Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains on the other side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are reaching another stage in the campaign finance reform debate today. I certainly sympathize with the Senator from Oklahoma when he is concerned about some ways in which his bill has been characterized. I have had the experience here on the floor this week of having the McCain-Feingold bill compared, first, to a human rights violation and, also, as very similar to the Alien and Sedition Acts. So, clearly, sometimes the rhetoric gets a little carried away. But what is really going on here today in the U.S. Senate just has to make the American people shake their heads. How can they look at this and not wonder what is going on? They can see a clear bipartisan majority in favor of campaign finance reform; and the bipartisan majority isn't for the majority leader's antilabor bill. The majority support that has been demonstrated over and over again this week is for the McCain-Feingold bill. I think people in Wisconsin, in particular, have to be shaking their heads, because the one thing I have learned in 15 years of representing the people of Wisconsin is that they really dislike partisanship. They understand the need for a two-party system. They like the two- party system. They understand the fact that you talk as Republicans and Democrats at election time, because you have to have parties and you have to have an election, but they really, really do not like it when you keep talking and acting like the whole issue is Republican versus Democrat after the election. What they want is for us to work together. What they like best is when we can come together as Republicans and Democrats in bipartisan coalitions. Mr. President, as I have gone to every county in Wisconsin every year I've been in the Senate and have held town meetings, and when I just mention the fact that I am working with a Republican, the Senator from Arizona, before they even know what the topic is, people applaud, because they crave bipartisan cooperation in this country. Mr. President, the American people are shaking their heads because they know this is a very unusual bipartisan coalition. The Senators involved in this issue know the details of the bill in a way that maybe many Americans do not know. So they did not just applaud when they heard the title; they have looked at it very carefully and they have considered it and shown this week that the majority of the U.S. Senate wants this change in our campaign finance laws, and they want it now. So, Mr. President, what we have is a bipartisan majority and a partisan minority. We have Republicans and Democrats together, at least 52 of them, in favor of the bill and a smaller group from one party opposing the bill. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan agreement on the merits of the bill, and we have a partisan desire to kill it. Mr. President, we have a bipartisan majority of the Senate that understands that this issue obviously isn't just about union dues. This is the most absurd proposition. The entire range of things we have seen about the campaigns--the soft money, the coffees, the foreign contributions, the labor unions, the independent groups, the corporations--the majority of this body knows all of these things are part of the big money problem. The partisan minority says the whole problem is unions, and not even unions, just how they obtain their dues. The fact is, the bill that the majority leader brought forth is nothing but a poison pill. Now, maybe that was not his intent. You know, if you give somebody a poison pill by accident, it still kills them. So, I am not suggesting this was the intent. It is the fact. If that provision becomes the heart of this bill, it kills the bill. I am happy to say it is almost irrelevant, because a majority of this body has made it clear this week that it does not support having that be a part of the McCain-Feingold bill. That is one thing we achieved this week. So, Mr. President, what we have here today is a bipartisan desire, a passion for reform and for change, and a partisan insistence that we do absolutely nothing, that we do nothing. Now, one argument that has been made, Mr. President, is that, even though there are obviously some Republicans in support of the bill, it really isn't a bipartisan bill, that somehow, because of the nature of the Republican cosponsors, it isn't a bipartisan bill. This has been said over and over again. It was said when they said we only had two Republicans; then they said it when we only had three Republicans; and then they said it when we only had four Republicans--it is not really a bipartisan bill. Now, with seven Republicans and all the Democrats in unanimity, they still say this is really not a bipartisan bill. Well, who are these Republicans? Are they renegades? Are they coconspirators with the Democratic Party? Are they secret allies of organized labor? Who are these seven Republicans? Well, one, the lead author, is the chairman of the Commerce Committee, somebody who is often mentioned as a Presidential candidate. Another is the chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, who is also mentioned as a Presidential candidate. There is a Senator from Pennsylvania from the majority party who supports this, a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee and a former chairman of the Intelligence Committee who supports this bill. There is the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island, one of the most distinguished Members of this body. He has indicated, by his votes this week, that he supports change. The chairman of the Labor Committee supports this bill. And, finally, two individuals who are not yet chairmen but who are the two Senators from the leading reform State in this Nation, the State of Maine, Senator