Statement to Congress to Consider S. 25 July 30, 1997 Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, my colleagues and I have come to the floor this morning to briefly discuss the issue of campaign finance reform. It is our hope that during the August recess, discussions will progress and a plan developed to bring campaign finance reform before the Senate no later than the end of September. Almost daily I have approached the majority leader and told him that we must move forward on campaign finance reform. The leader has been exceedingly gracious and shown much patience in listening to my missives. I want to thank the majority leader for his time and hope that soon, we can come to an agreement for floor time to debate campaign finance reform. But I also understand that the leader is under great pressure to move many bills, and may feel constrained to commit at this time. I understand that situation. The leader has to deal with the wishes of 99 other Senators. However, my colleagues and I feel compelled to put the Senate on notice that the time to act on this matter is rapidly expiring. We believe that we must begin the debate on campaign finance reform no later than the end of September, and therefore, if we cannot come to some agreement to bring the bill up freestanding, with an up or down vote on the bill itself, we will feel compelled to bring the bill to the floor by offering it as an amendment to some unrelated measure. This is not an approach we relish. But we realize that we may have no other choice. Delay no longer serves any purpose. Since before the last election, talk of campaign finance reform has dominated the American conversation. The public has a right to have this issue debated. Members have recognized this fact, and as proof of that recognition, have introduced over 70 campaign finance bills. I recognize that many of those bills have laudable features. I want to sit down and work with the sponsors of those bills. And I further recognize that McCain-Feingold is far from perfect. As I have stated on numerous occasions, we have only two fundamental principles that are nonnegotiable: First, we must seek to level the playing field between challengers and incumbents; and Second, we must seek to lessen the influence of money in elections. All else is negotiable. Some of our colleagues in the House have begun discussing a scaled-down version of McCain-Feingold. I welcome those talks and want to state that if that is what is necessary to change our electoral system, then let's move in that direction. Fundamentally changing the electoral system in order to restore the faith of the American people in our Democratic Government is our goal. We are open to compromise and negotiation. But we must act soon. It is our duty. Last week the Economist published an editorial entitled `The Fear of Foreign Cash.' Although the title is slightly misleading, I would like to quote from this editorial. The answer, at least on the strength of the hearings so far, is traightforward: foreign money is worse only because it is not American. And two meanings can be read into that. One is xenophobia: that century-old American fear of little yellow mercenary men, scurrying round now at the behest of a newly menacing power on the world stage. And the second meaning is that foreign money provides a convenient distraction. While it is being comprehensively investigated, with CIA men parked behind screens and giant blow-up charts of the destinations of Mr. Huang's telephone calls, politicians can be left free to attend their dinners, go to their fund-raisers, and continue in all the ways they know best to let their consciences and their legislative proposals be shaped, like warm wax, by the promise of a cheque. While Mr. Thompson's hearings have been getting into gear, in other parts of Congress some 57 separate bills to reform campaign finance have been dying for lack of interest. Should anyone really care how good clean American money flows through the machine of American democracy? Well, yes, gentlemen: someone should. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this entire editorial be printed in the Record. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows: The Fear of Foreign Cash For two drowsy weeks, Senator Fred Thompson's committee has been conducting hearings into campaign-finance abuses during America's recent election. As a result, Americans now know that there was a Chinese plot to influence the 1996 campaign, though not who masterminded it or how wide it went. They know that John Huang, who once worked for an Indonesian bank with ties to the Chinese government, was given a post at the Commerce Department because he was such a good fund-raiser for the Democrats; but they do not know quite what use he made of his office and his fax machine. They are aware that Bill Clinton appreciated Mr. Huang and his fellow-fund-raiser, Charlie Trie, at whose Chinese restaurant in Little Rock Mr. Clinton often packed away the dim sum. But they are not yet clear what orders, if any, came down from the White House, beyond the sort that could be filled in small aluminium trays. The largest question to be answered, however, is a simpler one. It is this: why is foreign money, applied to elections, so much worse than the American sort? When the Democratic National Committee learned that this money