Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, before the Senator from Florida leaves the floor, let me commend him for a very visionary statement about education, the need for an additional large number of teachers, and the vast source of knowledge which we can tap if we utilize people who have had a previous occupation and then are willing to go into teaching, which surely is as high a calling as exists, I believe, anywhere in the world. Teachers should be placed way up there on a pedestal, as far as I am concerned, because of the responsibilities they are given and the commitment so many of them have shown. I want to extend my congratulations to the Senator from Florida for selecting an area where we can really make a contribution through legislation to not only our children but to students at whatever age through the use of these great pools of talent he has identified.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, every Member of our Senate family was gripped in sadness and grief when we heard of the death of John Chafee. John Chafee was a giant for many reasons. He was a kind man. He was a truly gentle and a magnificently decent Senator. Time and time again, as towering Senators of the past, John Chafee, a pragmatist, a moderate, a man of sound judgment and good sense, worked to cool the partisan passions in this body and led his colleagues of both parties toward common ground. He was one of those Members to whom Senators looked for advice and for leadership on the host of issues in which he was an expert--health issues, environmental issues, transportation, and many issues where he was one of the most knowledgeable and effective leaders of this body. He brought to this body an experience which was invaluable, as a marine, a war hero in two wars, and in the legislative battles of the Senate. One frequently sensed in John Chafee the kind of quiet self- confidence and steady determination of somebody who had survived real combat. John Chafee was direct. He was without guile. He did not posture as he ambled about this body. He just talked straight and let his friends and his colleagues know what was on his mind and asked how he might be helpful. There were no hidden agendas with John Chafee--just a straightforward, good-natured, decent and kind human being who cared deeply about the people of Rhode Island and of this Nation and who shared everything he had with us and with this Nation. I visited often with John Chafee in his office, going there for advice to try to gather from him some of the wisdom which he had gathered over the years. I shall miss, as will every Member of this body, his shy smile, his special integrity. He left an indelible mark on our hearts. I don't know whether his name is carved yet in that desk which has the flowers upon it. But he left a very deep mark on all of our hearts, on all of our souls, and on all of our spirits. We can only hope his family takes comfort in the certain knowledge that John Chafee will be missed by a legion of friends, by all of his colleagues, and we will be sustained by his memory, by his integrity, by his character, and by his good nature. As long as we serve in the Senate, every one of us who had the honor and privilege of serving with John Chafee will remember him in a very special way. Again, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to proceed as in morning business for 4 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the Michigan Rehabilitation Association, a remarkable organization from my home state of Michigan, which will celebrate its 50th Anniversary on November 1, 1999. Over the past five decades, the Michigan Rehabilitation Association (MRA) has proudly worked to meet the needs of Michigan's disabled community. While beginning as a professional association for rehabilitation practitioners, it has quickly grown into one of Michigan's leading advocates for the welfare and rights of handicapped people. While its scope and purpose have evolved, its members have remained steadfastly committed to excellence in the delivery of services to the disabled. Since its inception in 1949 as the country's first state chapter of the National Rehabilitation Association, the MRA's far-reaching hand has helped thousands of Michigan's citizens achieve a higher quality of life. As it celebrates this important milestone, I am sure its staff, friends and supporters will have the opportunity to recall its many successes. I am pleased to join with them in thanking the people of the Michigan Rehabilitation Association for their efforts while applauding all the hard work and determination that have resulted in the MRA's prestigious reputation. The Michigan Rehabilitation Association can take pride in the many important achievements of its first fifty years. I know my colleagues will join me in saluting the accomplishments of MRA's first half century and in wishing it continued success for the future.