Collins and Senator Snowe, Republicans, but people who care about this country enough to join together with the Democrats to try to pass campaign finance reform. So let me just return to the first name--John McCain. John McCain's name on this bill alone obviously makes it a bipartisan bill. But, more importantly, the senior Senator from Arizona knows that, even though this obviously must cause him partisan heartburn, he always does what is best for this country. So, he has taken enormous heat on this issue. This is surely a bipartisan effort and a strong one. Mr. President, what we have shown this week is that we have a working majority, not just on paper, but a group that will vote together as a block for reform. We won vote after vote this week. The majority leader of the U.S. Senate tried to table our bill once, twice, and three times, and he lost every time. How often does the majority leader of the U.S. Senate lose with 55 Members in his caucus? I do not think we have had this few Democrats in decades in this body. How does the majority leader not win on any of those votes unless there is a clear bipartisan majority in favor of change? So my point, Mr. President, is we are winning and the opposition is losing. To be sure, it is a long, hard road. The senior Senator from Arizona has warned me about that time and again. But we will look for every opportunity today on these votes, tomorrow, next week, and all the rest of this session, to get the additional support that we need to pass this bill. Because in the end Mr. President, can Members of the Senate go back home and tell the voters, ``We had a terrible problem in Washington. There was corruption. There was wrongdoing. There was the terrible abuse of big money. And we decided to do absolutely nothing about it''? That is what the partisan minority has decided is the end of the story. Well, when people vote next year, they will not be shaking their heads; they will be casting their ballots. And they will now know who thought it is time to return the power to the people back home and who decided to leave it all here in Washington with the Washington gatekeepers. That is what is at stake today. And that is what is at stake on these cloture votes. So, Mr. President, with that, I will yield--could I ask how much time remains for myself?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 7 minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota very much and look forward to looking carefully at his proposal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota very much and look forward to looking carefully at his proposal.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself such time as I require.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from Maine. Let me first say that it was an interesting comment by the Senator from Kentucky that those of us trying to pass campaign finance reform don't like Buckley v. Valeo. I don't have strong feelings on liking or not liking Supreme Court cases. I just consider them the law of the land. In this case, instead of taking the route that some people would like me and others to take of supporting a constitutional amendment to achieve campaign finance reform, something I vigorously opposed, I have instead, working with Senator McCain and others, chosen to find a way to pass a bill that is within the Court's rulings and holdings in Buckley v. Valeo. So I happen to think that is the controlling law. And the suggestion that somehow we don't consider that to be a valid case is simply wrong. Our efforts for 3 years have consistently been to craft a bill that the United States Supreme Court would say is constitutional in every respect. In fact, the Senator from Kentucky, after years of trying to suggest that the voluntary spending limits and the soft money ban are unconstitutional, now is only focusing on suggesting that a redefinition of phony issue ads is somehow unconstitutional. I think that is not at all an established proposition. I might add, I think our efforts here on this bill, with the help of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, are getting stronger. Every day we are getting a little stronger on this bill, and it is a good feeling. So it is my pleasure to rise today to speak in support of the amendment that the distinguished Senators from Maine and Vermont have offered. It reminds me of the tremendous help that the Presiding Officer, the other Senator from Maine, gave us when she had some ideas about how we could improve our bill. This is how you get a good bill. People with good ideas come together and gradually it gets improved, you gain support, until the point where it becomes obvious not only that a majority of the body supports the bill, which we have already achieved, but obviously it is in the interests of the people of this country that we simply get on with the business of the country and pass it. So I am a cosponsor of that amendment that has been offered, along with Senators Levin and Lieberman on our side of the aisle and Senators McCain, Thompson, Collins and Chafee on the Republican side. When the debate on campaign finance reform reached a stalemate last fall, Senators Snowe and Jeffords indicated they did intend to continue through the winter months looking for a solution to the deadlock. Those were not idle words. They were true to their word. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment that has taken shape over the past 2 weeks is a sincere effort to address the two primary sticking points that have caused our efforts to be delayed: alleged first amendment concerns with the provisions of our bill dealing with issue advocacy and express advocacy, and the use of corporate and union treasury money for what amount to campaign attack advertisements in the closing days of the campaign. Let me talk for a moment how the Snowe-Jeffords amendment navigates the difficult political and constitutional shoals that face us in this debate. The first thing the amendment does is more clearly define a category of communications in the law. We call them electioneering communications. These electioneering communications are communications that meet three tests: First, they are made through the broadcast media, radio and television, including satellite and cable. Second, they refer to a clearly identified official candidate--in other words, they show the face or speak the name of the candidate. And third, they appear within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary in which that candidate is running. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment provides that for-profit corporations and labor unions cannot make electioneering communications using their treasury funds. If they want to run TV ads mentioning candidates close to the election, they must use voluntary contributions to their political action committees. We firmly believe that this approach will withstand constitutional scrutiny because corporations and unions have for a very long time been barred from spending money directly on Federal elections. The Senator from Kentucky suggested we lack case law for these propositions, but the Supreme Court upheld the ban on corporate spending in the Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce case. Mr. President, it is noted that a Michigan regulation that prohibited corporations from making independent expenditures from treasury funds prevented ``corruption in the public arena: the corrosive and distorting effects of immense aggregations of wealth that are accumulated with the help of the corporate form and that have little or no correlation to the public's support for the corporation's political ideas.'' According to the Court, the Michigan regulation ``ensured that the expenditures reflect actual public support for the political ideas espoused by the corporations.'' We are merely saying through this amendment that actual public support, shown by voluntary contributions to a PAC, must be present when corporations and unions want to run ads mentioning candidates near in time to an election. The Snowe-Jeffords amendment goes on to permit spending on these kinds of ads by nonprofit corporations, if they are registered as 501(c)(4) advocacy groups, and other unincorporated groups and individuals. The rules about corporations and unions do not apply in the same way to these groups, but the amendment, but it makes one requirement. It requires disclosure of the groups' large donors whose funds are used to place the ads once the total spending of the group on the electioneering communications reaches $10,000. It only applies if the total spending over a total amount of $10,000. A few things should be noted about the disclosure requirement that entities other than unions and for-profit corporations are subject to if they engage in these kinds of electioneering communications. The disclosure required here is not burdensome; it simply requires a group placing an ad to report the spending to the FEC within 24 hours, and to provide the name of the group, or of any other group that exercises control over its activities, and of the custodian of records of the group, and finally of the amount of each disbursement and the person to whom the money was paid. Second, this disclosure requirement is triggered by the spending of $10,000 or more on these kinds of ads. If a small group that spends only a few thousand on radio spots wants to do that, and they stay under $10,000, they will never have to report a thing. There is no new requirement there. Third, the disclosure of contributors required is really quite limited. It does not require all contributors of all amounts to be disclosed. Only large donors who contribute more than $500 must be identified, and they have to be identified only by name and address. And a group that received donations from a wide variety of purposes, including some corporate or labor or treasury money, can set up a separate bank account to which only individuals can contribute, pay for the ads out of that account, and then they only have to disclose only the large donors whose money is put in that account. So any individual who doesn't want to be disclosed can easily ask that the group not spend his or her money on that kind of activity. The net result will be that the public will learn through this amendment who the people are who are giving large contributions to groups to try to influence elections. If a group is merely a shell for a few wealthy donors, as we suspect that many of the groups who ran the nastiest ads in 1996 were, then we will know who these big money supporters are and we will be in a lot better position to assess their real agenda. On the other hand, if an established group with a large membership of small contributors under $500 wishes to engage in this kind of activity, it doesn't have to disclose any of its contributors under this amendment because it can pay for the ads freely from small donor money routed to the special bank account for individual donors. Mr. President, I believe these disclosure provisions will pass constitutional muster. But the Senator from Kentucky and also the Senator from Washington earlier in the debate today have argued that even these reasonable disclosure requirements somehow violate the Constitution, and they cite the case of NAACP v. Alabama from 1958. That is a very important case in the history of our country and the history of the first amendment, and one with which I fully agree, but the conclusion that the Senator from Kentucky draws from it with respect to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment is simply wrong. At the height of the civil rights struggle, the State of Alabama obtained a judicial order for