was `illegal, inappropriate or suspect', officials instantly returned it, as if it would corrode their hands. Yet how much was involved here? A mere $2.8m, out of $2 billion spent by both parties on campaigning. Of that total, $250m was `soft' money, subject to no limits, sent in by unions and corporations for the nebulous purpose of `party-building'. Mr. Thompson's committee has undertaken to look into soft money later; but, meanwhile, how much of it has been returned as suspect? None, of course. PERILS, YELLOW AND OTHERWISE Democrats and Republicans alike will insist that the cases are not the same. Foreign contributions are illegal for good reason: outside powers may well be trying to weaken America, steal its secrets, compromise its security. Yet the supposed Chinese plot appears to have had nothing to do with national secrets, nor with persuading America to treat it kindly over trade. China just seems to have wanted to make friends in high places, as all lobbyists do; and it may well wonder why election money was so evil, when American congressmen have happily, and legally, availed themselves of $400,000-worth of free trips to China over the past 18 months. Is democracy hurt by this? Possibly; but no more than when a party or politician accepts money from any source with an interest to promote. Suppose that the Chinese government gave money in the hope of winning concessions in Asia-Pacific trade. Is this worse than the trade distortions and higher domestic prices already caused by years of election contributions from America's own sugar and peanut farmers? Or perhaps China thought an election contribution would encourage a blind eye to its abuses of human rights. Is this worse than the contributions that have won, for years, indulgent treatment for America's cigarette companies? The answer, at least on the strength of the hearings so far, is straightforward: foreign money is worse only because it is not American. And two meanings can be read into that. One is xenophobia: that century-old American fear of little yellow mercenary men, scurrying round now at the behest of a newly menacing power on the world stage. And the second meaning is that foreign money provides a convenient distraction. While it is being comprehensively investigated, with CIA men parked behind screens and giant blow-up charts of the destinations of Mr. Huang's telephone calls, politicians can be left free to attend their dinners, go to their fund-raisers, and continue in all the ways they know best to let their consciences and their legislative proposals be shaped, like warm wax, by the promise of a cheque. While Mr. Thompson's hearings have been getting into gear, in other parts of Congress some 57 separate bills to reform campaign finance have been dying for lack of interest. Should anyone really care how good clean American money flows through the machine of American democracy? Well, yes, gentlemen: someone should. Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Economist is exactly right. `Should anyone really care how good clean American money flows through the machine of American democracy? Well, yes, gentlemen, someone should.' Yes, we should and must. And we will have the opportunity to demonstrate our understanding of this issue when we return from recess. Finally, I would like to thank my friend, Russ Feingold, my friend Senator Collins, Senator Cleland, and so many others who have been involved in this issue and have made this a bipartisan issue, and one that I think deserves the attention of the Senate, and I think clearly deserves an answer for the American people. Mr. President, I thank my friend, Senator Feingold. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coats). The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I require. Mr. President, it is truly a pleasure to be here on the floor with my friend and colleague and fellow campaign finance reformer from Arizona, the senior Senator, Mr. McCain, as well as our other colleagues who join with us today, including the junior Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, and shortly expected the senior Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, and, of course, my good friend, the junior Senator from Georgia, Mr. Cleland. We are all among a group of 33 Members of this body who have already cosponsored the McCain-Feingold legislation. As the Senator from Arizona said, we are here today to announce that we will be seeking consideration of bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation during the month of September. We will continue our discussions, as the Senator from Arizona indicated, with the majority leader. And I am hopeful that we will be able to reach a compromise that will allow us to have an open public debate on this issue, and allow all Senators the opportunity to participate in offering amendments to our proposal. However, as the Senator from Arizona has just indicated, if such an agreement with the majority leader cannot be reached, we are prepared to use other legislative proposals as a vehicle for campaign finance reform. That is not our preference. But we are committed to having a discussion of this issue and making sure there are votes on campaign finance reform during the month of September. We have said for some time now--and the Senator from Arizona just reiterated--that our bipartisan