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is with great sadness that I reveal yet another tragedy in my state. Early this week, in the dormitories of Kalamazoo College, a 20 year old student allegedly shot and killed his former girlfriend, before turning the gun on himself and committing suicide. Now, two students are dead, and the relatively small campus in Kalamazoo is in deep shock over the loss of their fellow classmates. The apparent murder-suicide was announced in a campus-wide email, sent to all students to inform them that classes and school events would be canceled, trained counselors would be on hand, and a mass grieving assembly would take place on the campus quadrangle. To many, such an announcement must have seemed like a terrible nightmare. But students soon realized that this tragedy was not a dream and this week they have been trying to make sense of such senseless violence. This week, students are being taught the most valuable lesson they'll ever learn in college. Unfortunately, it's a lesson learned the hard way. What they will take away from this tragedy is the knowledge that guns can destroy innocent lives and devastate families; guns can result in pain, suffering, and loss of quality of life; and gun violence will continue to be a reoccurring nightmare for our young people unless Congress controls the easy access of guns among minors. I ask that an article about this tragedy be printed in the Record. The article follows: [From the Kalamazoo Gazette, Oct. 19, 1999] K-College Students Search for Answers--Murder-Suicide Leaves Many Wondering What They Could Have Done to Stop It (By Lynn Turner and Mark Fisk) The students came in groups of two or 10, quietly walking toward ``The Quad'' of Kalamazoo College just before noon on Monday. By the time college President James Jones stepped to the portable podium on the east end of the grassy clearing, more than 300 students had gathered--eerily silent--to hear words that, maybe, would answer the question ``Why?'' Why had junior Neenef Odah, 20, a computer science major, shot sophomore Margaret Wardle, 19, to death and then turned the shotgun on himself in an apparent murder-suicide? Could others have recognized some sign and stopped the carnage? ``There is, to date, not a single indication that any of us could have foreseen what was festering in Neenef's mind and what drove him in the end to commit such a deed,'' Jones said as an occasional sob was heard from those at the gathering. ``I ask you, therefore, on this serene quad, on this autumnal day, not to second-guess yourself. ``We shall not succeed today to make any sense of this endless night and their senseless deaths. All we mortals can do is hold tight to each other.'' After Jones ended his 15-minute speech and walked away, the students continued to stand and sit in a ragged semicircle until some began shifting, forming knots of hugging students who cleared away each other's tears. jealousy possible motive Witnesses told police they heard a heated argument coming from within Odah's dorm room in DeWaters Hall around midnight Monday. ``They heard a female yelling, then some loud bangs,'' said Capt. Jerome Bryant of the Kalamazoo Department of Public Safety. If Odah planned the shooting, he kept his intentions private. Several students told the Kalamazoo Gazette there were no warning signs that Wardle's life was in danger. Police combing the school for clues also came up empty- handed. Even talks with Wardle's mother and stepfather, and Odah's father on Monday shed no light on any problems between the two, Jones said. Jealousy is considered the prime motive in the incident. The two had dated on and off for the past year. ``There was a homecoming dance over the weekend in which both people were in attendance,'' Bryant said. ``She was dancing with another K-College student and possibly this is what invoked his rage.'' The weapon used was a bolt-action shotgun, Bryant said. Wardle was shot at least twice. ``He had purchased it legally from a Kalamazoo-area gun dealer earlier this month,'' Bryant said. Sorting it out About 25 minutes after the meeting, about 100 students remained in the quad. The mood remained heavy despite the sunshine. The Rev. Ken Schmidt, pastor of St. Thomas More Student Parish, and pastoral team member Andy Lothschultz wandered among the students, offering hugs and shoulders on which to cry. ``I don't have anything to tell them that can make sense of something that doesn't make much sense,'' Schmidt said. ``All I can do is listen and help them to process it for themselves.'' Jessie Sheidt, finance director for K-College's Student Commission, was one of those trying to make sense of things. Although she didn't know either student directly, Sheidt said a friend of hers was a friend of Wardle's. ``There's a total trust between students on this campus,'' she said of the 1,300-member student body. Bad things don't happen here, she said. At least they're not supposed to. Simone Lutz, president of the Student Commission, said that belief was the topic at hand during early morning meetings she had with students. ``We all think it doesn't happen here, but in all reality it does,'' she said. But it hasn't shattered the bonds between students. ``The cocoon is still very much intact,'' Lutz said. ``When something happens, we all come together. It develops a much closer bond to see people out here who care so much about the people who we've lost. . . . It's amazing, and I think it's an incredibly heartwarming thing.'' Zero tolerance for weapons During a media briefing following Jones' speech at the quad, his patience slipped--showing the toll of the previous 12 hours--when he