemen on the other side are injecting party politics into it, and are doing everything in their power to prevent the Members of this House who sincerely favor the bill from having the opportunity to vote for it. . . It is a shame the way this bill is being strangled to death. In 1908, Congress went on to do the people's bidding. It passed the campaign finance reform legislation. In 1947, Senator Ellender stood on this floor, and stated: It came to my attention as chairman of that committee--and this feeling is shared by committee members joining me in sponsoring this bill--that the present statutes dealing with elections, campaign expenditures, and contributions, and limitations thereon, are utterly inadequate and unrealistic and as now in force and do not begin to accomplish the purposes for which they were enacted. . . I may state, Mr. President, that our committee last year found that many corporations and some labor organizations had spent thousands of dollars in Federal elections, but we could not force them to report for the reason that the money expended was not considered as contributions. So this bill requires any money spent to be reported by whoever makes the expenditure. Experience has shown that some corporations and labor unions have spent money directly on behalf of a party or candidate and thus I invaded the application of the prohibition upon contributions. In 1947 the Congress, again, responded to the public's disdain for the way our campaigns are financed and passed campaign finance reform legislation. In 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Congress again passed campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, after what we know about the last election, it is time again to pass campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, recently there was given to me a memo that is public knowledge: The Democratic National Committee, Democratic National Committee Managing Trustee Events and Membership Requirements Events; two annual Managing Trustee Events where the President in Washington, DC, attended; two annual meetings, trustee event for the Vice President, et cetera. It is kind of a standard thing that you see on these kind of things. But the thing that is interesting about this is the fifth one down, ``Annual Economic Trade Missions.'' ``Managing trustees are invited to participate in foreign trade missions, which affords opportunities to join Party leaders in meeting with business leaders abroad.'' Another memorandum that was given to me of May 5, 1994, to Anne Cahill from Martha Phipps: White House Activities: In order to reach our very aggressive goal of $40 million this year, it would be very helpful if we could coordinate the following activities between the White House and Democratic National Committee: 1. Two reserved seats on Air Force [[Page S10062]] One; and, 2. Six seats at all White House private dinners. No. 4: ``Invitations to participate in official delegation trips abroad. Contact: Alexis Herman.'' Mr. President, that is wrong. We know that is wrong. And the people who did it knew that it was wrong at the time. That is not an appropriate use of official trade missions. This gives rise to all the speculation and allegations concerning the transfer of technology to China. It makes it much more logical or believable when you read about these kinds of things. Mr. President, I know this legislation is not perfect. I know that if given the opportunity to offer amendments, many Members would do exactly that, and the measure could be improved. For example, I think there would be a majority vote in this body that would raise the individual spending limits to the level of $1,000, which it was in 1974, that some here may not agree with. But I believe the majority would. I believe that the Snowe-Jeffords amendment went a long way towards leveling the playing field as far as unions, businesses, and corporations are concerned. I know that there are other ways we could improve this legislation. I know that we can do that if my colleagues would vote for cloture. I appeal to my colleagues to muster the courage that led to reform in 1908, 1947, and 1974. Mr. President, I ran for public office first in 1982. It was not the kind of money in that campaign that I see today. When I meet a young man or woman who is interested in public office nowadays--I used to ask them, ``How do you feel about smaller government, taxes, less regulation?'' We would have discussions of the issues. Now there is only one question you ask a young man or woman who is interested in seeking public office. And I might add it seems to be fewer and fewer. The only question is, ``Where is the money? Where is the money?'' Because, if they don't have the money, obviously no matter how they stand on the issues, no matter how principled they are, and how impressive their resume might be, their chances of achieving public office are dramatically diminished. I know that many on this side of the aisle don't agree with all of the provisions of the amendment. I know they recognize that there is a problem--a problem that we have to address. This is our opportunity, and if we opt to gridlock over results, we will only fuel the cynicism of the American electorate. I want to point out again, every political expert is predicting that we will have the lowest voter turnout in this upcoming election than at any time in history. I think that is a sad commentary. I hope we will do what is right to take such steps as necessary to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Should we fail, we will have only ourselves to blame for the low esteem in which we are held by the American people. We will have done our part to degrade the high office to which we have been elected. We will by our inaction contribute to the alienation of the American people from the people who have sworn an oath to defend their interests. As I mentioned, Mr. President, yesterday was primary day in Arizona. Turn out was an all-time low, indicating another record-setting low turnout election day. I have no doubt whatsoever that the way in which we finance our campaigns has in no small measure contributed to the abysmal commentary of the health of our democracy. The people's contempt--there is no more charitable way to describe it--for us and for the way in which we attain our privileged place in government cannot be sustained perpetually. We will someday pay a high price for our inattention to this problem. We will forfeit our ability to lead the country as we meet the complicated challenges confronting us at the end of this century because we have so badly squandered the public respect necessary to persuade the Nation to take the often difficult actions that are required to defend the Nation's interests. Our ability to lead depends solely on the public's trust in us. Mr. President, people do not trust us today. And that breach, that calamity, is what the supporters of campaign finance reform intend to repair. I beg all of my colleagues to join in this effort and give our constituents a reason to again trust us, and to take pride in the institution we are so proud to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, some in the press have suggested there is a sense of momentum for this issue because it passed the House of Representatives. I would remind my colleagues that a measure similar to this passed the House in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and the 103d Congress. So it is not unusual, I would say, for the House of Representatives to pass this kind of legislation. It has happened before, and I would say it does not reveal any sense of momentum behind a plan that is constitutionally flawed. Speaking of the Constitution, we were on this same issue last fall and then we were on it again in February. The outcome was the same during those debates, and in a sense what we are doing is having the same debate once again. There have been suggestions, particularly on the other side, that the courts might be open to changing the Buckley case or revisiting it in some way. So I think it is always appropriate, when we have these periodic campaign finance debates, to bring my colleagues up to date on what has been happening in the courts. As we all know, the so-called reformers have been out around the country seeking to get new laws on the books at various States and localities, some by referendum, some by State statute. All of those, of course, are subsequently found in the courts, in litigation. So what I would like to do here at the outset is give my colleagues an update on what is happening in the courts; all of these court cases, by the way, reaffirming Buckley in one way or another. I would remind everyone--I think everyone in this Chamber surely knows the Buckley case, Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case in the area of campaign finance reform which has not been changed by any of the courts over the last almost 25 years. In fact, court decisions have deepened and broadened areas of permissible political speech over the quarter of a century since this landmark case, widely thought to have been written by Justice Brennan. So let me just run down a few cases that have been decided just since April of this year, since there is a good deal of litigation emanating from these State efforts to restrict the rights of people to be involved in political activity. On April 17, in Americans for Medical Rights v. Heller, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Nevada State Constitution could not be enforced so as to prevent issue advocacy groups from contributing more than $5,000 to a ballot initiative. This was a court response to an effort to try to shut up groups in criticizing politicians--very similar to the measure currently before us which seeks to make it essentially impossible for a group to criticize a politician in proximity to an election. On April 27, in Kruse v. Cincinnati, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Cincinnati ordinance placing spending caps on campaigns for city council violated the first amendment. This case is noteworthy. Here was a conscious effort on the part of the city council in Cincinnati to get a court, some court, to revisit the question of whether spending limits were permissible. This is something the Buckley case struck down forthwith, and forthrightly. That effort to get the court to reverse its decision was unsuccessful. On April 29, in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a State statute that attempted to regulate issue advocacy groups as unconstitutional. That is the same issue we have before us in the McCain-Feingold amendment, the effort by the Government to try to regulate constitutionally protected issue advocacy. On June 1, in FEC v. Akins, the Supreme Court held that voters have standing to challenge the FEC's dismissal of an administrative complaint. Although the Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the Court strongly suggested that a membership organization's communications with [[Page S10063]] its own members would not meet the definition of ``expenditures'' subject to regulation by Congress. In another case, on June 1, in Right to Life of Dutchess County v. FEC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York joined a chorus of many other Federal groups in striking down--striking down--an FEC regulation that prohibited corporate speech, even though that speech stopped short of the ``express advocacy'' standard adopted in the Buckley case. Then on June 4, in Russell v. Burris, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that contribution limits of $300 to certain State candidates violated the first amendment and that special privileges to so-called ``small donor'' PACs violated the equal protection clause. On June 11, in State of Washington v. 119 Vote No!, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a State statute which prohibits a person from sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact to be facially unconstitutional. On July 21, in Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a Virginia campaign finance statute could not reach the conduct of groups that engaged in issue advocacy. On July 23, in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a first amendment challenge of a State statute limiting campaign contributions was so likely to succeed that a preliminary injunction should issue preventing Missouri from enforcing the statute. On July 23, in Suster v. Marshall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enjoined the enforcement of a provision of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which capped spending in a judicial election for the Ohio Common Pleas Court at $75,000--again, a court decision striking down spending limits. On August 10, in Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. the State of Alaska, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska granted summary judgment, ruling Alaska's campaign finance reform legislation unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Finally, on August 11, in Vannatta v. Keisling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon ballot measure passed into law which prohibited State candidates from using or directing any contributions from out-of-district residents and penalizing candidates when more than 10 percent of their total funding comes from such individuals does not survive scrutiny under the first amendment. My reason for the recitation of these cases is these are cases just since April, and every single one of them, at least three of which are right on the point of issue advocacy, which is what we have before us today, have ruled these government restrictions unconstitutional. So there is virtually no chance--no chance--that the restrictions on citizens' ability to engage in issue advocacy contained in McCain- Feingold will be upheld as constitutional. There is certainly no evidence that the courts are moving in the direction of allowing governments at any level to restrain the voices of citizens at any time in proximity to an election or any other time. Mr. President, issue advocacy is, of course, as I said, constitutionally protected speech. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today are some of the most aggressive users of issue advocacy. These multimillion-dollar corporations express themselves without limitation at any point, both in the news sections and on the editorial pages. They are the practitioners of the first amendment. The problem with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today is that they think the first amendment only applies to them. It is amusing to look at the amount of space dedicated over the last 2 years by these three newspapers to their efforts to aid and abet those who would shut up citizens and make it difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights. Just looking at the New York Times, they have editorialized on the subject of campaign finance reform between July 1, 1997, and September 9, 1998, 82 times. The average number of days between campaign finance editorials in the New York Times is 8. On the average, every 8 days, the New York Times is lobbying for campaign finance reform, which they have a constitutional right to do. What is particularly amusing is the way in which they do it, which is remarkably similar to issue advocacy that groups engage in frequently on television. The typical issue ad says at the end of the ad, ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so ``and tell him to either keep on doing what he is doing'' or ``stop doing what he is doing.'' I thought it was particularly amusing that the April 21, 1998, editorial in the New York Times was just like issue advocacy. The same opportunity they would deny to anyone else, they engaged in themselves. They opined here about the importance of passing their version of campaign finance reform and then listed Members of the House and their phone numbers--exactly the kind of thing they don't want anybody else to do. Exactly the kind of thing they would prohibit every other American citizen from doing in proximity to an election, they are doing right here on the editorial page. Of course, the newspapers are exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act. I think they should be exempt, but I find it disingenuous in the extreme for them to engage in the very same practice. This is a huge, multi-, probably billion-dollar, American corporation, a corporation engaging in issue advocacy, putting the heat on elected officials, putting their phone numbers in there, saying call them--call them up and tell them to do this or not to do that. That is what they don't want anybody else in America to be able to do. Mr. President, part of what is at the root of this debate is: Who is going to have the opportunity to express themselves, who is going to be able to engage in political discourse, in this country? Just newspapers and nobody else? Boy, that would be a good deal for them. That is exactly what they have in mind, because they practice issue advocacy every day, and sometimes it is remarkably similar to the issue ads you see on television run by organized labor, or plaintiffs' lawyers, or you name it. ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so, ``and tell him to do'' this or do that, it said in the New York Times of April 21. The Washington Post has been not far behind, another megacorporation which exists for the purpose of influencing political discourse in this country. This big corporation, of course, like the other big corporation I just mentioned, the New York Times, is exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act, and this big corporation, too, would like to restrict the speech of other American citizens in order to enhance its own views. On the subject of campaign finance reform, going back to January 1, 1997, the Washington Post has written 53 editorials. The average number of days between editorials on campaign finance reform in the Washington Post is 12. So, Mr. President, every 12 days, this great, huge American corporation is lobbying the Congress to take a particular position on campaign finance reform. I defend their right to do it, but I find it amusing--if not really troubling more than amusing--that this kind of corporation should have this kind of influence and everybody else in society in proximity to an election would be essentially muffled from being able to mention a candidate's name in proximity to an election. So some big corporations would have an advantage; others a disadvantage. That is what the Washington Post would like--more power and more advantage. USA Today, another huge American corporation-- between January 1, 1997, and today, USA Today has run 25 editorials on the subject of campaign finance reform. That is an average of one every 25 days--another major American corporation seeking to influence the course of this legislation, which also supports McCain-Feingold, which would make it impossible for anybody else to do the same thing in proximity to an election. The USA Today editorial just yesterday was remarkably akin to an issue ad, Mr. President, remarkably akin to an issue ad, just like the New York Times editorial back in April I mentioned awhile ago. They state their case on the editorial page, and then they list all the Republican Senators, and particularly they highlight those [[Page S10064]] who are up for reelection this year. And they put their phone numbers by their names. Issue advocacy, Mr. President; within 60 days of an election. Under the bill they support, over at USA Today, nobody else in America could do this, could mention a candidate's name within 60 days of an election. So this big corporation would have its power further enhanced by the quieting of the voices of everybody else in America who sought to express themselves within 60 days of an election by maybe saying something unkind about some Member of Congress. So, Mr. President, there isn't any question; there is an enormous transfer of influence and power to the part of corporate America that owns and operates newspapers. Of course they are enthusiastic about this kind of legislation. This industry, the newspaper industry, which already has an enormous amount of power, would be dramatically more powerful if the kind of legislation we have before us were passed. Some would argue there is a media loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act because they are exempt from all of these restrictions that currently apply to everybody else, and certainly would be exempt of the greater restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on Americans of all kinds. Mr. President, there are some Americans who believe that newspapers are a bigger problem, a bigger problem than campaign contributors. There was an interesting article back on October 21, 1997--excuse me, Mr. President, it is a Rasmussen poll, an interesting finding. More than 80% of Americans would like to place restrictions on the way that newspapers cover political campaigns. In fact, restricting newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. Restrictions on newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. This is the American people in a poll in late 1997 discussing the influence of newspapers on the political process. Further, in the description of the poll finding, it says: One reason for the public desire to restrict newspapers is that Americans think reporters and editorial writers have a bigger impact on elections than campaign contributions. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. Not at the moment. The Rasmussen Research survey found that 68% of Americans believe newspaper editorials are more important than a $1,000 contribution. Only 17% think such contributions have a bigger impact. Americans may also support restrictions on reporters because more than seven-out-of-ten believe personal preferences of reporters influence their coverage of politics. In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe (by a 61% to 19% margin) that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. This comprehensive poll of American citizens on the influence of newspapers, in late 1997, found that Americans, by a margin of 61 percent to 19 percent, believe that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Mr. President, I am making these points somewhat tongue in cheek because, obviously, I am not advocating restrictions on newspapers. But what I find particularly outrageous is newspapers advocating restrictions on everyone else. Who are they to think that they are the only ones who are to have influence in the American political process? Richard Harwood of the Washington Post, on October 15, 1997, made some interesting points along those lines. Mr. Harwood said: It is fortunate for the press in the United States that the voice of the people is not the voice of God or the Supreme Court. That is because Americans, in the mass, believe in ``free speech'' and a ``free press'' only in theory. In practice they reject those concepts. That was the troubling conclusion drawn, ironically, from a major study of public opinion commissioned in 1990 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors as part of the observance of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. . . . .So this was a survey taken, I guess, by the Louis Harris organization for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. And Mr. Harwood points out the findings are, as he puts it, ``depressing.'' The first point in this survey of the American people, Harwood, in talking about the American people, said: If they had their way, ``the people''--meaning a majority of adults--would not allow journalists to practice their trade without first obtaining, as lawyers and doctors must, a license. The second finding of this survey: [The people] would confer on judges the power to impose fines on publishers and broadcasters for ``inaccurate and biased reporting''. . . . Third: They would empower government entities to monitor the work of journalists for fairness and compel us to ``give equal coverage to all sides of a controversial issue.'' They also favor the creation of local and national news councils to investigate complaints against the press and issue ``corrections'' of erroneous news reports. Harwood further points out, at the end of his article: So press freedoms remain, as in the past, dependent not on the goodwill of the masses but on the goodwill and philosophical disposition of the nine men and women of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I make those points to illustrate that the principal beneficiaries of the amendment before us are the huge corporations of America that control the press. They almost uniformly support legislation that would quiet the voices, at least in 60 days' proximity to an election, of all other American citizens, thereby enhancing the ability of newspapers to control the outcome of American elections. The good news, Mr. President, is we are not going to pass this legislation. The further good news is the courts would not uphold this legislation if we did pass it. I just mentioned three cases that have been handed down in the last 6 months indicating that Government restrictions on issue advocacy, tried by State governments, is clearly unconstitutional. But what is truly disturbing in this free country, Mr. President, is that these big corporations that own these newspapers are so aggressively advocating efforts to quiet the voices of other American citizens. It is truly alarming that in 1998 these big corporations, which already have enormous influence in our country, want to have even more. In fact, they want to have a monopoly on influence in proximity to an election. And as we all know, they are perfectly free to do editorials, both on the front page and on the editorial page--and do--up to and including the day before the election. And I defend their right to do it. But what is disturbing is they do not want to let anybody else have their say. So this legislation, Mr. President, dramatically benefits the fourth estate at the expense of other citizens in our country. Now, finally, before going to Senator Byrd, I have heard it said that we need to pass this kind of legislation. I have heard for over a decade we need to pass this kind of legislation in order to restore the faith of the American people in the Congress. In October of 1994, in the waning days of the end of Democrat control of this Congress, only 27 percent of the American people approved of the Congress. As of this past week, the congressional approval rating was 55 percent. Now, the 55 percent approval rating Congress has today comes after two Federal elections, 1994 and 1996, with record spending, three intervening filibusters of McCain-Feingold and its ancestor, Boren-Mitchell, and even the Clinton-Gore fundraising scandal. Clearly, Mr. President, there