proposal is far from perfect. We have repeatedly told Senators on both sides of the aisle that we are open to making changes for modifications to this package. We do have some fundamental issues, however, that we will not waiver on. First, this proposal will ban soft money. The days when corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals could make unlimited contributions to the national parties will be over. Second, the proposal must try to level the playing field between incumbents and challengers. Currently, we have a system that provides incumbent Senators with a reelection rate of 90 to 95 percent and provides virtually no assistance to legitimate challengers who are essentially being shut out of the democratic process. We must provide an opportunity for candidates, particularly underfunded challengers taking on well-entrenched incumbents, to run a competitive campaign without having to raise and spend millions of dollars. Finally, Mr. President, whatever package of reforms we consider and whatever modifications we are willing to make, those reforms must be balanced and bipartisan. I am pleased at this point, Mr. President, to insert into the Record a statement today from the President of the United States, William J. Clinton, with regard to the campaign finance reform legislation. Mr. President, I would now like to read from the President's statement, which he asked us to present as a part of this presentation. The President says: In my State-of-the-Union Address, I called on Congress to enact bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation. I said that delay could be the death of reform, and urged Congress to move forward quickly. I strongly support the decision by Senators McCain and Feingold to bring campaign finance reform legislation to the floor of Congress in September for a vote. The problem with the role of money in presidential and congressional elections are plain. Since the campaign finance laws were last overhauled two and a half decades ago, the system has been overwhelmed by a flood of campaign cash. Both political parties are now engaged in an ever-escalating arms race for campaign funds. The consequences for our political system are clear; there is too much money in politics, and it takes too much time to raise. To make sure that ordinary citizens have the loudest voice in our democracy, we must act to change the campaign finance laws. This year, I have asked the FEC to ban so called `soft money' to parties; I have asked the Federal Communications Commission to require broadcasters to provide free TV time to candidates; and the Justice Department has indicated it will defend spending limits in the courts. But these steps, however important, are no substitute for legislation. America needs--and the American people demand--strong, comprehensive campaign finance reform legislation. As the new century approaches, we have an opportunity and an obligation to restore the trust of the American people in their politics--and this is our chance to do it. For years, the special interests and their allies have blocked reform. This year, those who seek to continue special interest influence as usual will filibuster again. But this year, we have an opportunity to come together across party lines to act and pass reform that cleans up the campaign finance system. September will be the time for members of the Senate to stand up and be counted for reform. I will do what I can to see to it that 1997 is finally the year that it is achieved. Mr. President, we welcome the support and enthusiasm of the President of the United States for our effort. The Senators who are here on the floor today have joined together across party and ideological lines to produce a compromise package that I like to refer to as moderate, mutual disarmament. We have already heard the top 10 excuses for why we can't pass campaign finance reform. And frankly, I am amazed at some of the absurd arguments we have heard from opponents of reform. We have been told, ridiculously enough, that there is not enough money flowing through our campaign system. That argument, incidently, is greeted with laughter every time I tell my constituents in Wisconsin that there are some folks in Washington who actually believe we need more money in our political system. We have been told that our proposal is somehow inconsistent with the first amendment--a giant red herring given that a number of the leading nonpartisan, first amendment scholars in the country, including the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, have all said otherwise. We have been told that reform is not possible without a constitutional amendment, an argument all too familiar to those of us who were told that we could not have a balanced budget without a constitutional amendment. We have been told that the Senate does not have enough courage to pass meaningful reform and that, once again, we should delegate responsibility to some sort of commission. We have been told by some that this bill goes too far, and interestingly, by others that it does not go far enough. Some might point to that as the working definition of a moderate proposal. We have been told that the American people do not care about this issue, despite numerous public opinion polls demonstrating 80 to 90 percent of the American people in support of these reforms. We have