was asked what, if any, new information he had. ``We don't know any more than we knew this morning,'' he said curtly. ``We have two dead students and a grieving campus.'' Outside counselors are augmenting the college's staff at residence halls and Stetson Chapel, he said. When asked about the weapon used in the apparent murder- suicide, Jones said that neither he nor Odah's roommate had a clue as to when it came into the dorm room or how long it had been there. The roommate, who has not been identified except as a Hornet football player, was working in the college's ceramics studio at the time of the incident. He, along with two suite- mates, have been moved to new quarters, Jones said. K-College has long had a zero tolerance policy for having weapons on campus, including weapons used as theatrical and sports-related equipment, said Marilyn LaPlante, a vice president there. This fall it became the basis for suspension. Jones called for tighter gun control measures during his talk to students. ``I wish every congressman in Washington who has taken a position against gun control could walk on this campus this tragic day,'' he said. ``I would imagine that a moment or two here would drive them to change the laws of the land tomorrow morning.'' Wardle showed much promise. Although few could make sense of Monday's tragic events, everyone agreed that Wardle was a young woman full of potential. A science teacher called the National Honor Society member one of two of the most intelligent students he'd encountered. Plainwell High School Principal Linda Iciek called her ``a lovely young woman of character . . . an outstanding student who will be missed by students and staff alike.'' Little is known of Odah. Jones said Odah was not an athlete on any school team. He didn't have information regarding any of Odah's extracurricular activities. Sarah Ayres, Wardle's best friend, said Wardle was good at ``anything she did. ``She was really smart, she was top-notch, but she was so modest she would never flaunt it,'' Ayres said. ``She was the kind of person that had great things coming.'' Ayres and her boyfriend had gone on a double date with Wardle and Odah, but saw nothing to lead her to believe their relationship would end in violence. ``He seemed like a normal person and she never said something'' to indicate anything was wrong, Ayres said. ``I think he was thinking it was more serious than she did. She broke it off with him this year and started going out with other people this summer. . . . I know he wanted her back the whole time.'' Ayres' father had the task of informing his daughter of the deaths by telephone Monday. Ayres is studying in Mexico through a Hope College program. ``I couldn't hardly believe it at first,'' Ayres said. ``She was like the fourth daughter in my family, so my dad was real shook up, too. We're all shook up. She was such an extraordinary person.''

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Supreme Court has ruled that a ban on all abortions after viability is permitted under the Constitution, providing the ban contains an exception to protect the life and health of the woman. S. 1692 does not meet that test because the exception it provides for does not include constitutionally required language relative to a woman's health. The Supreme Court has also held that states may not ban pre-viability abortions. S. 1692 bans a specific abortion procedure that is not limited to post-viability abortions and therefore would ban certain pre-viability abortions, also making it unconstitutional. In fact, 19 out of 21 state laws similar to S. 1692 have been held unconstitutional by the courts, including a Michigan statute. In Michigan, the U.S. District Court has held that: [T]he Michigan partial-birth abortion statute must be declared unconstitutional and enjoined because, under controlling precedent, it is vague and over broad and unconstitutionally imposes an undue burden on a woman's right to seek a pre-viability second trimester abortion . . . The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has continually expressed deep concern about legislation prohibiting the intact D&X procedure, which is the technical name for the so-called partial birth abortion procedure. They have urged Congress not to pass legislation criminalizing this procedure and not to supersede the medical judgment of trained physicians. They have stated the legislation, ``continues to represent an inappropriate, ill advised and dangerous intervention into medical decision-making. The amended bill still fails to include an exception for the protection for the health of the woman.'' Principally for these reasons, I oppose this legislation. I supported an alternative bill which would ban all post-viability abortions, regardless of the procedure used, except in cases where it is necessary to protect a woman's life or health. I think that approach is preferable to S. 692 which would criminalize the procedure and which fails to protect a woman's health. However, it would be even more preferable to leave this matter to the states which already have the right to ban postviability abortions by any method, as long as the ban meets the constitutional standard.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, do I understand there are 10 minutes for this side?