is no political imperative to pass campaign finance bills that are unconstitutional. To suggest that the Congress is still unpopular--which it isn't--or that when it was unpopular it was somehow related to this issue simply cannot be supported by the facts. Bill Schneider, a reputable pollster who works for CNN, back in February of this year had an interesting article in the National Journal. This was when the approval rating of Congress began to turn around. He pointed out in February 14 of this year: For the first time in at least 25 years, a majority of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Congress--perhaps the most ridiculed institution in America --has rarely gotten above a 40 per cent job-approval rating since 1974. Now, it's at 56 per cent. That was then; it is 55 percent now. ``What's going on here?'' said Bill Schneider. A balanced budget, a booming economy and--not the least important--a smaller government. ``We have the smallest government [[Page S10065]] in 35 years, but a more progressive one,'' the President said. Right now, trust in government is at its highest level since the Reagan era, when it was ``morning in America.'' Now, we clearly do not need to pass this unconstitutional legislation in order to deal with cynicism about the Congress, which enjoys a 55 percent approval rating. I might say that at the end of the Congress in 1994, I was personally involved in an all-night filibuster on September 30, 1994. I will never forget it. It is the only real filibuster we have had here in 10 years. It was an all-nighter. The cots were out. People were blurry eyed. But it was a remarkably uplifting event for those of us who were involved in it. We defeated Boren-Mitchell a mere 5 weeks before the greatest Republican congressional victory of this century. Suffice it to say, there is no connection between this issue and electoral success. The responses you get on polls on this issue depend on how you ask the question. This is an arcane, complicated subject, and it is the obligation and the responsibility of Members of the Senate to protect the Constitution, to protect political discourse in this country, and to do the right thing one more time. Mr. President, I am confident that, at the appropriate time, this amendment will be defeated. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might get consent to speak on another matter at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator has any notion about approximately how much time he would consume? Mr. BYRD. I guess it would be 45 minutes to an hour. It would give Senators a chance to get lunch. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say in all due respect to the most respected Senator from West Virginia, we have a limited amount of time to debate this issue. There are Senators who want to talk on it. I say in all respect to the Senator from West Virginia, we have just begun this debate. We just had the first opening statements. If we interrupt for 45 minutes to an hour, I think that would certainly disrupt this entire debate, which is of the greatest importance. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, in all great respect, would understand. Mr. BYRD. I do understand that. I have to be somewhere else from 1:30 on, for awhile. I had hoped that I might be able to speak out of order earlier. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me indicate, if I may, I will not object to this Senator's request. But let me say that after this address I do intend to object to any other discussions about other matters that do not have to do with the issue before us, before the scheduled cloture vote. But in this instance I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope that other Senators would permit me to proceed. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator at least wait until 12:30, if he has to be someplace at 1:30? We just began. There have been two statements that have been given on this very important issue. I understand and appreciate the seniority and respect and dignity that the Senator from West Virginia has, but this is incredibly disruptive, which I am sure the Senator from West Virginia can understand. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield so I might reply? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will remember that debate on the Interior bill is being interrupted here. I have no objection to that. And there was a request that there be no amendments until, I believe it was Friday or Thursday, at some point, or until we vote on cloture on this matter. I had no objection to that. But I could have objected. That debate was interrupted. I don't interrupt in debates very often. I hope the Senator will allow me to proceed in this instance. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because of the Senator from West Virginia, but the fact is we are debating an amendment just as we normally do. And we are under a unanimous consent agreement, which we normally do. The Senator from West Virginia could object to us going into session--we all know that-- because we function by unanimous consent. I think it is very unfortunate that when we have, really, now, a day and a half, and we just initiated debate on this very, very critical issue, the Senator has to do that at this time. I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield, I make the request I be recognized, upon the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Kentucky, for not to exceed 1 hour. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make brief remarks before the Senator from West Virginia begins. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I repeatedly asked the Senator from Kentucky if he would yield for a question about his statements about the case law, and he refused on several occasions. That is regrettable because I hope we will have a debate here, but I do appreciate his review of the case law. I think it is helpful, and I do want to hear Senator Byrd's remarks very shortly. Let me quickly point out that I heard the Senator from Kentucky discussing a Nevada case regarding restriction on spending on issue advocacy. But the bill before the Senate has no such restriction. So that case is not applicable to what is before the Senate. The Senator referred to the Cincinnati spending limits case. The problem is, our bill before the Senate does not have any spending limits in it. The Senator is arguing case law that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating here today. I think that is regrettable because this is supposed to be a debate about the amendment before the Senate. The Senator discussed a case involving in-state contributions. But there are no in-state limits included in this bill. And the same for the California case involving small donor---- Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. FEINGOLD. I will yield for a question, yes. Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Kentucky--if the Senator from Wisconsin was closely listening--didn't claim the cases were about issue advocacy. What the Senator from Kentucky said is that all the cases were further reinforcement of the Buckley decision and that several of the cases were about issue advocacy. Mr. FEINGOLD. None of the provisions that were specifically cited with regard to those cases has anything to do with the legislation before us. I will make the point now and continue to make the point throughout this debate that when case law is cited, it ought to have something to do with the matter before the Senate, or that clouds the issue of constitutionality in a way that is a disservice. If the Senator from Kentucky is going to make his arguments based on court cases, he should at least recognize and acknowledge that this version of the bill does not include many of the red herrings that he keeps presenting before the Senate. As we say in the law, these cases are readily distinguishable from the matter before us. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold amendment, in addition to Senators Thompson, Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, Senators Levin, Glenn, Lieberman, and Wellstone, who are long-time and vigorous supporters of this bill. [[Page S10066]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much look forward to the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia and appreciate his courtesy in allowing me to speak. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized for up to 60 minutes. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I thank, again, all Senators for allowing me to speak at this particular juncture. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Feingold pertaining to another subject are printed later in today's Record.) Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill was first introduced in the fall of 1995, just about 3 years ago. To date, thanks to the truly extraordinary efforts of our colleagues in the other House, we are as close as we have ever been to passing that bill and making a start on cleaning up the corrupt campaign finance system that has seemed so intractable for so long. As we stand here today, only eight votes stand between this bill and the President's desk--just eight votes. Only eight Senators out of all Members of the Congress are preventing this body from joining the other body in passing campaign finance reform. Eight Senators are blocking the Senate from banning soft money. Mr. President, the time for excuses is over. It is time to finish the job. It is time to pass campaign finance reform and send it on to the President. Let me first take a moment to remind my colleagues of what happened in the other body the week after we in the Senate left for the August recess. This campaign finance reform bill that all the pundits thought was dead and constantly claimed as dead actually passed the other body by a very strong vote. The vote was 252 to 179. That is right, Mr. President, 252 to 179 in the House. It wasn't even close. By any measure, the passage in the House of the Shays-Meehan version of the McCain-Feingold bill was a landslide. Sixty-one Republicans, over one- quarter of the Republican caucus in the entire House, voted for this bill. Mr. President, I think that should answer once and for all the allegation that the McCain-Feingold bill is a partisan piece of legislation. It is not. Sixty-one Republicans would not vote for a bill that is a Trojan horse for the Democratic Party. No, this bill has now been shown in both Houses to be a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. The House vote was the culmination of literally months of debate on campaign finance reform. The debate actually started, if you can believe this, on May 21 and did not conclude until August 6. There were 72 amendments offered to the House version of the Shays-Meehan bill. There were a total of 41 rollcall votes on those amendments. The House spent over 50 hours debating campaign finance reform, an amount of time that is almost unprecedented to spend on one bill over there. I think we do it fairly frequently here, but it is almost unprecedented in the House. The opponents of reform tried to take a page from the Senate playbook and openly proclaimed that they were going to try to kill the bill with amendments. Just like here, they offered poison pills and they tried to overwhelm the reformers with just the sheer number of amendments. They tried to drown them in amendments, but they failed, and they failed miserably. In the end, a reform bill emerged and passed the House that retained all of the essential features of the McCain-Feingold bill--a ban on soft money, improved disclosure of campaign contributions, codification of the Supreme Court Beck decision, and provisions designed to deal with campaign advertising that is dressed up as issue advertising. After many months of debate in the House, the bill has come back to the Senate. It is now on the calendar and is awaiting action. The majority leader objected to bringing up the House-passed version of McCain-Feingold, but, fortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Because we have the right as Senators to offer amendments to pending legislation, we were able to bring it up on this bill, and that is exactly what Senator McCain and I have done. We would have been delighted if the majority leader had agreed to bring up the House- passed version of the bill, and some comments that he made on ``Meet the Press'' this weekend suggested that he was going to do just that. But by offering our amendment, we will assure that the Senate will again vote on this issue, which is what the people of this country want. Once again, I want to say that I am very proud of the solid, 100- percent support of the Democratic Senators for this bill. I am grateful for the efforts of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, to keep this issue on the agenda and line up our caucus in support of the McCain- Feingold bill. But we are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do for our country. This campaign finance system is sapping the confidence of the American people in their Government. People have seen time and time again that these huge soft money contributions do influence the congressional agenda. They understand that we cannot act in the interest of average people if we are spending too much time trying to woo the big contributors. They know that soft money must be eliminated before it just