the NAACP to produce its membership lists, and fined it $100,000 for failing to comply. The NAACP challenged that order and argued that the first amendment rights of its members to freely associate to advance their common beliefs would be violated by the forced disclosure of their membership lists. They pointed out many instances where the revealing of the identities of its members exposed them to economic reprisals, loss of unemployment, and even threats of physical coercion. The Court held that the State had not demonstrated a sufficient interest in obtaining these lists that would justify the deterrent effect on the members of the NAACP exercising their rights of association. Now, Mr. President, everyone in this body should know that the Snowe amendment is totally different from what the State of Alabama tried to do in the NAACP case. The Snowe amendment doesn't ask for any membership lists. The Senator from Washington stood up and read quotes about how the NAACP case doesn't allow a requirement that a group disclose its membership list, but the Snowe amendment doesn't do anything of the kind. It is a simple red herring with regard to what we are asking in the Snowe amendment. All the Snowe amendment does is ask for is the very limited disclosure of the names and addresses of large contributors to a specific bank account used for the single purpose of paying for certain kinds of electioneering communications. So, Mr. President, contrary to the claim that this is somehow like the NAACP case, most membership groups won't have to disclose anything if they receive sufficient small donations to cover their expenditures on these types of communications. And even if contributors want to give more, they don't have to be identified, as long as their money is not used for the kinds of ads that would be subject to this kind of disclosure. Finally, the disclosure requirement can be avoided altogether by crafting an ad that does not specifically refer to a candidate during the short window of time right before an election. This is nothing like asking the NAACP or the NRA or anyone else to divulge their complete membership lists. This is a false analogy. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has shown much more willingness to uphold disclosure requirements in connection with election spending than the Senator from Kentucky has been willing to recognize so far in this debate. In Citizens Against Rent Control v. the City of Berkeley, a 1981 case, for example, the Court struck down a limit on contributions to committees formed to support or oppose ballot a measure. But the court, Mr. President, noted specifically: The integrity of the political system will be adequately protected if contributors are identified in a public filing revealing the amounts contributed; if it is thought wise, legislation can outlaw anonymous contributions. Mr. President, it is worth noting that the opinion in that case was by Chief Justice Warren Burger and the vote was 8-1. The only dissenter, Justice White, thought the limits themselves on contributions should be upheld. So with regard to this issue, it was essentially unanimous. In U.S. v. Harriss, the Court upheld disclosure requirements for lobbyists, despite the alleged chilling effect that those requirements might have on the right to petition the Government. Of course, the Buckley Court itself, which the Senator from Kentucky frequently refers to, upheld disclosure requirements for groups who make independent expenditures. Now, of course, the Court will have to analyze the Snowe amendment when it gets there and the type of communications that trigger it and determine if they pass constitutional muster. I will not proclaim that there is no argument to be made at all that this provision is unconstitutional. Of course there is, and I am sure groups like the National Right to Life Committee will make it. But to say that there is no chance that this provision will be upheld, as the Senator from Kentucky has said, is just not right. There is ample and substantial constitutional justification and precedent for this provision. As the Brennan Center for Justice wrote in its letter analyzing the Snowe-Jeffords amendment: Disclosure rules do not restrict speech significantly. Disclosure rules do not limit the information that is conveyed to the electorate. To the contrary, they increase the flow of information. For that reason, the Supreme Court has made clear that rules requiring disclosure are subject to less exacting constitutional strictures than direct prohibitions on spending . . .. There is no constitutional bar to expanding the disclosure rules to provide accurate information to voters about the sponsors of ads indisputably designed to influence their votes. Mr. President, it is also important to note that the Snowe-Jeffords amendment contains provisions designed to prevent the laundering of corporate and union money through nonprofits. Groups that wish to engage in this particular kind of advocacy must ensure that only the contributions of individual donors are used for the expenditures. Because the prohibition in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment is limited to unions and corporations spending money from their treasuries on these kinds of ads, many of the concerns that opponents of McCain-Feingold voiced about the effect of the bill on speech by citizens groups are eliminated. Keep that in mind. One of the things people claimed was the real problem of McCain-Feingold--there has been sort of a shifting bottom line of what the real problem is--but that portion has been modified in Snowe-Jeffords. Senators who oppose this amendment must be willing to stand on two positions now that I think are both unsupportable. First, Mr. President, those who still oppose McCain-Feingold, if it is amended by Snowe-Jeffords, must defend the rights