Mr. LEVIN. The majority leader has authorized me to allocate time to myself. I yield to myself 4 minutes. A majority of the House and a majority in the Senate support campaign finance reform. It was clearly indicated yesterday that we have a majority in favor of campaign finance reform. A minority of the Senate is not in favor of campaign finance reform, and they have decided to try to block the will of the majority, which is their right. They can filibuster this legislation to which they are so strongly opposed, and I defend their right to oppose this legislation with all their might, although I disagree with them with all my might. The supporters of campaign finance reform have every right to try to pass the bill. That means we have every right to not agree to withdraw campaign finance reform legislation just because we didn't get cloture on the first, second, or third vote. It took four votes to get civil rights legislation passed in the late 1960s and 7 weeks to get that legislation passed. It wouldn't have passed had the supporters of civil rights legislation, after they did not get the necessary votes to adopt cloture the first time, backed off from their cause. We, the supporters of campaign finance reform, are just as passionately in support of closing the soft money loophole as the opponents are passionate in their opposition. We do not need to withdraw as long as we are in the majority. We don't have to go quietly into that good night after a failed cloture vote. This vote we are about to take on a motion to proceed to another item of business, this motion to end the Senate's consideration of campaign finance reform in the face of a filibuster by the opposition, is the vote that really counts on campaign finance reform. This is the moment of truth. A cloture vote simply decided that we did not succeed in breaking the filibuster. Today the majority will decide whether to give in to that filibuster. That is what this vote is about, whether or not a majority of this Senate which favors closing the campaign loopholes in the law that are supposed to put limits on how much a person can contribute to a campaign or candidate, gives in to a filibuster, whether those laws which have been so totally undermined by the soft money loophole, in effect, will be restored to good health. That is the decision we are going to make. This is the vote that tests the determination of supporters of campaign finance reform against the determination of the opponents-- whether the majority which went on record yesterday as favoring campaign finance reform will say we are going to give up our cause for whatever length of time because we haven't gotten 60 votes yet. We would not have had civil rights legislation if that were the position taken by the supporters of civil rights--8 long weeks on just one of the civil rights bills in the 1960s and four cloture votes, which finally, with the help of a bipartisan group, were able to take them over the finish line. Yes, the opponents have a right to filibuster, a right to tie up the Senate. However, we in the majority on campaign finance reform do not have to back down. This is the vote that counts: Whether we in the majority agree we will move to something else or whether we will say to the filibusters they may do what they are doing under our rules and we will defend that right, but we need not and will not back down to that filibuster. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, tomorrow we will be casting the critical vote which will decide whether or not those of us who are in the majority will insist that this body continue on the debate on campaign finance reform. This will be the vote that counts. This will determine whether the majority will back off because our bill is being filibustered. This is a real test vote tomorrow in the battle to close the soft money loophole. We knew it was not going to be easy. We knew this was going to be filibustered. But it is not the first time that major legislation involving key democratic principles has been filibustered on the floor of this Senate. Those of us who favor closing the soft money loophole, reducing the influence of huge contributions in political campaigns, it seems to me, now have to be just as committed, just as determined, just as passionate in our beliefs as the opponents are in their beliefs. The opponents have every right to filibuster our bill. The rules allow filibusters. We ought to change those rules, but until we do, most, if not all, of us participate, from time to time, in cloture votes, making the other side get to 60 before we proceed. But just as the minority has a right to filibuster a bill, those of us who are in the majority have the right to say we are not going to back off just because a bill is being filibustered. We are not going to give up our effort. Rather, we are going to say to the opponents of this bill who are in the minority and who are filibustering our bill: That is your right and you have a right to exercise it. Proceed with the filibuster. We are not going to withdraw our legislation. During the civil rights days there were instances where there had to be multiple cloture votes. There was a bill relative to fair housing in 1968 which had four cloture votes over a period of 7 or 8 weeks before there were enough votes to end the debate. The people who passionately believed in civil rights proceeded with their cause. They did not give up because they did not get enough votes to close off debate and to end the filibuster the first time. They did not give up the second time. They did not give up the third time; 7 or 8 weeks later, on their fourth cloture vote, finally they were able to achieve success. I was reading these debates from the civil rights days, 1968, last night. I read some of the speeches of a whole bunch of great Senators on both sides of the issue: Senators Mansfield, Hart, Ervin, and other Senators, Javits. They were debating civil rights. It was a controversial bill. It involved whether or not citizens would have a right to housing free from discrimination based on race. What struck me was the determination of the supporters of civil rights, the unwillingness to give in, give up, because they could not get enough votes the first time around to stop the filibuster. Senator Hart, after they lost the first cloture vote said: Those of us who support the bill that has been pending now for, I think, 6 weeks, on the occasion of the vote last week . . . indicated our intention to submit a modification today or prior to the