totally swamps our elections and our legislature. It is absolutely critical that we finish the job now; that we finish the job now before the end of this Congress, otherwise, we will undoubtedly see an explosion of soft money fundraising as the parties get ready for the next big show, and that is the next Presidential election in the year 2000. If we go home and allow this soft money system to continue into the next Presidential election cycle, we will reap scandals that will make the scandals of 1996 look pale by comparison. Look at what has happened in this cycle already will give you a clue as to what is going to happen. Already in this cycle, according to Common Cause, the parties have raised a total of $116 million, and that is the most ever in a non-Presidential cycle. Soft money fundraising more than tripled from 1992 to 1996--from an already troubling amount of $86 million to the now staggering amount of $262 million. Based on that growth, some estimate that the parties could raise $600 million in soft money in the year 2000 cycle--$600 million. Over half a billion dollars in soft money is likely to be the consequence and the disgusting display in the year 2000. Mr. President, we already have a majority in this body, and with just eight more votes in the Senate we can stop this escalation of soft money. We can say to the political parties, Enough is enough. Go back to raising money under the limits established in the Federal Election Campaign Act. And then if somebody says, ``Well, we need more money,'' then start raising money from more people; get more people involved. Don't just extort more and more money from the major corporations and labor unions that are eager to curry favor with the Congress or the President. Mr. President, the American people are sick of tales of big money fundraisers. It is a terrible turnoff for a citizen of average means to read that people give $100,000, or $250,000 to sit at the head table with the President, or have a special meeting with the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. They do not want more stories like the story of Roger Tamraz who gave $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee hoping for the special access he needed to promote his pipeline project. Tamraz told the Governmental Affairs Committee that as he thought about it, the next time he would give $600,000 if he thought this would help his business and that getting special access was not just one of the reasons he gave to the DNC, he said it was the only reason he gave the $300,000 and would give $600,000--for special access. But these kinds of scandals are bound to come back again and again because our political parties, Mr. President, are addicted to soft money. They cannot get enough of it. And the reason is that they have found a way to make soft money work directly for them in Federal elections. This is an incredible [[Page S10067]] twist of a loophole that was established by the FEC in 1978. Remember that prior to 1996, most of the parties' soft money went into what were called party building activities--get out the vote drives, voter registration efforts, and the like. But then in 1996, the parties discovered the issue ad, and it was off to the races. Both Presidential campaigns directly benefited from these kinds of ads--you know, the ones that do not explicitly say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a candidate, but they are nonetheless obviously aimed at directly influencing an election, obviously intentionally intended to cause someone to vote specifically for one candidate or another. And they used party soft money to pay for the ads. Now, here is an irony, Mr. President. Just yesterday, Attorney General Reno announced yet another 90-day inquiry into the campaign finance scandals of the 1996 campaign. It has to do with issue ads run by the DNC, a portion of which were paid for with soft money. The allegation is that it was improper for the President to have participated in the development of that ad campaign. The McCain- Feingold amendment that is before us makes it very clear that such ads cannot be paid for with soft money and cannot be coordinated by the parties with their candidates. Yet some of the very people who are calling on the Attorney General to appoint this independent counsel are staunchly opposed to this amendment anyway. We also already have seen the parties and outside groups preparing to exploit the phony issue ad loophole in this election. Over the next month, more and more election ads will begin appearing around the country, but because of that loophole, in many cases there will be no disclosure either of the spending itself or of the identity of the donors who are really behind the ads. These issue ad campaigns, Mr. President, are blatantly targeted at specific elections, but again their creators intentionally avoid the elections law, but avoiding the so-called magic words of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' Here is an example. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported in July that the Republican Party is planning a $37 million issue advocacy campaign to begin running after Labor Day designed to help Republicans pick up seats in the House in November. Roll Call described the campaign as follows: Republican leaders are calling the plan ``Operation Break- Out:'' a comprehensive strategy to blanket as many as 50 to 60 battleground districts with ``issue advocacy'' television ads touting the GOP's success in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reforming welfare. The story then states that Republican officials predict that if Members help raise the $37 million, then the party will pick up as many as 25 additional seats. So they are candid. They are very upfront about the fact that this issue ad campaign is designed specifically to help elect more Republicans to the House, not just to talk about issues. So here you have the leaders of a national political party designing a huge media plan specifically to elect candidates from that party, and specifically planning to take advantage of the phony issue ad loophole so they can at least partially pay for the campaign with soft money. This is what the twin loopholes--soft money and phony issue ads--have led us to. And, of course, Mr. President, neither party is exem

Major Actions:

All articles in Senate section

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999
(Senate - September 09, 1998)

Text of this article available as: TXT PDF [Pages S10060-S10082] DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1999 The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S. 2237, which the clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 2237) making appropriations for the Department of the Interior and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1999, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed consideration of the bill. Pending: McCain Amendment No. 3554, to reform the financing of Federal elections. Amendment No. 3554 The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe that the pending amendment is numbered 3554. Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, while we are on the Interior appropriations bill, the current amendment is the McCain-Feingold campaign financing amendment. Whether we will use all of the time of the Senate between now and the time for a vote on a motion for cloture on the amendment, I am not certain. However, it is very unlikely, I say to my colleagues, that we will debate contested amendments to the Interior appropriations bill before we have completed debate on McCain-Feingold. However, we are available to deal with amendments that can be worked out and agreed to which we will send up and deal with if there are any short spaces of time in which Members are not available to discuss the McCain-Feingold bill. Members who have interests in the Interior appropriations bill who have amendments that they think will be accepted or can be worked out should be in contact with me or with staff of the Appropriations Committee, and we will attempt to work them in whenever it is convenient to do so. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first I mention a scheduling item. I am confident that the agreement we reached yesterday was that there would be a vote either late tomorrow afternoon or early evening. Now I am told that there may be some Members on the other side who want to have an earlier vote. Mr. President, I will not agree to such a thing. I believe that we need more than 2 days' debate on this issue even though we have been over this issue many times before. I just want to tell my colleagues on both sides, but particularly on the other side of the aisle, I understand there are personal commitments and we will try to accommodate those, but to have a vote earlier than very late tomorrow afternoon or tomorrow evening I think would not be in keeping with the agreement that we reached yesterday. This is not a happy time for America. It is not a happy time for the institutions of government, especially the Presidency, but also the Congress. We are going through a very wrenching and difficult episode which already, I think most of us would agree, ranks in the first order of crises that affect this country. And it affects us. As I have said on numerous occasions, all of us are tarred by a brush when the institutions of government are diminished and affected by scandal. But it also points out the criticality of us addressing this issue of campaign finance reform now rather than later. In today's newspaper, ``Reno Sets 90-day Clinton Probe'': Attorney General Janet Reno yesterday opened a preliminary investigation of President Clinton that could lead to an independent counsel probe of allegations that he orchestrated a plan to violate spending limits for his 1996 reelection campaign. . . .The new Clinton inquiry was triggered by a preliminary report last month from the Federal Election Commission auditors. The auditors concluded that the DNC ads about issues such as Medicare and the budget amounted to ``electioneering'' on the President's behalf, and the Clinton-Gore campaign should be required to reimburse the government for the entire $13.4 million it received in Federal matching funds. This morning, in most of the major newspapers in America, there is a poll that is conducted by the Terrence Group and Lake, Snell, Perry and Associates--one Democrat and one Republican polling group: ``What do you think is the number one problem today? Moral-religious issues, 14 percent; crime and drugs, 14 percent; economy and jobs, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, perhaps moral and religious issues have been a No. 1 priority in America before, but I don't think there is any doubt that that is the case today. ``Which of the following issues do you want Congress to focus on? Restoring moral values, 22 percent; improving education, 19 percent; reducing taxes and Federal spending, 13 percent.'' Mr. President, when 22 percent of the American people say they believe that restoring values is the No. 1 issue they want Congress to focus on, I don't believe they are just referring to the problems concerning the Presidency and that crisis. I think they are talking about the fact that they don't believe that they, as individual citizens, are represented here in the Congress in the legislative process. I think they believe that special interests rule. I believe they are concerned that no longer are their concerns paramount, but only those of major contributors. The effect of this was manifested just yesterday in my home State of Arizona in the primary that was held, as has been true throughout the country. It was the lowest voter turnout, as a percentage, of any time in the history of my State. I don't think that voters didn't turn out to vote in the primary in Arizona yesterday because of their anger-- which may be justified--at the President of the United States; I think they didn't turn out because they believe that the present system of financing campaigns results in an exclusion of them in the legislative process; their homes and their dreams and aspirations for themselves and their families are no longer reflected here in the Congress of the United States. Mr. President, the amendment at the desk, which is commonly known as the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, is amended by Senators Snowe and Jeffords. This amendment would begin to reform a severely broken campaign finance system. Early last month, the Members of the other body did what the Senate has failed to do, and that is to pass genuine campaign finance reform. By so doing, they have given Members of this body who support reform encouragement that Congress, at long last, may accede to the wishes of the majority in both Houses of Congress and to the wishes of the vast majority of the people we represent by repairing a campaign finance system that has become a national embarrassment and assails the integrity of the office that we are privileged to hold. I want to commend and thank Representatives Shays and Meehan, and many other Members of the other body, whose courage and determination have given us a chance to reclaim the respect of the American people. I appeal to all Members of the Senate to listen to the majority of our colleagues in the other body, and to the majority of Senators, and seize this historic opportunity to give the Nation a campaign finance system that is worthy