of unions and corporations using treasury money--not citizens groups like the National Right to Life Committee or the Christian Coalition or the Sierra Club--to run essentially campaign advertisements that dodge the Federal election laws by not using the magic words ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' or to finance those ads through other groups. So that is the conclusion: Corporations and unions, apparently, should just be allowed to do this freely, despite the almost unanimous complaints by Members of the Senate with regard to this question. Secondly, those who are still holding out, even though they represent a minority of the Senate, in terms of supporting McCain-Feingold as it will be amended, argue that the public is not entitled to know, in the case of advocacy groups that run these ads close to an election, what the identities of these people are. They say that they should not be known to those who are about to vote. Many opponents of McCain-Feingold have trumpeted the virtues of full disclosure and say that is what we need--disclosure; not McCain-Feingold. I have, at times, doubted how serious they were about disclosure because they would never acknowledge the important advances our bill provides with regard to disclosure. Now, when we vote on the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, we will see how sincere the opponents of this bill are about the importance of disclosure, because the Snowe-Jeffords amendment requires nothing more of advocacy groups than full disclosure. In fact, it requires a lot less because the groups only have to make these disclosures if they run these ads close to an election and if they spend more than $10,000 on those electioneering communications. Mr. President, our agreement on the Snowe-Jeffords amendment means that a clear majority of this Senate supports bipartisan campaign finance reform. Further, we will vote as a block to defeat any ``poison pill'' offered by opponents. This agreement puts the onus of killing reform, if that is what happens, back where it belongs--on those who would put a partisan attack on unions over the greater good of abolishing soft money. I urge my other colleagues on the Republican side to join this effort and recognize, as Senators Snowe and Jeffords have done, along with Senators Thompson, Collins, Specter, and the original author, Senator McCain, before them, and that a strong majority of the American people understands, that the McCain-Feingold bill is a balanced, reasonable, and fair step toward reform and that we can achieve that reform if we put our heads together and work out our differences. Once again, Senator McCain and I are more than willing to talk to anyone who sincerely wants reform or to talk about changes to our bill that will bring us closer to the 60 votes we need to get past the filibuster that opponents have promised. The fruitful negotiations that have produced the Snowe-Jeffords amendment have shown that we are serious about passing McCain-Feingold this year. Mr. President, with that renewed invitation, I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I want to offer my heartiest congratulations to the athletes who represented our nation and the State of Wisconsin so admirably at the recently-completed 18th Winter Olympic Games in Nagano, Japan. Millions of people throughout the world thrilled to the sights and sounds of athletes, several of whom overcame great personal hardship, pushing themselves to go faster, farther or higher at Nagano. We witnessed the full panoply of the human spirit in the arena of athletic competition; we were reminded of all the hard work and sacrifice demanded of those who would become Olympians; and many of us drew inspiration from what we saw. Mr. President, Wisconsin sent 29 men and women to the Games in Nagano. They competed in speedskating, hockey, curling and even snow sculpting. Some brought home medals, and all of them brought back indelible memories of competing on the world stage with the world's best athletes. Best known among them is probably Chris Witty, of West Allis, who holds the world's record for the 1,000 meter speedskate and who added to her growing cache of honors with a silver medal in the 1,000 meter speedskating event and a bronze medal in the 1,500 meter event. Another Wisconsinite, Karyn Bye, of River Falls, played forward on the historic gold-medal-winning women's hockey team and who, draped in the Stars and Stripes after she and her teammates triumphed, showed us what pure joy looks like. Mr. President, athletes and athletics get a lot of attention in our society, sometimes for unpleasant reasons, but I believe there is something inherently good about people testing themselves, pushing themselves, working individually and together to do their best. That is the spirit that motivated these Olympians, and to them we offer our congratulations for their efforts, our thanks for their inspiration, and our best wishes for their future endeavors. No matter where they go from here, I hope they always remember their experiences in Nagano, and I hope they retain their capacity to push themselves as far as they can, and to encourage others to do the same.