vote today. The modification would lessen somewhat the reach of the coverage and make some procedural changes. I want to report that over the weekend a new and most encouraging factor has developed. It is a new force and gives a new dimension and promise for those of us who believe with a very deep conviction that this country needs to be assured that what a majority of the Senate has plainly indicated it desires to achieve can be achieved, an effective . . . open housing order. Today, a majority of the Senate, in the words of Senator Hart, ``plainly indicated'' that it desires to achieve campaign finance reform. On one vote, there were 52 Senators; on another vote, there were 53 Senators. Today a clear majority of this Senate plainly indicated that it wants to achieve campaign finance reform. Then it occurred, the third time they tried to attain an end to the filibuster. By this time, Senator Dirksen, who was the Republican leader, who had been a supporter of civil rights prior to this bill in the earlier days of the 1960s--Senator Dirksen, in 1968, after voting against ending debate the first and second time, decided that, with certain changes in the legislation, he was going to vote to terminate a filibuster in which he had participated. He said: The matter of equality of opportunity in civil rights is an idea whose time has come. And all the fulminations, whether substantial or superficial, will not stay the march of that idea. The time has come for us to end the unlimited amount of money which flows into campaigns. This is an idea whose time has come. A majority of us have so voted. A majority of us feel strongly about it, and the public, much more important than either of those comments, feels very strongly about it. They are sickened by the amount of negative advertising they are bombarded with. They are sickened when they read about $50,000 and $100,000 and $1 million going into political parties in order, mainly, to fund these negative TV ads. They are sickened when they read about a Democratic Party invitation or a Republican Party invitation that sells access to our key leaders for big contributions. They are disgusted when they see an invitation that reads: For $50,000 a year, you get two annual events with the President, two annual events with the Vice President, and you get to join party leadership as they travel abroad to examine current developing political and economic issues in other countries. They are disgusted when they see for $250,000 you get breakfast with the majority leader and the Speaker and you get a luncheon with the Senate Republican committee chairman of your choice. So for $250,000 you get a luncheon with the committee chairman of your choice. What do we expect the American public to think when they hear and read about that? And that is directly connected to the soft money loophole. The scourge of soft money, of unlimited contributions, inherently breeds distrust for our democratic institutions. It is something that is inherent in the unlimited amount of the contribution. Now, many of us believe very strongly that is true. But far more important than that is what the Supreme Court has said about this issue. In the Buckley case itself, a case which we all look to, and I will quote from, the Supreme Court said the following about the ``appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions. . . .'' Those are the words of the Court, and now I am going to read the entire quote: And while disclosure requirements serve the many salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed. The Buckley Court went on to say the following: Not only is it difficult to isolate suspect contributions but, more importantly, Congress was justified in concluding that the interest in safeguarding against the appearance of impropriety requires that the opportunity for abuse inherent in the process of raising large monetary contributions be eliminated. Then the Court wrote about the contributions which are given either for a quid pro quo or for the appearance of a quid pro quo. This is what they wrote: To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. . . . Of almost equal concern is . . . That is, equal now to the quid pro quo-- the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. . . . Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence ``is also critical . . . if confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.'' The Supreme Court wrote that before the soft money loophole became fully exploited, before invitations, such as the kind I read from, went out telling people if they contribute $250,000 or $100,000, they will get meetings with the majority leader or they will get meetings with the President or they will get meetings with the committee chairman of their choice. This kind of sale of access, which we see in such a disgraceful display, I believe, on the part of both parties, was not even in existence at the time the Buckley Court wrote that opinion. Both parties are engaged in this. This is not pointing the finger at either party. Both parties engaged in soliciting these huge--unlimited just about--amounts of money in exchange for access. And that is soft money. That is unregulated money. That is money above and beyond what is permitted to be directly contributed to a candidate. In fact, the Supreme Court was very explicit about another provision of the law which provides that $25,000 is the limit which can be given in all contributions during a year. The Supreme Court said this about the $25,000. They describe the $25,000 limit as a modest restraint which serves, in the words of the Court, ``to prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that candidate or huge contributions to a candidate's political party.'' So we have a $25,000 per year limit in the law. That is the most you can give to a candidate or to a party, and the purpose, the Court said, was legitimate to prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limit to any particular candidate. And yet we have parties soliciting $250,000 and $50,000 and $100,000. That is the state of decay of our campaign financing. So what we will decide in our vote tomorrow morning is whether or not the majority of this body--which has voted today to support the elimination of the soft money loophole--the majority of this body, which has voted today for campaign finance reform, will be willing to simply withdraw because the filibusterers have, so far, succeeded in stopping us from getting to 60 votes. That is what we will decide tomorrow. This great