been told that this issue requires further study, despite 29 sets of hearings, 76 CRS reports and 522 different witnesses testifying on this issue over the last decade. We have been told that the outrageous fundraising practices that we witnessed in the last election and which have spawned congressional investigations, a Justice Department investigation, an FBI investigation, and a CIA investigation, and have led to charges of espionage, corruption and undue influence were `a healthy sign of a vibrant democracy.' In short Mr. President, we have heard more phony excuses than are heard by a high school vice-principal's office. Fortunately, no one is buying these excuses. Not the Senators who are standing here on the floor today and certainly not the American people. I look forward to having a public discussion during the month of September about the role of money in our political system. And I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in passing meaningful, bipartisan campaign finance reform in 1997. Mr. President, I want to conclude, as the Senator from Arizona did, by just mentioning the folks that are here on the floor with us today. Obviously, I have already talked about my great feelings about working with Senator McCain on this, but I know that the other three Senators we are going to hear from--Senator Collins, Senator Levin, and Senator Cleland--who are all members of the Governmental Affairs Committee, are intimately aware of what is wrong with our system. They have taken the time to come down here today to put forth a message, as Senator Cleland has done so well at the hearings. He has asked a number of witnesses, `Would these things have happened had McCain-Feingold been enacted?' The answer in every case was, `No.' So that is the challenge before us. Mr. President, at this point I would like to yield such time as she requires to the Senator from Maine. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine. Ms. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am delighted to join my colleagues, particularly Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, in announcing our intent to bring bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation to a vote in September. At the State level, Maine has led the Nation on this issue, and the people of my State think the time has come for Congress to step up to the plate and enact meaningful reform. As a member of the Governmental Affairs Committee, I have spent the past month listening to testimony about illegal campaign contributions. It is not a pretty picture. In my opening statement at the hearings, I observed that our political system suffers from a mania for money. If anything, the hearings have demonstrated that I underestimated just how intense that mania is. Mr. President, we should be embarrassed by how our political system is viewed. Listen to the judgment rendered by Johnny Chung, one of the individuals alleged to have laundered foreign political contributions. `I see the White House is like a subway--you have to put in coins to open the gates.' What Mr. Chung did not say, because he did not have to say it, is that the vast majority of hard-working and honest Americans do not have enough coins to make the gates open. This is not a partisan observation. All of us in this Chamber--Republicans and Democrats alike--should be embarrassed at the perception that the leaders of the greatest Nation on earth are accessible only to those with enough coins. Mr. President, we should be embarrassed that the American people are convinced that we will never reform the system, that we will never put the integrity of our political system ahead of our self-interests. Some argue that the relative quiet of the people means they are satisfied with the status quo, but that is wrong. In this case, silence sends a stronger message of disapproval than the loudest shouts of protest. The message that it sends is that people have given up on us. Look at the reform efforts at the State level, and you will see that it is not that the voters do not believe in campaign finance reform. It is that they do not believe in the U.S. Senate. We all know that if left untreated, the disease that afflicts our political system will only grow worse. With the high cost of television ads, the money frenzy can only grow. Indeed, the television ad race has become the political counterpart of the nuclear arms race characterized by the same insecure feeling that one can never have enough. None of us involved in this effort has all of the answers. We recognize that reforming our campaign finance laws raises difficult issues of public policy and thorny issues of constitutional law. Our approach is not set in stone. We are open to other ideas. We are open to compromise, but we are not open to letting the Senate duck this issue. Like my colleagues, I look forward to working with the leadership of this body to bring this matter to a vote. We have an obligation to the American people to ensure that such a vote comes about, and we are determined to make that happen in September. Mr. President, the American dream has undergone some changes, not all of which are for the better. We are now living in a country in which any millionaire can dream of growing up to be a United States Senator. That may be an acceptable state of affairs during a time of peace and prosperity, when the Government does not need to call upon the people of this Nation to make sacrifices. But the unhealthy mix between money and politics may produce far more worrisome consequences during periods when America is tested. As with all reforms, the time to make them is before they are urgently needed. I look forward to a vigorous debate and vote on this issue in September. I thank my colleagues for working with me on this important issue. I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am extremely grateful for the work of Senator Collins on this issue. I now yield to the Senator from Michigan such time as he may require. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Wisconsin and congratulate the great Senators from Arizona and Wisconsin for their steadfast leadership on this issue. It is a privilege to join their cause and to join with others, Senator Collins and Senator Cleland, in the Chamber this morning to speak on behalf of this bill. Mr. President, I have in my hand here a copy of the current Federal campaign finance law. It says that individuals cannot contribute more than $1,000 to any candidate or political committee with respect to any election for Federal office. It says corporations and unions cannot contribute at all. In Presidential campaigns you are supposed to be financed with public funds. That is the law on the books today. So how is it that we hear about contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, corporations and unions? Why do Presidents and Presidential candidates spend long hours fundraising for hundreds of thousands of dollars? How is it possible, we ask? We thought there was a law. Well, there is, but in the race to compete and win elections, candidates and parties have found a way around the law, and that way is what we refer to as soft money. It is called soft money as opposed to hard money, which is the money regulated by the campaign finance laws, because soft money is easier to raise. You can get $500,000, say, from just one corporation or individual. You do not have to go to 500 different people and raise $1,000 each as you do with hard money. You can find one person who is rich enough and willing enough to pay a half-million dollars or more and you can then accept that contribution. There is another part in current law which says that if you spend money in an election in support of a candidate or opposed to a candidate, you have to spend only money that is raised the hard way, following the limits. But here is a TV ad, and there are dozens like this one, and here we have a transcript of this TV ad, and anyone who would see this ad would think that it was opposed to a particular candidate. But this ad was produced and aired not with hard money, as the law requires, but with soft money, and here it is. It reads this way: Who is Bill Yellowtail? He preaches family values but he takes a swing at his wife. Yellowtail's explanation. He only slapped her, but her nose was not broken. He talks law and order but is himself a convicted criminal. And though he talks about protecting children, Yellowtail failed to make his own child support payments, then voted against child support enforcement. Call Bill Yellowtail and tell him you don't approve of his wrongful behavior. Now, there is no doubt that that ad, which was bought and paid for by an organization called Citizens for Reform, was designed to defeat Bill Yellowtail, but because it doesn't use any of the seven so-called magic phrases like `vote against' or `defeat,' it is not governed by our campaign finance laws. Why? Because it is viewed as an issue ad, at least up until now, and not a candidate ad, and it can be paid for with soft money. Now, nobody really believes that fiction, but that is what the law currently allows. So, Mr. President, you have the vicious combination under the current campaign system and outside of the control of our campaign finance laws of contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from one individual or corporation funding campaign ads that go directly for or against a particular candidate. The net result is that the exceptions to our campaign finance laws have swallowed up the rules. Our campaign finance laws are a sham and a shambles. Now we face the daunting task of trying to plug those loopholes, to make the law whole again and in making it whole to make it effective. I am pleased to be here today to announce our intention, Mr. President, to get the Senate, one way or another, to take up the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill in September. We are hopeful, of course, that we can work out an agreement with the majority leader to allow us to have an up-down vote on the bill. But if that cannot be arranged, we are committed to getting this legislation before the Senate in spite of the absence of such an agreement. It is not our preferred way to approach this legislation, but it may be the only way we can get it before the Senate. I hope not, but it may prove to be the only way. Some will argue that we should first complete the campaign fundraising investigation into the 1996 elections currently being conducted by the Governmental Affairs Committee. But they know that we do not need more evidence to prove this crime. And the current state of our campaign finance system is a crime. What is already unlawful, of