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) in offering the Social Security Trust Fund Protection Act of 1998, legislation extending our current PAYGO budget rules, and clarifying that Congress may not use so-called budget surpluses to pay for tax cuts or new spending when those surpluses are really Social Security Trust Fund balances. Mr. President, it gives me particular pleasure to join with Senator Hollings in offering this bill. Both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a consistent voice for fiscal prudence in this body. Mr. President, fiscal prudence is popular in theory, but often less attractive in practice. Senator Hollings has taken tough positions, even when those positions may not have been politically attractive. That is the true measure of commitment to honest and prudent budgeting, and I am proud to join him in this effort today. I am also pleased to be introducing a measure which is similar in many respects to a measure introduced in the other body by Congressman Minge, who has an outstanding record of working in a bipartisan manner to bring fiscal discipline to the budget. The Minge bill, too, seeks to prevent the irresponsible use of Social Security Trust Fund balances, and I very much look forward to working with the Congressman to advance these proposed budget rules. Mr. President, we are entering a budget era of transition. For decades, Congress and the White House ran up huge deficits, producing a mounting national debt. For the past few years, we have worked to bring down those deficits. Those efforts have paid off, in large part, and we are now about to consider something Congress has not seen in 30 years-- a unified budget submitted by the President that actually reaches balance. Mr. President, if we can work together to pass a balanced unified budget this year that will be a notable accomplishment, and it deserves to be highlighted. But, Mr. President, even if we do pass a balanced unified budget this year, that is not the end of our work. Balancing the unified budget isn't a touchdown. It's more like first and ten at mid-field. It's not a bad place to be, but we still have a way to go. But, Mr. President, some act as if the goal posts are really on the 50; that all we have to do is balance the unified budget and we've scored a touchdown. They want to declare victory once the unified budget is in balance, and use any projected unified budget surpluses for increased spending or tax cuts. Just last week, a member of this body was reported to have complained about needing to find offsets for tax cuts. The implied intention of that member was to support a large tax cut without also cutting enough spending to fully pay for the tax cut. Instead, the unspoken intention of this member was to rely on a projected surplus in the unified budget as an offset. Mr. President, that would be a grave mistake. As the President cautioned us during his State of the Union address, we should not touch the unified budget surplus. In fact, that admonition may have been just as important as the achievement of proposing the first balanced unified budget in 30 years. Mr. President, while I strongly agree with the President's comments, I approach this matter from a different perspective. There are many of us who do not view the unified budget as the appropriate measure of our Nation's budget. In particular, I want to acknowledge my fellow Budget Committee colleagues, Senators Hollings and Conrad, for their consistent warnings to the body on this very issue. Mr. President, as I have noted before, the unified budget is not the budget which should guide our policy decisions. The projected surpluses in the unified budget are not real. In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on-budget deficits, masked by Social Security revenues. The distinction is absolutely fundamental. As I have noted before, the very word ``surplus'' connotes some extra amount or bonus. One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Mr. President, the projected unified budget surplus is not ``more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Those funds are needed. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries. Mr. President, let me just note that the problem of using Social Security trust fund balances to mask the real budget deficit is not a partisan issue. Both political parties have used this accounting gimmick--here in Congress and in the White House. But it must stop, and this legislation can help us stop it. Mr. President, budget rules cannot by themselves reduce the deficit, but they can protect what has been achieved and guard against abuse. The PAYGO rule governing entitlements and taxes, along with the discretionary spending caps, have kept Congress disciplined and on track. The bill we are introducing today ensures the PAYGO rule continues to require new entitlement spending or tax cuts are fully paid for. Our bill clarifies current PAYGO procedures to remove any doubt that tax cuts or increased spending must continue to be offset. It extends the PAYGO rule, which currently covers legislation enacted through 2002, until we are no longer using Social Security to mask the deficit. Under our bill, Congress could not use a so-called surplus until it is real, namely when the budget runs a surplus without using Social Security Trust Funds. Mr. President, earlier I said we are in a budget era of transition. With some hard work this year, we can leave the years of unified budget deficits behind us. And with some more work, we can move toward real budget balances without using Social Security revenues. Mr. President, that must be our highest priority. If Congress does not begin to rid itself of its addiction to Social Security trust fund balances, we will put the benefits of future retirees at serious risk. Fortunately, Mr. President, we are within reach of the goal of balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust funds. If we stay the course, and continue the tough, sometimes unpopular work of reducing the deficit, we can give this Nation an honest budget, one that is truly balanced. And the time to act is now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my good friend, the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Hollings) in offering the Social Security Trust Fund Protection Act of 1998, legislation extending our current PAYGO budget rules, and clarifying that Congress may not use so-called budget surpluses to pay for tax cuts or new spending when those surpluses are