Senate is a battleground where wills are tested, where people who believe strongly in one side of an issue will test their commitment against people who believe strongly in the other side of an issue. Everybody in this body has rights. The majority has rights. The minority has rights. The minority has a right to filibuster, a right which I will defend until we change those rules. But the majority surely has the right not to give up in the face of a filibuster. The majority has a right--indeed, I believe an obligation on a matter of this principle--not to simply say: Well, we didn't succeed the first time or the second time, so we're just going to throw in the towel. If we feel keenly about this issue--as the majority, I believe and hope, does--then tomorrow, when that vote comes, we should vote not to move to other business. It has nothing to do with what the other business is. The issue tomorrow morning isn't whether or not we favor or oppose late-term abortions. That is not the issue. That was clear when the Democratic leader offered a unanimous consent request to move to the late-term abortions bill, to move to the late-term abortions bill by unanimous consent, which would have allowed us to then return, immediately after the disposition of that issue, to the campaign finance reform. But the Republican leader, our majority leader, objected to that unanimous consent proposal and as a result made a motion. And if this motion succeeds, then campaign finance reform goes back to the calendar and is put on the shelf. The vote tomorrow is the acid test vote as to whether or not we in the majority, who favor the closing of the soft money loophole, who believe that loophole is the principal culprit in the erosion of our campaign finance laws, those of us who believe that soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of our campaign finance system, those of us who believe the appearance of impropriety, which is created when people are solicited for huge sums of money to political parties and those parties, of course, turn around and spend it relative to campaigns and candidates, which is their business, those of us who believe keenly that this system is broken and we have to close this loophole--tomorrow will be the acid test for us. Tomorrow we will be put to the test. It is not an easy test for all of us. Tomorrow we will be asked whether or not we are willing to move to other business, to put back on the calendar, to put on the shelf, this fight for campaign finance reform. It is my hope the vote tomorrow will be at least as strong as the vote we had today, that 52 or 53 of us will say: No, we want to stay on this bill or come back to this bill automatically; we want to address an issue which has created such a terrible feeling in the stomachs and the hearts of our people. That is the feeling that is created when this huge amount of money washes into these political campaigns and when it is used to buy the kind of access which is purchased from both political parties. This will be the acid test vote. This is the key vote. I hope we can live up to the responsibility we have to fight as hard for something we believe in as the opponents oppose with all their hearts. I hope we can do what was done in the days of the civil rights bills, where one failure to stop a filibuster did not deter the supporters of civil rights, where two failures to stop a filibuster did not deter the supporters of civil rights, where three failures did not stop the supporters of civil rights. They proceeded. They amended. They modified. They worked the issue because civil rights day had come. And just as the day for campaign finance reform has now come, I hope we can live up to our responsibility tomorrow and vote not to move to other business but, rather, to stay on this issue, to put the public focus on this issue, to say to those who would filibuster, that is your right, but we are not going to withdraw simply because you in the minority are filibustering this important cause. I yield the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. If the amendment had not been agreed to but had been defeated, would the bill have been open to amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. If cloture had been invoked after the disposition of all pending germane amendments, would the bill have been open to amendment?

Mr. LEVIN. I want to clarify what the Democratic leader has done. He has offered unanimous consent to go to partial-birth abortion because if we go to it that way, after it is disposed of and resolved, we would automatically then come back to campaign finance reform and resolve that issue; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. There has been a lot of confusion about whether or not the bill was amendable prior to the cloture vote, and whether it would have been amendable after the cloture vote had cloture been invoked. Parliamentary inquiry: I ask whether the tree was filled basically prior to the first cloture vote.

Mr. LEVIN. My final question is this: Is that not the reason why this upcoming vote--when it comes--on the motion to proceed then becomes the defining vote as to whether or not we want to take up campaign finance reform? Because if we move to proceed to partial-birth abortion, if that motion is adopted, then campaign finance reform goes back on the calendar. So this upcoming vote--whenever it occurs--on the question of moving to proceed to partial-birth abortion then becomes the defining vote ahead of us on the question of campaign finance reform.

Mr. LEVIN. If I may further ask the Democratic leader, even though many of us oppose the bill relative to partial-birth abortion, we have nonetheless agreed that we would go to it by unanimous consent because, after it was then disposed of, however it was disposed of, we could then come back to this critical issue of campaign finance reform; is that correct?

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Rhode Island. I wonder if I could propound a parliamentary inquiry without the Senator from Rhode Island losing his right to the floor.

Mr. LEVIN. Or after partial-birth abortion.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. The fact I had a meeting with anybody within a day or a week or an hour and voted as that person would have urged me to vote is not the appearance of corruption, in my judgment.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. Does the question assume that I solicited the UAW for that contribution? That was not clear in the question of the Senator.