of the world's greatest democracy. Mr. President, no Washington pundit thought that the House would actually [[Page S10061]] pass campaign finance reform, but it did. It was not an easy fight. But those in favor of reform prevailed. I hope the majority in the Senate that favors reform will be able to prevail here. A majority in the House passed reform because the American people demand it. Members of the House recognized that the current system is awash in money, exploited loopholes, and publicly perceived corruption. It is a system that no Member of Congress should take pride in defending. Before I discuss the matter more fully, I want to remind my colleagues of three points. One, for reform to become law, it must be bipartisan. This is a bipartisan bill. It is a bill that affects both parties in a fair and equal manner. Two, reform must seek to reduce the role of money in politics. Spending on campaigns in current inflation-adjusted dollars continues to rise. In constant dollars, the amount spent on House and Senate races in 1976 was $318 million. By 1986 that total had risen to $645 million, and in 1996 it was $765 million. Including the Presidential races, over a billion dollars was spent in the last campaign. As the need for money escalates, the influence of those who have it rises exponentially. Three, reform must seek a level playing field between challengers and incumbents. Our bill achieves this by recognizing the fact that incumbents must always raise more money than challengers. As a general rule, the candidate with the most money wins the race. If money is forced to play a lesser role, then challengers will have a better chance. The amendment before the Senate achieves these three points. Is the measure perfect? No. Is it a legitimate start for discussion? Yes. For that reason, I hope my colleagues will support cloture and allow the Senate to work its will, to improve the measure where necessary, and begin a real dialog with the House on what can and should be sent to the President for his signature. I want to repeat that this is the Senate's opportunity to not only do what is right but what is necessary. Washington has lately become synonymous with scandal, but for all the recent scintillating revelations, the real scandal--a scandal that will not go away--is the money that is and has been corrupting our elections. Unless this Senate finds the courage to act, that scandal will not subside. Some will come to the floor and state that we do not need to reform how campaigns are run. They will state instead that we should simply enforce the laws that already exist. Mr. President, with all due respect, this argument is specious. Republicans demanded that the welfare system be reformed not only because it was the right thing to do but because the system was riddled with loopholes and was being abused and exploited. We didn't sit back and simply challenge the executive branch to enforce the laws. We acted, we changed the law, and we changed it in our society for the better. Let's do the same now. I know that many colleagues think this refrain has become all too familiar, and they are correct. This is not the first time our campaign finance system has been in need of reform, and it will undoubtedly not be the last, because as time passes, the flaws and loopholes in the law become more evidence. It is at that time that the Congress has historically done what is needed; it has passed campaign finance reform. The underlying purpose of this movement for the publication of contributions made for campaign purposes is to limit expenditures in political contests to legitimate purposes and to lessen the use of money in political elections. So said Senator Culberson in 1908. Senator Culberson inserted into the Record many letters, many of which could have been written today: For some years there has been earnest agitation of the question of enforcing campaign contributions relating to national elections. A strong public sentiment has been created in favor of this important regulation. In obedience to this sentiment, a bill is now pending in Congress providing for the desired publicity. The question is whether the bill will be passed, defeated, or smothered. The letter continues: No party should be afraid to go before the country with a record of its campaign financiering. No candidate for office should hesitate to have the people know the sources of campaign money. In other words, such contributions should come only from legitimate sources, and only money from such sources would be accepted, if the facts had to be made public: Hence, the great importance of publicity. The people do not want successful candidates to owe their elections to special interests affected by the subsequent administrations of such candidates. Such favors and obligations they involve are absolutely against the principles of honest government, whether that government be national, State, or municipal. In the House that same year 1908, Congressman Sulzer stated: In my opinion, this publicity campaign contribution bill is one of the most important measures before this House. It is a bill for more honest elections, to more effectively safeguard the elected franchise, and it affects the entire people of this country. It concerns the honor of the country. The honest people of the land want it passed. All parties should favor it. Recent investigations conclusively demonstrate how important to all the people of the country is the speedy enactment of this bill. Remember, this statement was made in 1908. In every national contest of recent years the campaign has been a disgraceful scramble to see which party could raise the most money, not for legitimate expenses but to carry a system of political iniquity that will not and cannot bear the light of publicity. Political corruption dreads the sun of publicity and works in the secret of darkness . . . Napoleon said victory was on the side of the heaviest guns. There are many thoughtful people in this country who have been saying since 1896 that the political victory in our Presidential contest is on the side of the campaign committee which can raise the largest boodle fund. This important bill for publicity of campaign contributions is a nonpartisan measure. There should be no politics in it. We should all advocate from patriotic motives; but some of the gentlemen on the other side are injecting party politics into it, and are doing everything in their power to prevent the Members of this House who sincerely favor the bill from having the opportunity to vote for it. . . It is a shame the way this bill is being strangled to death. In 1908, Congress went on to do the people's bidding. It passed the campaign finance reform legislation. In 1947, Senator Ellender stood on this floor, and stated: It came to my attention as chairman of that committee--and this feeling is shared by committee members joining me in sponsoring this bill--that the present statutes dealing with elections, campaign expenditures, and contributions, and limitations thereon, are utterly inadequate and unrealistic and as now in force and do not begin to accomplish the purposes for which they were enacted. . . I may state, Mr. President, that our committee last year found that many corporations and some labor organizations had spent thousands of dollars in Federal elections, but we could not force them to report for the reason that the money expended was not considered as contributions. So this bill requires any money spent to be reported by whoever makes the expenditure. Experience has shown that some corporations and labor unions have spent money directly on behalf of a party or candidate and thus I invaded the application of the prohibition upon contributions. In 1947 the Congress, again, responded to the public's disdain for the way our campaigns are financed and passed campaign finance reform legislation. In 1974, in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal, the Congress again passed campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, after what we know about the last election, it is time again to pass campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, recently there was given to me a memo that is public knowledge: The Democratic National Committee, Democratic National Committee Managing Trustee Events and Membership Requirements Events; two annual Managing Trustee Events where the President in Washington, DC, attended; two annual meetings, trustee event for the Vice President, et cetera. It is kind of a standard thing that you see on these kind of things. But the thing that is interesting about this is the fifth one down, ``Annual Economic Trade Missions.'' ``Managing trustees are invited to participate in foreign trade missions, which affords opportunities to join Party leaders in meeting with business leaders abroad.'' Another memorandum that was given to me of May 5, 1994, to Anne Cahill from Martha Phipps: White House Activities: In order to reach our very aggressive goal of $40 million this year, it would be very helpful if we could coordinate the following activities between the White House and Democratic National Committee: 1. Two reserved seats on Air Force [[Page S10062]] One; and, 2. Six seats at all White House private dinners. No. 4: ``Invitations to participate in official delegation trips abroad. Contact: Alexis Herman.'' Mr. President, that is wrong. We know that is wrong. And the people who did it knew that it was wrong at the time. That is not an appropriate use of official trade missions. This gives rise to all the speculation and allegations concerning the transfer of technology to China. It makes it much more logical or believable when you read about these kinds of things. Mr. President, I know this legislation is not perfect. I know that if given the opportunity to offer amendments, many Members would do exactly that, and the measure could be improved. For example, I think there would be a majority vote in this body that would raise the individual spending limits to the level of $1,000, which it was in 1974, that some here may not agree with. But I believe the majority would. I believe that the Snowe-Jeffords amendment went a long way towards leveling the playing field as far as unions, businesses, and corporations are concerned. I know that there are other ways we could improve this legislation. I know that we can do that if my colleagues would vote for cloture. I appeal to my colleagues to muster the courage that led to reform in 1908, 1947, and 1974. Mr. President, I ran for public office first in 1982. It was not the kind of money in that campaign that I see today. When I meet a young man or woman who is interested in public office nowadays--I used to ask them, ``How do you feel about smaller government, taxes, less regulation?'' We would have discussions of the issues. Now there is only one question you ask a young man or woman who is interested in seeking public office. And I might add it seems to be fewer and fewer. The only question is, ``Where is the money? Where is the money?'' Because, if they don't have the money, obviously no matter how they stand on the issues, no matter how principled they are, and how impressive their resume might be, their chances of achieving public office are dramatically diminished. I know that many on this side of the aisle don't agree with all of the provisions of the amendment. I know they recognize that there is a problem--a problem that we have to address. This is our opportunity, and if we opt to gridlock over results, we will only fuel the cynicism of the American electorate. I want to point out again, every political expert is predicting that we will have the lowest voter turnout in this upcoming election than at any time in history. I think that is a sad commentary. I hope we will do what is right to take such steps as necessary to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Should we fail, we will have only ourselves to blame for the low esteem in which we are held by the American people. We will have done our part to degrade the high office to which we have been elected. We will by our inaction contribute to the alienation of the American people from the people who have sworn an oath to defend their interests. As I mentioned, Mr. President, yesterday was primary day in Arizona. Turn out was an all-time low, indicating another record-setting low turnout election day. I have no doubt whatsoever that the way in which we finance our campaigns has in no small measure contributed to the abysmal commentary of the health of our democracy. The people's contempt--there is no more charitable way to describe it--for us and for the way in which we attain our privileged place in government cannot be sustained perpetually. We will someday pay a high price for our inattention to this problem. We will forfeit our ability to lead the country as we meet the complicated challenges confronting us at the end of this century because we have so badly squandered the public respect necessary to persuade the Nation to take the often difficult actions that are required to defend the Nation's interests. Our ability to lead depends solely on the public's trust in us. Mr. President, people do not trust us today. And that breach, that calamity, is what the supporters of campaign finance reform intend to repair. I beg all of my colleagues to join in this effort and give our constituents a reason to again trust us, and to take pride in the institution we are so proud to serve. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized. Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, some in the press have suggested there is a sense of momentum for this issue because it passed the House of Representatives. I would remind my colleagues that a measure similar to this passed the House in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and the 103d Congress. So it is not unusual, I would say, for the House of Representatives to pass this kind of legislation. It has happened before, and I would say it does not reveal any sense of momentum behind a plan that is constitutionally flawed. Speaking of the Constitution, we were on this same issue last fall and then we were on it again in February. The outcome was the same during those debates, and in a sense what we are doing is having the same debate once again. There have been suggestions, particularly on the other side, that the courts might be open to changing the Buckley case or revisiting it in some way. So I think it is always appropriate, when we have these periodic campaign finance debates, to bring my colleagues up to date on what has been happening in the courts. As we all know, the so-called reformers have been out around the country seeking to get new laws on the books at various States and localities, some by referendum, some by State statute. All of those, of course, are subsequently found in the courts, in litigation. So what I would like to do here at the outset is give my colleagues an update on what is happening in the courts; all of these court cases, by the way, reaffirming Buckley in one way or another. I would remind everyone--I think everyone in this Chamber surely knows the Buckley case, Buckley v. Valeo, the landmark case in the area of campaign finance reform which has not been changed by any of the courts over the last almost 25 years. In fact, court decisions have deepened and broadened areas of permissible political speech over the quarter of a century since this landmark case, widely thought to have been written by Justice Brennan. So let me just run down a few cases that have been decided just since April of this year, since there is a good deal of litigation emanating from these State efforts to restrict the rights of people to be involved in political activity. On April 17, in Americans for Medical Rights v. Heller, the United States District Court for the District of Nevada held that the Nevada State Constitution could not be enforced so as to prevent issue advocacy groups from contributing more than $5,000 to a ballot initiative. This was a court response to an effort to try to shut up groups in criticizing politicians--very similar to the measure currently before us which seeks to make it essentially impossible for a group to criticize a politician in proximity to an election. On April 27, in Kruse v. Cincinnati, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that a Cincinnati ordinance placing spending caps on campaigns for city council violated the first amendment. This case is noteworthy. Here was a conscious effort on the part of the city council in Cincinnati to get a court, some court, to revisit the question of whether spending limits were permissible. This is something the Buckley case struck down forthwith, and forthrightly. That effort to get the court to reverse its decision was unsuccessful. On April 29, in North Carolina Right to Life v. Bartlett, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina held a State statute that attempted to regulate issue advocacy groups as unconstitutional. That is the same issue we have before us in the McCain-Feingold amendment, the effort by the Government to try to regulate constitutionally protected issue advocacy. On June 1, in FEC v. Akins, the Supreme Court held that voters have standing to challenge the FEC's dismissal of an administrative complaint. Although the Court remanded the case for further proceedings, the Court strongly suggested that a membership organization's communications with [[Page S10063]] its own members would not meet the definition of ``expenditures'' subject to regulation by Congress. In another case, on June 1, in Right to Life of Dutchess County v. FEC, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York joined a chorus of many other Federal groups in striking down--striking down--an FEC regulation that prohibited corporate speech, even though that speech stopped short of the ``express advocacy'' standard adopted in the Buckley case. Then on June 4, in Russell v. Burris, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that contribution limits of $300 to certain State candidates violated the first amendment and that special privileges to so-called ``small donor'' PACs violated the equal protection clause. On June 11, in State of Washington v. 119 Vote No!, the Supreme Court of Washington held that a State statute which prohibits a person from sponsoring, with actual malice, a political advertisement containing a false statement of material fact to be facially unconstitutional. On July 21, in Virginia Society for Human Life v. Caldwell, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a Virginia campaign finance statute could not reach the conduct of groups that engaged in issue advocacy. On July 23, in Shrink Missouri Government PAC v. Adams, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that a first amendment challenge of a State statute limiting campaign contributions was so likely to succeed that a preliminary injunction should issue preventing Missouri from enforcing the statute. On July 23, in Suster v. Marshall, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit enjoined the enforcement of a provision of the Ohio Code of Judicial Conduct which capped spending in a judicial election for the Ohio Common Pleas Court at $75,000--again, a court decision striking down spending limits. On August 10, in Alaska Civil Liberties Union v. the State of Alaska, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska granted summary judgment, ruling Alaska's campaign finance reform legislation unconstitutional and, therefore, null and void. Finally, on August 11, in Vannatta v. Keisling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that an Oregon ballot measure passed into law which prohibited State candidates from using or directing any contributions from out-of-district residents and penalizing candidates when more than 10 percent of their total funding comes from such individuals does not survive scrutiny under the first amendment. My reason for the recitation of these cases is these are cases just since April, and every single one of them, at least three of which are right on the point of issue advocacy, which is what we have before us today, have ruled these government restrictions unconstitutional. So there is virtually no chance--no chance--that the restrictions on citizens' ability to engage in issue advocacy contained in McCain- Feingold will be upheld as constitutional. There is certainly no evidence that the courts are moving in the direction of allowing governments at any level to restrain the voices of citizens at any time in proximity to an election or any other time. Mr. President, issue advocacy is, of course, as I said, constitutionally protected speech. The New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today are some of the most aggressive users of issue advocacy. These multimillion-dollar corporations express themselves without limitation at any point, both in the news sections and on the editorial pages. They are the practitioners of the first amendment. The problem with the New York Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today is that they think the first amendment only applies to them. It is amusing to look at the amount of space dedicated over the last 2 years by these three newspapers to their efforts to aid and abet those who would shut up citizens and make it difficult for them to exercise their constitutional rights. Just looking at the New York Times, they have editorialized on the subject of campaign finance reform between July 1, 1997, and September 9, 1998, 82 times. The average number of days between campaign finance editorials in the New York Times is 8. On the average, every 8 days, the New York Times is lobbying for campaign finance reform, which they have a constitutional right to do. What is particularly amusing is the way in which they do it, which is remarkably similar to issue advocacy that groups engage in frequently on television. The typical issue ad says at the end of the ad, ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so ``and tell him to either keep on doing what he is doing'' or ``stop doing what he is doing.'' I thought it was particularly amusing that the April 21, 1998, editorial in the New York Times was just like issue advocacy. The same opportunity they would deny to anyone else, they engaged in themselves. They opined here about the importance of passing their version of campaign finance reform and then listed Members of the House and their phone numbers--exactly the kind of thing they don't want anybody else to do. Exactly the kind of thing they would prohibit every other American citizen from doing in proximity to an election, they are doing right here on the editorial page. Of course, the newspapers are exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act. I think they should be exempt, but I find it disingenuous in the extreme for them to engage in the very same practice. This is a huge, multi-, probably billion-dollar, American corporation, a corporation engaging in issue advocacy, putting the heat on elected officials, putting their phone numbers in there, saying call them--call them up and tell them to do this or not to do that. That is what they don't want anybody else in America to be able to do. Mr. President, part of what is at the root of this debate is: Who is going to have the opportunity to express themselves, who is going to be able to engage in political discourse, in this country? Just newspapers and nobody else? Boy, that would be a good deal for them. That is exactly what they have in mind, because they practice issue advocacy every day, and sometimes it is remarkably similar to the issue ads you see on television run by organized labor, or plaintiffs' lawyers, or you name it. ``Call Congressman'' so-and-so, ``and tell him to do'' this or do that, it said in the New York Times of April 21. The Washington Post has been not far behind, another megacorporation which exists for the purpose of influencing political discourse in this country. This big corporation, of course, like the other big corporation I just mentioned, the New York Times, is exempt from the Federal Election Campaign Act, and this big corporation, too, would like to restrict the speech of other American citizens in order to enhance its own views. On the subject of campaign finance reform, going back to January 1, 1997, the Washington Post has written 53 editorials. The average number of days between editorials on campaign finance reform in the Washington Post is 12. So, Mr. President, every 12 days, this great, huge American corporation is lobbying the Congress to take a particular position on campaign finance reform. I defend their right to do it, but I find it amusing--if not really troubling more than amusing--that this kind of corporation should have this kind of influence and everybody else in society in proximity to an election would be essentially muffled from being able to mention a candidate's name in proximity to an election. So some big corporations would have an advantage; others a disadvantage. That is what the Washington Post would like--more power and more advantage. USA Today, another huge American corporation-- between January 1, 1997, and today, USA Today has run 25 editorials on the subject of campaign finance reform. That is an average of one every 25 days--another major American corporation seeking to influence the course of this legislation, which also supports McCain-Feingold, which would make it impossible for anybody else to do the same thing in proximity to an election. The USA Today editorial just yesterday was remarkably akin to an issue ad, Mr. President, remarkably akin to an issue ad, just like the New York Times editorial back in April I mentioned awhile ago. They state their case on the editorial page, and then they list all the Republican Senators, and particularly they highlight those [[Page S10064]] who are up for reelection this year. And they put their phone numbers by their names. Issue advocacy, Mr. President; within 60 days of an election. Under the bill they support, over at USA Today, nobody else in America could do this, could mention a candidate's name within 60 days of an election. So this big corporation would have its power further enhanced by the quieting of the voices of everybody else in America who sought to express themselves within 60 days of an election by maybe saying something unkind about some Member of Congress. So, Mr. President, there isn't any question; there is an enormous transfer of influence and power to the part of corporate America that owns and operates newspapers. Of course they are enthusiastic about this kind of legislation. This industry, the newspaper industry, which already has an enormous amount of power, would be dramatically more powerful if the kind of legislation we have before us were passed. Some would argue there is a media loophole in the Federal Election Campaign Act because they are exempt from all of these restrictions that currently apply to everybody else, and certainly would be exempt of the greater restrictions that this legislation seeks to place on Americans of all kinds. Mr. President, there are some Americans who believe that newspapers are a bigger problem, a bigger problem than campaign contributors. There was an interesting article back on October 21, 1997--excuse me, Mr. President, it is a Rasmussen poll, an interesting finding. More than 80% of Americans would like to place restrictions on the way that newspapers cover political campaigns. In fact, restricting newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. Restrictions on newspaper coverage is far more popular than public funding of campaigns. This is the American people in a poll in late 1997 discussing the influence of newspapers on the political process. Further, in the description of the poll finding, it says: One reason for the public desire to restrict newspapers is that Americans think reporters and editorial writers have a bigger impact on elections than campaign contributions. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, would the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. Not at the moment. The Rasmussen Research survey found that 68% of Americans believe newspaper editorials are more important than a $1,000 contribution. Only 17% think such contributions have a bigger impact. Americans may also support restrictions on reporters because more than seven-out-of-ten believe personal preferences of reporters influence their coverage of politics. In fact, Americans overwhelmingly believe (by a 61% to 19% margin) that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Let me repeat that, Mr. President. This comprehensive poll of American citizens on the influence of newspapers, in late 1997, found that Americans, by a margin of 61 percent to 19 percent, believe that a candidate preferred by reporters will beat a candidate who raises more money. Mr. President, I am making these points somewhat tongue in cheek because, obviously, I am not advocating restrictions on newspapers. But what I find particularly outrageous is newspapers advocating restrictions on everyone else. Who are they to think that they are the only ones who are to have influence in the American political process? Richard Harwood of the Washington Post, on October 15, 1997, made some interesting points along those lines. Mr. Harwood said: It is fortunate for the press in the United States that the voice of the people is not the voice of God or the Supreme Court. That is because Americans, in the mass, believe in ``free speech'' and a ``free press'' only in theory. In practice they reject those concepts. That was the troubling conclusion drawn, ironically, from a major study of public opinion commissioned in 1990 by the American Society of Newspaper Editors as part of the observance of the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights. . . . .So this was a survey taken, I guess, by the Louis Harris organization for the Center for Media and Public Affairs. And Mr. Harwood points out the findings are, as he puts it, ``depressing.'' The first point in this survey of the American people, Harwood, in talking about the American people, said: If they had their way, ``the people''--meaning a majority of adults--would not allow journalists to practice their trade without first obtaining, as lawyers and doctors must, a license. The second finding of this survey: [The people] would confer on judges the power to impose fines on publishers and broadcasters for ``inaccurate and biased reporting''. . . . Third: They would empower government entities to monitor the work of journalists for fairness and compel us to ``give equal coverage to all sides of a controversial issue.'' They also favor the creation of local and national news councils to investigate complaints against the press and issue ``corrections'' of erroneous news reports. Harwood further points out, at the end of his article: So press freedoms remain, as in the past, dependent not on the goodwill of the masses but on the goodwill and philosophical disposition of the nine men and women of the Supreme Court of the United States. Mr. President, I make those points to illustrate that the principal beneficiaries of the amendment before us are the huge corporations of America that control the press. They almost uniformly support legislation that would quiet the voices, at least in 60 days' proximity to an election, of all other American citizens, thereby enhancing the ability of newspapers to control the outcome of American elections. The good news, Mr. President, is we are not going to pass this legislation. The further good news is the courts would not uphold this legislation if we did pass it. I just mentioned three cases that have been handed down in the last 6 months indicating that Government restrictions on issue advocacy, tried by State governments, is clearly unconstitutional. But what is truly disturbing in this free country, Mr. President, is that these big corporations that own these newspapers are so aggressively advocating efforts to quiet the voices of other American citizens. It is truly alarming that in 1998 these big corporations, which already have enormous influence in our country, want to have even more. In fact, they want to have a monopoly on influence in proximity to an election. And as we all know, they are perfectly free to do editorials, both on the front page and on the editorial page--and do--up to and including the day before the election. And I defend their right to do it. But what is disturbing is they do not want to let anybody else have their say. So this legislation, Mr. President, dramatically benefits the fourth estate at the expense of other citizens in our country. Now, finally, before going to Senator Byrd, I have heard it said that we need to pass this kind of legislation. I have heard for over a decade we need to pass this kind of legislation in order to restore the faith of the American people in the Congress. In October of 1994, in the waning days of the end of Democrat control of this Congress, only 27 percent of the American people approved of the Congress. As of this past week, the congressional approval rating was 55 percent. Now, the 55 percent approval rating Congress has today comes after two Federal elections, 1994 and 1996, with record spending, three intervening filibusters of McCain-Feingold and its ancestor, Boren-Mitchell, and even the Clinton-Gore fundraising scandal. Clearly, Mr. President, there is no political imperative to pass campaign finance bills that are unconstitutional. To suggest that the Congress is still unpopular--which it isn't--or that when it was unpopular it was somehow related to this issue simply cannot be supported by the facts. Bill Schneider, a reputable pollster who works for CNN, back in February of this year had an interesting article in the National Journal. This was when the approval rating of Congress began to turn around. He pointed out in February 14 of this year: For the first time in at least 25 years, a majority of Americans approve of the way Congress is doing its job. Congress--perhaps the most ridiculed institution in America --has rarely gotten above a 40 per cent job-approval rating since 1974. Now, it's at 56 per cent. That was then; it is 55 percent now. ``What's going on here?'' said Bill Schneider. A balanced budget, a booming economy and--not the least important--a smaller government. ``We have the smallest government [[Page S10065]] in 35 years, but a more progressive one,'' the President said. Right now, trust in government is at its highest level since the Reagan era, when it was ``morning in America.'' Now, we clearly do not need to pass this unconstitutional legislation in order to deal with cynicism about the Congress, which enjoys a 55 percent approval rating. I might say that at the end of the Congress in 1994, I was personally involved in an all-night filibuster on September 30, 1994. I will never forget it. It is the only real filibuster we have had here in 10 years. It was an all-nighter. The cots were out. People were blurry eyed. But it was a remarkably uplifting event for those of us who were involved in it. We defeated Boren-Mitchell a mere 5 weeks before the greatest Republican congressional victory of this century. Suffice it to say, there is no connection between this issue and electoral success. The responses you get on polls on this issue depend on how you ask the question. This is an arcane, complicated subject, and it is the obligation and the responsibility of Members of the Senate to protect the Constitution, to protect political discourse in this country, and to do the right thing one more time. Mr. President, I am confident that, at the appropriate time, this amendment will be defeated. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield? Mr. McCONNELL. Yes, I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wonder if I might get consent to speak on another matter at the conclusion of the Senator's remarks? Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator has any notion about approximately how much time he would consume? Mr. BYRD. I guess it would be 45 minutes to an hour. It would give Senators a chance to get lunch. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I would say in all due respect to the most respected Senator from West Virginia, we have a limited amount of time to debate this issue. There are Senators who want to talk on it. I say in all respect to the Senator from West Virginia, we have just begun this debate. We just had the first opening statements. If we interrupt for 45 minutes to an hour, I think that would certainly disrupt this entire debate, which is of the greatest importance. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, in all great respect, would understand. Mr. BYRD. I do understand that. I have to be somewhere else from 1:30 on, for awhile. I had hoped that I might be able to speak out of order earlier. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me indicate, if I may, I will not object to this Senator's request. But let me say that after this address I do intend to object to any other discussions about other matters that do not have to do with the issue before us, before the scheduled cloture vote. But in this instance I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I hope that other Senators would permit me to proceed. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, could the Senator at least wait until 12:30, if he has to be someplace at 1:30? We just began. There have been two statements that have been given on this very important issue. I understand and appreciate the seniority and respect and dignity that the Senator from West Virginia has, but this is incredibly disruptive, which I am sure the Senator from West Virginia can understand. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield so I might reply? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield to the Senator from West Virginia. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I hope the Senator will remember that debate on the Interior bill is being interrupted here. I have no objection to that. And there was a request that there be no amendments until, I believe it was Friday or Thursday, at some point, or until we vote on cloture on this matter. I had no objection to that. But I could have objected. That debate was interrupted. I don't interrupt in debates very often. I hope the Senator will allow me to proceed in this instance. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object because of the Senator from West Virginia, but the fact is we are debating an amendment just as we normally do. And we are under a unanimous consent agreement, which we normally do. The Senator from West Virginia could object to us going into session--we all know that-- because we function by unanimous consent. I think it is very unfortunate that when we have, really, now, a day and a half, and we just initiated debate on this very, very critical issue, the Senator has to do that at this time. I will not object. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. BYRD. If the Senator from Kentucky will yield, I make the request I be recognized, upon the conclusion of the remarks by the Senator from Kentucky, for not to exceed 1 hour. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Hearing none, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield for a question? Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to make brief remarks before the Senator from West Virginia begins. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I repeatedly asked the Senator from Kentucky if he would yield for a question about his statements about the case law, and he refused on several occasions. That is regrettable because I hope we will have a debate here, but I do appreciate his review of the case law. I think it is helpful, and I do want to hear Senator Byrd's remarks very shortly. Let me quickly point out that I heard the Senator from Kentucky discussing a Nevada case regarding restriction on spending on issue advocacy. But the bill before the Senate has no such restriction. So that case is not applicable to what is before the Senate. The Senator referred to the Cincinnati spending limits case. The problem is, our bill before the Senate does not have any spending limits in it. The Senator is arguing case law that has absolutely nothing to do with what we are debating here today. I think that is regrettable because this is supposed to be a debate about the amendment before the Senate. The Senator discussed a case involving in-state contributions. But there are no in-state limits included in this bill. And the same for the California case involving small donor---- Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield? Mr. FEINGOLD. I will yield for a question, yes. Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Kentucky--if the Senator from Wisconsin was closely listening--didn't claim the cases were about issue advocacy. What the Senator from Kentucky said is that all the cases were further reinforcement of the Buckley decision and that several of the cases were about issue advocacy. Mr. FEINGOLD. None of the provisions that were specifically cited with regard to those cases has anything to do with the legislation before us. I will make the point now and continue to make the point throughout this debate that when case law is cited, it ought to have something to do with the matter before the Senate, or that clouds the issue of constitutionality in a way that is a disservice. If the Senator from Kentucky is going to make his arguments based on court cases, he should at least recognize and acknowledge that this version of the bill does not include many of the red herrings that he keeps presenting before the Senate. As we say in the law, these cases are readily distinguishable from the matter before us. With that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors to the McCain-Feingold amendment, in addition to Senators Thompson, Snowe, Collins, and Jeffords, Senators Levin, Glenn, Lieberman, and Wellstone, who are long-time and vigorous supporters of this bill. [[Page S10066]] The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I very much look forward to the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia and appreciate his courtesy in allowing me to speak. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized for up to 60 minutes. Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator, and I thank, again, all Senators for allowing me to speak at this particular juncture. (By unanimous consent, the remarks of Mr. Byrd, Mr. Gramm, Mr. Feingold pertaining to another subject are printed later in today's Record.) Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the McCain-Feingold bill was first introduced in the fall of 1995, just about 3 years ago. To date, thanks to the truly extraordinary efforts of our colleagues in the other House, we are as close as we have ever been to passing that bill and making a start on cleaning up the corrupt campaign finance system that has seemed so intractable for so long. As we stand here today, only eight votes stand between this bill and the President's desk--just eight votes. Only eight Senators out of all Members of the Congress are preventing this body from joining the other body in passing campaign finance reform. Eight Senators are blocking the Senate from banning soft money. Mr. President, the time for excuses is over. It is time to finish the job. It is time to pass campaign finance reform and send it on to the President. Let me first take a moment to remind my colleagues of what happened in the other body the week after we in the Senate left for the August recess. This campaign finance reform bill that all the pundits thought was dead and constantly claimed as dead actually passed the other body by a very strong vote. The vote was 252 to 179. That is right, Mr. President, 252 to 179 in the House. It wasn't even close. By any measure, the passage in the House of the Shays-Meehan version of the McCain-Feingold bill was a landslide. Sixty-one Republicans, over one- quarter of the Republican caucus in the entire House, voted for this bill. Mr. President, I think that should answer once and for all the allegation that the McCain-Feingold bill is a partisan piece of legislation. It is not. Sixty-one Republicans would not vote for a bill that is a Trojan horse for the Democratic Party. No, this bill has now been shown in both Houses to be a bipartisan solution to a bipartisan problem. The House vote was the culmination of literally months of debate on campaign finance reform. The debate actually started, if you can believe this, on May 21 and did not conclude until August 6. There were 72 amendments offered to the House version of the Shays-Meehan bill. There were a total of 41 rollcall votes on those amendments. The House spent over 50 hours debating campaign finance reform, an amount of time that is almost unprecedented to spend on one bill over there. I think we do it fairly frequently here, but it is almost unprecedented in the House. The opponents of reform tried to take a page from the Senate playbook and openly proclaimed that they were going to try to kill the bill with amendments. Just like here, they offered poison pills and they tried to overwhelm the reformers with just the sheer number of amendments. They tried to drown them in amendments, but they failed, and they failed miserably. In the end, a reform bill emerged and passed the House that retained all of the essential features of the McCain-Feingold bill--a ban on soft money, improved disclosure of campaign contributions, codification of the Supreme Court Beck decision, and provisions designed to deal with campaign advertising that is dressed up as issue advertising. After many months of debate in the House, the bill has come back to the Senate. It is now on the calendar and is awaiting action. The majority leader objected to bringing up the House-passed version of McCain-Feingold, but, fortunately, that was not the end of the matter. Because we have the right as Senators to offer amendments to pending legislation, we were able to bring it up on this bill, and that is exactly what Senator McCain and I have done. We would have been delighted if the majority leader had agreed to bring up the House- passed version of the bill, and some comments that he made on ``Meet the Press'' this weekend suggested that he was going to do just that. But by offering our amendment, we will assure that the Senate will again vote on this issue, which is what the people of this country want. Once again, I want to say that I am very proud of the solid, 100- percent support of the Democratic Senators for this bill. I am grateful for the efforts of the minority leader, Senator Daschle, to keep this issue on the agenda and line up our caucus in support of the McCain- Feingold bill. But we are not doing this for partisan reasons. We are doing this because it is the right thing to do for our country. This campaign finance system is sapping the confidence of the American people in their Government. People have seen time and time again that these huge soft money contributions do influence the congressional agenda. They understand that we cannot act in the interest of average people if we are spending too much time trying to woo the big contributors. They know that soft money must be eliminated before it just totally swamps our elections and our legislature. It is absolutely critical that we finish the job now; that we finish the job now before the end of this Congress, otherwise, we will undoubtedly see an explosion of soft money fundraising as the parties get ready for the next big show, and that is the next Presidential election in the year 2000. If we go home and allow this soft money system to continue into the next Presidential election cycle, we will reap scandals that will make the scandals of 1996 look pale by comparison. Look at what has happened in this cycle already will give you a clue as to what is going to happen. Already in this cycle, according to Common Cause, the parties have raised a total of $116 million, and that is the most ever in a non-Presidential cycle. Soft money fundraising more than tripled from 1992 to 1996--from an already troubling amount of $86 million to the now staggering amount of $262 million. Based on that growth, some estimate that the parties could raise $600 million in soft money in the year 2000 cycle--$600 million. Over half a billion dollars in soft money is likely to be the consequence and the disgusting display in the year 2000. Mr. President, we already have a majority in this body, and with just eight more votes in the Senate we can stop this escalation of soft money. We can say to the political parties, Enough is enough. Go back to raising money under the limits established in the Federal Election Campaign Act. And then if somebody says, ``Well, we need more money,'' then start raising money from more people; get more people involved. Don't just extort more and more money from the major corporations and labor unions that are eager to curry favor with the Congress or the President. Mr. President, the American people are sick of tales of big money fundraisers. It is a terrible turnoff for a citizen of average means to read that people give $100,000, or $250,000 to sit at the head table with the President, or have a special meeting with the majority leader of the U.S. Senate. They do not want more stories like the story of Roger Tamraz who gave $300,000 to the Democratic National Committee hoping for the special access he needed to promote his pipeline project. Tamraz told the Governmental Affairs Committee that as he thought about it, the next time he would give $600,000 if he thought this would help his business and that getting special access was not just one of the reasons he gave to the DNC, he said it was the only reason he gave the $300,000 and would give $600,000--for special access. But these kinds of scandals are bound to come back again and again because our political parties, Mr. President, are addicted to soft money. They cannot get enough of it. And the reason is that they have found a way to make soft money work directly for them in Federal elections. This is an incredible [[Page S10067]] twist of a loophole that was established by the FEC in 1978. Remember that prior to 1996, most of the parties' soft money went into what were called party building activities--get out the vote drives, voter registration efforts, and the like. But then in 1996, the parties discovered the issue ad, and it was off to the races. Both Presidential campaigns directly benefited from these kinds of ads--you know, the ones that do not explicitly say ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a candidate, but they are nonetheless obviously aimed at directly influencing an election, obviously intentionally intended to cause someone to vote specifically for one candidate or another. And they used party soft money to pay for the ads. Now, here is an irony, Mr. President. Just yesterday, Attorney General Reno announced yet another 90-day inquiry into the campaign finance scandals of the 1996 campaign. It has to do with issue ads run by the DNC, a portion of which were paid for with soft money. The allegation is that it was improper for the President to have participated in the development of that ad campaign. The McCain- Feingold amendment that is before us makes it very clear that such ads cannot be paid for with soft money and cannot be coordinated by the parties with their candidates. Yet some of the very people who are calling on the Attorney General to appoint this independent counsel are staunchly opposed to this amendment anyway. We also already have seen the parties and outside groups preparing to exploit the phony issue ad loophole in this election. Over the next month, more and more election ads will begin appearing around the country, but because of that loophole, in many cases there will be no disclosure either of the spending itself or of the identity of the donors who are really behind the ads. These issue ad campaigns, Mr. President, are blatantly targeted at specific elections, but again their creators intentionally avoid the elections law, but avoiding the so-called magic words of ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' Here is an example. The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call reported in July that the Republican Party is planning a $37 million issue advocacy campaign to begin running after Labor Day designed to help Republicans pick up seats in the House in November. Roll Call described the campaign as follows: Republican leaders are calling the plan ``Operation Break- Out:'' a comprehensive strategy to blanket as many as 50 to 60 battleground districts with ``issue advocacy'' television ads touting the GOP's success in balancing the budget, cutting taxes and reforming welfare. The story then states that Republican officials predict that if Members help raise the $37 million, then the party will pick up as many as 25 additional seats. So they are candid. They are very upfront about the fact that this issue ad campaign is designed specifically to help elect more Republicans to the House, not just to talk about issues. So here you have the leaders of a national political party designing a huge media plan specifically to elect candidates from that party, and specifically planning to take advantage of the phony issue ad loophole so they can at least partially pay for the campaign with soft money. This is what the twin loopholes--soft money and phony issue ads--have led us to. And, of course, Mr. President, neither par