really Social Security Trust Fund balances. Mr. President, it gives me particular pleasure to join with Senator Hollings in offering this bill. Both in this body and in the Budget Committee, he has been a consistent voice for fiscal prudence in this body. Mr. President, fiscal prudence is popular in theory, but often less attractive in practice. Senator Hollings has taken tough positions, even when those positions may not have been politically attractive. That is the true measure of commitment to honest and prudent budgeting, and I am proud to join him in this effort today. I am also pleased to be introducing a measure which is similar in many respects to a measure introduced in the other body by Congressman Minge, who has an outstanding record of working in a bipartisan manner to bring fiscal discipline to the budget. The Minge bill, too, seeks to prevent the irresponsible use of Social Security Trust Fund balances, and I very much look forward to working with the Congressman to advance these proposed budget rules. Mr. President, we are entering a budget era of transition. For decades, Congress and the White House ran up huge deficits, producing a mounting national debt. For the past few years, we have worked to bring down those deficits. Those efforts have paid off, in large part, and we are now about to consider something Congress has not seen in 30 years-- a unified budget submitted by the President that actually reaches balance. Mr. President, if we can work together to pass a balanced unified budget this year that will be a notable accomplishment, and it deserves to be highlighted. But, Mr. President, even if we do pass a balanced unified budget this year, that is not the end of our work. Balancing the unified budget isn't a touchdown. It's more like first and ten at mid-field. It's not a bad place to be, but we still have a way to go. But, Mr. President, some act as if the goal posts are really on the 50; that all we have to do is balance the unified budget and we've scored a touchdown. They want to declare victory once the unified budget is in balance, and use any projected unified budget surpluses for increased spending or tax cuts. Just last week, a member of this body was reported to have complained about needing to find offsets for tax cuts. The implied intention of that member was to support a large tax cut without also cutting enough spending to fully pay for the tax cut. Instead, the unspoken intention of this member was to rely on a projected surplus in the unified budget as an offset. Mr. President, that would be a grave mistake. As the President cautioned us during his State of the Union address, we should not touch the unified budget surplus. In fact, that admonition may have been just as important as the achievement of proposing the first balanced unified budget in 30 years. Mr. President, while I strongly agree with the President's comments, I approach this matter from a different perspective. There are many of us who do not view the unified budget as the appropriate measure of our Nation's budget. In particular, I want to acknowledge my fellow Budget Committee colleagues, Senators Hollings and Conrad, for their consistent warnings to the body on this very issue. Mr. President, as I have noted before, the unified budget is not the budget which should guide our policy decisions. The projected surpluses in the unified budget are not real. In fact, far from surpluses, what we really have are continuing on-budget deficits, masked by Social Security revenues. The distinction is absolutely fundamental. As I have noted before, the very word ``surplus'' connotes some extra amount or bonus. One dictionary defines ``surplus'' as: ``something more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Mr. President, the projected unified budget surplus is not ``more than or in excess of what is needed or required.'' Those funds are needed. They were raised by the Social Security system, specifically in anticipation of commitments to future Social Security beneficiaries. Mr. President, let me just note that the problem of using Social Security trust fund balances to mask the real budget deficit is not a partisan issue. Both political parties have used this accounting gimmick--here in Congress and in the White House. But it must stop, and this legislation can help us stop it. Mr. President, budget rules cannot by themselves reduce the deficit, but they can protect what has been achieved and guard against abuse. The PAYGO rule governing entitlements and taxes, along with the discretionary spending caps, have kept Congress disciplined and on track. The bill we are introducing today ensures the PAYGO rule continues to require new entitlement spending or tax cuts are fully paid for. Our bill clarifies current PAYGO procedures to remove any doubt that tax cuts or increased spending must continue to be offset. It extends the PAYGO rule, which currently covers legislation enacted through 2002, until we are no longer using Social Security to mask the deficit. Under our bill, Congress could not use a so-called surplus until it is real, namely when the budget runs a surplus without using Social Security Trust Funds. Mr. President, earlier I said we are in a budget era of transition. With some hard work this year, we can leave the years of unified budget deficits behind us. And with some more work, we can move toward real budget balances without using Social Security revenues. Mr. President, that must be our highest priority. If Congress does not begin to rid itself of its addiction to Social Security trust fund balances, we will put the benefits of future retirees at serious risk. Fortunately, Mr. President, we are within reach of the goal of balancing the budget without using the Social Security trust funds. If we stay the course, and continue the tough, sometimes unpopular work of reducing the deficit, we can give this Nation an honest budget, one that is truly balanced. And the time to act is now. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, at this time I yield such time as he requires to the leader on this issue, the senior Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 10 minutes, the first 5 minutes to the Senator from California and the following 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the senior Senator from California.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In a moment, I will yield to the senior Senator from Arizona. But before I do, let me make clear what we are tabling here today if we table the McCain-Feingold amendment. The other side would have us believe it is one narrow aspect of a bill that has to do with certain aspects of express advocacy and independent advocacy. Surely, that is part of the bill. But what they don't talk about very much is what else would be tabled. It would involve the tabling of a complete ban on soft money. It would be wiping out the opportunity for this Congress to have a ban on soft money. What that means is they are also tabling a concept that has been endorsed by over 100 former Members of Congress who signed a letter to ban soft money. It is also a denial and tabling of an effort to ban soft money that has been endorsed by people like former Presidents George Bush and Jimmy Carter and Gerald Ford. In addition, if this tabling motion prevails, you will be wiping out provisions that actually lower the provisions that require candidates to report contributions of $50 and over, not just the ones of $200 and over. It would be wiping out provisions that double the penalties for the knowing and willful violations of Federal elections law and tabling the provisions that require full electronic disclosure of campaign contributions to the FEC. You will be wiping out provisions that require the Federal Elections Commission to make those campaign finance records available on the Internet within 24 hours. You will be wiping out provisions that would stop the practice of Members of Congress using their franking privileges, their mass mailing franking privileges in an election year. Our bill would ban that. The tabling motion would wipe out the provisions that require a candidate to clearly identify himself or herself on one of these negative ads. So the fact is this bill has many important provisions. A tabling motion denies the chance to do all of these things. What the opposition has chosen to focus on is merely a few aspects, which I think we are right about, but they completely ignore the many important items of enforcement and disclosure and the banning of soft money the McCain- Feingold bill would achieve. How much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Also, Money magazine published an article in December making much the same point, with additional examples of how consumers have been hurt by decisions made by this Congress under the influence of campaign donations from affected industries. Our decisions on everything from the airline tax to sugar subsidies to securities laws reform to electricity deregulation are potentially compromised by the money chase. Anyone who cares about public confidence in this institution should be concerned about these examples of industries and individuals with a great economic stake in our deliberations being able to and actually, in fact, making large and strategically focused campaign contributions. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an excerpt from the Money magazine article entitled ``Look Who's Cashing in on Congress.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, conversations today have been including the notion that the American people don't care about campaign finance reform, and occasionally people do ask why is it important to reform our system of financing campaigns. I think it is pretty clear that people do care about this issue. Just talk to them about it. Trying to get it to show up on a poll is one thing, but if you talk to them, you will find a different story. That is particularly true when Americans are told the facts or learn the facts about our current system that it actually affects average Americans who may not even care a great deal about being involved in the political process. I heard today on the floor a number of opponents of our bill assert this issue has no impact on the average citizen. Although I recognize many Americans do not think this issue is the No. 1 issue in America, Americans do care about this issue because it does affect their daily lives in real ways. Why should Americans care about campaign finance reform? One very good reason to care is that as consumers, they are affected. We all pay for the current system of campaign financing through higher prices, higher prices in the pharmacy, in the supermarket, on our cable bills, when we fill our cars with gas and in many other ways. Mr. President, in support of this, I have two items I would like to have printed in the Record which explain that our current system of financing political campaigns has a very real and direct effect on consumers and provides further support for the need to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. Today, Common Cause released a report entitled ``Pocketbook Politics.'' Common Cause reveals how special interest money hurts the American consumer. This report examines the campaign contributions of special interest groups which have benefited from Federal programs and policies that have had a costly effect on American consumers. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the executive summary from this new Common Cause report, ``Pocketbook Politics.''

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself such time as I require.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.