Mr. LEVIN. I hope so, but that doesn't answer my point. My point is whether or not we believe for 100,000 bucks we ought to sell access to the President of the United States. That is my question. It is not whether one gets access in other ways. It is whether or not constituents ought to be able to buy, for $100,000, access to the President or have a lunch with the Committee Chairman of their choice. My question is, How many Members opposing the ban on soft money want to take that invitation to a town meeting and justify it? That is my question. There is an answer to it. The answer will come in whether or not any of my colleagues take these invitations to town meetings and say: Yes, nothing wrong with saying for $100,000 you can have lunch with the Republican Committee Chairman of your choice. Try to sell that to the public back home. I don't think we can. I cannot in Michigan; I won't speak for any other State. That is not what we intended when we put limits on campaign contributions and that is not what the Supreme Court intended in Buckley when they upheld the contributions because they specifically said in Buckley that the $25,000 annual limit on all contributions was intended to avoid evasion of the $1,000 contribution to an individual campaign to make sure they cannot, in effect, give it to a candidate or his or her campaign through a political party. The answer to my question will come in whether or not any of the opponents to the ban on soft money on these large contributions take these invitations home. And I mean both parties. We have a lot of other invitations, too. We will give Members an invitation of their choice and see whether or not they are comfortable going home to their constituents in a town meeting and saying: I'll defend this $100,000 to buy a meeting with the President, or the Vice President, or a Committee Chairman of choice. I don't think Members will. We will find out. I want to hear from any of the opponents of the soft money ban as to whether or not they do take that kind of an invitation home--selling access for large contributions--and defend it at a town meeting. I am interested as to whether or not your constituents say there is nothing wrong with that; that is free speech. That is not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. They upheld contribution limits as being consistent with the First Amendment. Our institutions in this democracy depend upon the public having confidence in our institutions. When access is sold for a large contribution and someone is told they can have lunch with a Committee Chairman of their choice for $40,000 or a meeting with the President at the White House for $100,000, I think the public is so totally turned off by that kind of flow of money for access that I believe very few will take me up on my challenge to take this invitation back to a town meeting. One invitation in 1997 to a National Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee event promised that contributors would be offered ``plenty of opportunities to share [their] personal ideas and vision with'' some of the top Republican leaders and senators. Failure to attend, the invitation said, means that ``you could lose a unique chance to be included in current legislative policy debates--debates that will affect your family and your business for many years to come.'' The letter from the Chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee invites the recipient to be a life member of the Republican Senatorial Inner Circle: ``$10,000 will bring you face-to-face with dozens of our Republican Senators, including many of the Senate's most powerful Committee Chairmen.'' It goes on and on. That's access. That's what we're opening offering for sale for large contributions and that's what contributors are often buying. There are dozens of examples. I ask unanimous consent that some of these invitations that are similar to the ones I have read be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair and all my colleagues. I particularly thank Senator Wellstone for allowing me to go at this time. Mr. President, our Federal election laws are broken, and the issue before the Senate is whether we want to fix them. In the 1970s, we passed laws to limit the role of money in Federal elections. Our intent was to protect our democratic form of government from the corrosive influence of unlimited political contributions. We wanted to ensure that our Federal elected officials were, neither in reality nor in perception, beholden to special interests who were able to contribute large sums of money to candidates and their campaigns. Our election laws were designed to protect the public's confidence in our democratically elected officials. And for many years our election laws worked fairly well. The limits they set were clear, and those laws are on the books today. Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate per election, or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than $20,000 a year to a national party committee, or $25,000 total in any one year. Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing to any campaign. That is the law on the books today. This is the election law: $1,000 per individual to a candidate in an election; $5,000 to a PAC. It is right in these laws--$5,000 PAC contribution to a candidate. We are supposed to be limiting contributions to candidates. Yet, over the last few years, we have heard story after story about contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, corporations, and unions, and even about contributions from foreign sources. Then the question is, How is it possible, when the law says $1,000 to a candidate per election, that people can give $100,000, which effectively helped that candidate in that election? How is it possible? This pretty good law of ours has holes in it, and both parties have taken advantage of them. There are no longer any effective limits on contributions. That is the bottom line. That is why we hear about a $1 million contribution to the RNC from a corporation, or a half-million- dollar contribution from one couple to the DNC. The Supreme Court in Buckley surely did not have this in mind. They understood the limits to mean that individuals can't contribute more than the overall $25,000 limit for a calendar year. Look at what they said when they upheld that provision in the law. The Buckley Court described the $25,000 limit as a modest restraint which ``serves to prevent evasion of the $1,000 contribution limitation