course, must be prosecuted, but too much of what is currently lawful should be unlawful. The McCain-Feingold bill is a comprehensive bipartisan bill supported by over a majority of this Senate. The President has said in a letter read by Senator Feingold that he welcomes the opportunity to sign it. There is strong support in the House of Representatives. We are determined to bring this bill to the floor of the Senate and to keep it before the Senate until we get an up-down vote, and we are determined to do that in September. The Fourth of July was supposed to be the date by which this legislation was to be considered. This year July comes in September, and we will act to get this legislation considered in an up-down vote by the Senate in September. Again, I commend the leaders of this effort. It is going to take great strength and great energy to overcome the opposition, but we are determined to use our full energies to do just that. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Presiding Officer will advise the Senator from Wisconsin he has 4 minutes and 40 seconds remaining on his time. Mr. FEINGOLD. We are delighted to have the persistence and expertise of the Senator from Michigan on this effort. I yield all but 30 seconds to my friend from Georgia. Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, hearing the discussion in this Chamber today gets my juices flowing. I appreciate the comments of everyone here. It reminds me that back in my great State of Georgia there is a little town called Waycross that has adopted as its mascot a little comic strip character called Pogo. Pogo was a little possum that lived on the edge of the Okefenokee Swamp, and he was famous for one statement, which is, `We have met the enemy and he is us.' There is no question, Mr. President, that the enemy of campaign finance reform is us, and yet the friends of campaign finance reform are us. We have to resolve this issue. It is not going to be left up to anyone else, any one other body. We have to do it and no one else is going to do it. I am extremely pleased to join with my distinguished colleagues from Arizona and Wisconsin and Maine and Michigan to discuss this critical issue that I think is one of the most important issues we face certainly this year. Now, my friends, Senators McCain and Feingold, have indicated we will be voting on this issue in this Chamber this September. I certainly hope so. Three of us here also have the distinction, and I guess it is an honor, of serving on the Governmental Affairs Committee which is investigating a series of illegal and improper activities in connection with the Federal elections of 1996. All three of us--myself, Senator Collins, and Senator Levin--are recently veterans of the campaign finance wars, each of us having won election or reelection in the 1996 elections. I think that is one of the reasons why we have a burning desire to change the very system under which we ran. While the Governmental Affairs Committee has more work to do in uncovering the full story of the 1996 elections, it is already abundantly clear that the atrocious current system of Federal campaign finance laws has made our country vulnerable to efforts by foreign as well as domestic sources to improperly influence our electoral process. As Georgia's secretary of state and certainly as a U.S. Senator, I have been aware for a long time of the domestic abuses of big money and special interests, and that concern has helped fuel my longstanding interest in significant campaign finance reform. Mr. President, these Governmental Affairs proceedings have been an eye-opener for me. They have indicated to me the incredible vulnerability that this country and our political system experience in terms of foreign special interests. As the preceding speakers have indicated, we as a group are not wedded to any one plan. We will be working with other Senators to come up with the best legislation we can possibly put together. But we will insist that the final legislative language we will support and force a vote on in September be truly bipartisan, must be real reform and not a sham, and in my view to constitute real reform at a minimum we must reduce the role of big money in our political process, help level the playing field for less-financed candidates and must ban soft money altogether at the Federal level. One of the unifying threads of the Governmental Affairs investigation to date has been the very concentration virtually of all the fundraising abuses in both parties in the realm of soft money. So I look forward to taking our case back home to our constituents in August and in forging a bipartisan compromise which does incorporate the necessary elements of real reform. We are not going to terminate our effort. We intend to terminate these abuses. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for an excellent presentation this morning. We are very much looking forward to September. Let me include, because know various Senators have to go to Governmental Affairs Committee, one last anecdote. The chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, Senator Thompson, the other day heard reference to the McCain-Feingold bill, and he corrected it saying it's actually been called the McCain-Feingold-Thompson bill. I think that is a good sign for the future of our legislation. I thank the Chair.

# # #