by a person who might otherwise contribute massive amounts of money to a particular candidate through the use of unearmarked contributions to political committees likely to contribute to that candidate or a huge contribution to the candidate's political party.'' Yet that is exactly what is happening today under the soft money loophole. So the Supreme Court foresaw that people would try to evade the $1,000 limit unless the Congress put in a $25,000 limit. They said that is one of the reasons the $25,000 limit per year is appropriate. Yet, under the soft money loophole, precisely what is happening today is that the $1,000 limit has been obliterated, for all intents and purposes. Our task is to make the law whole again and, in making it whole, to make it effective. If we don't, we risk losing the faith the American people have that we represent their interests and that each citizen's voice counts fairly. The principal culprit in this erosion of our laws is the soft money loophole. Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of our campaign finance system. Soft money is the 800,000-pound gorilla sitting right in the middle of this debate. Look at the most recent data with respect to soft money contributions. In the 1996 Presidential election year, Republicans raised $140 million in soft money contributions; Democrats raised $120 million. In 1998, even without a Presidential election, Republicans raised $131 million in soft money contributions and Democrats raised $91 million. The 1997-1998 combined soft money total was 115 percent more than the 1993-1994 total. We are told that the soft money contributions in the first half of 1999 have increased 55 percent over the same period in 1997, and they are 75 percent higher this year than they were in the first half of 1995. The increases are stunning when we look at specific examples. One corporation contributed $270,000 in soft money contributions in the first 6 months of 1997; it contributed $750,000 in the first 6 months of 1999. One union contributed $195,000 in soft money contributions in the first 6 months of 1997; it has contributed $525,000 in the first 6 months of 1999. Those are the increases we are experiencing. They are out of control. The limits are effectively gone. There are effectively no more limits on contributions that get into campaigns and support candidates. That is not what the Supreme Court said in Buckley. The Supreme Court said in Buckley it is perfectly appropriate for Congress to limit contributions to candidates and to effectuate that by limiting the total contribution to $25,000 a year that could be made overall as a way of implementing, assuring, that the $1,000 contribution would be upheld and not evaded. Yet with the soft money loophole, we have wiped out the $25,000 contribution limitation. For all intents and purposes, there are no more limits on contributions that effectively assist candidates in campaigns. One case was discussed in the 1997 hearings. Roger Tamraz was a large contributor to both parties who became the bipartisan symbol for what is wrong with the current system. Roger Tamraz served as a Republican Eagle during the 1980s during the Republican Administrations and as a Democratic trustee in the 1990s during Democratic Administrations. Tamraz's political contributions were not guided by his views on public policy or his desire to support people who shared those views. He was unabashed in admitting his political contributions were made for the purpose of getting access to people in power. Tamraz showed in stark terms the all too common product of the current campaign finance system--using unlimited soft money contributions to buy access. Despite the condemnation by the press of Tamraz's activities, when asked at the hearing to reflect on his $300,000 contribution to obtain access, Tamraz said: I think next time I'll give $600,000. How do the parties entice wealthy contributors to make large soft money contributions? What they often do is offer access to decision makers in return for tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in a single contribution. The parties advertise access. It is blatant. Both parties sell access for large contributions, and they do it openly. The larger the contribution, the more personal the access to the decision maker. We all know about large contributors to the Democratic National Committee being invited to radio addresses given by the President, or to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom, or to attend one of dozens of coffees with the President at the White House. Look at this invitation to be a DNC trustee. I believe this is from 1996. For $50,000, or if you raise $100,000, the contributor gets two events with the President, two events with the Vice President, ``invitations to join party leadership as they travel abroad to examine current and developing political and economic issues in other countries,'' and monthly policy briefings with ``key administration officials and Members of Congress.'' It is an open sale of access for large contributions. Does anyone want to defend that at a town meeting in our home States? Does anyone want to hold up this invitation from the Democratic National Committee in a town meeting and ask people whether or not they like this system? If any Members who oppose this bill banning soft money think their position is credible with the public, I challenge those Members to go back to a town meeting and hold up this invitation from the Democratic National Committee or from the Republican National Committee and ask our constituents if they think it is right for $50,000 or for $100,000 a year, if they raise it, to get two meetings with the President in Washington, two meetings with the Vice President in Washington, and have annual meetings with policy makers and elected officials in Washington. Take a look at the Republican National Committee's 1997 Annual Gala. For $250,000, one gets breakfast with the Majority Leader and the Speaker of the House and a luncheon with the Republican Senate or House Committee Chairman of your choice. By the way, they get that for $100,000; some of the other perks they don't get. All the way down to, I think $45,000, they get lunch with the Republican Chairman of their choice. How many Members of this body want to take home these invitations, and in a town meeting with a cross section of constituents, hold up that invitation and say, ``is this the way we want to fund campaigns?'' I don't think many Members want to do that.