Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a legislative fellow on my Governmental Affairs subcommittee staff, Antigone Potamianos, be granted floor privileges during consideration of S. 2176.

Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I surely hope I will not, I wonder how much time remains.

Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I, too, think we need to amend the Federal Vacancies Act, because the current act has too many loopholes and insufficiently protects the constitutional prerogative of the Senate to have Senate-confirmed officials serving in top positions in the executive branch. It is because I believe we should amend the Federal Vacancies Act that I voted to report the bill out of committee and, along with, I think, all or most of our colleagues, voted to proceed to Senate consideration of the bill. But I will oppose cloture on the bill at this time, because if we adopt cloture now, it would mean that relevant amendments could not be considered. After cloture, only what are called germane amendments, as we all know, can be considered. That is a very narrow and a very strict rule. And for us to preclude the possibility of relevant amendments, relevant to this subject, being offered, without the opportunity even to offer those amendments, it seems to me, does not do justice to this subject. I commend Senator Byrd and Senator Thompson for bringing this issue to our attention. Senator Byrd was the witness who appeared before our committee--and the Chair is also a distinguished member of this committee--and brought to our attention, very forcefully, the current loopholes that exist, at least the alleged loopholes that exist, in the Federal Vacancies Act. These loopholes have been used by Presidents--I think inappropriately used. And surely Senator Byrd has laid out a very powerful case in this bill. And Senator Thompson and others laid out a very powerful case that we should close those loopholes. But we should close those loopholes considering relevant amendments in the process. And obtaining cloture immediately upon proceeding to the consideration of the bill will preclude the consideration of relevant amendments. The bill before the Senate would make several important changes to the current Vacancies Act to close a number of those loopholes. First, it would make clear that the act is the sole legal statutory authority for the temporary filling of positions pending confirmation. Both Senator Byrd and Senator Thompson have stated forcefully why it is so important for us to close that loophole. In our judgment, that loophole does not exist. I think in the opinion of probably most Senators that loophole does not exist. But, nonetheless, whether it is a real one or an imaginary one, it has been used by administrations in order to have people temporarily fill positions pending confirmation for just simply too long a period of time, which undermines the Senate's advice and consent authority. So the first thing this bill would do would be to make clear that the act, the Federal Vacancies Act, is the sole legal statutory authority for temporarily filling positions pending confirmation. Agencies would no longer be able to claim that their organic statutes trump the act and empower them to have acting officials indefinitely. Second, the act's time period authorizing an individual to be acting in the vacant position would be increased to 150 days from the date of the vacancy. The current act provides for 120 days, and it is unclear on whether the period runs from the date of the vacancy or the date a person assumes the acting position. Finally, the bill would provide for an enforcement mechanism for violations of the time period. And that is really an important point, because without some kind of an enforcement mechanism, these violations can take place without being corrected. So the enforcement mechanism provides that if no nomination is submitted within the 150-day period, the position would have to remain vacant and any duties assigned just to that position by statute could be performed only by the agency head. As soon as a nomination is submitted, the bill provides that an acting official could then assume the job temporarily until the Senate acts on the nomination. While the staff was making efforts to try to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement and perhaps a managers' amendment for Senate consideration of this bill, a cloture motion was filed. In my judgment, it was filed prematurely. And now if, indeed, this cloture motion passes, amendments which are relevant to this subject, important amendments, relevant to this subject, would not be subject to consideration and debate by the U.S. Senate. Again, I am one who would like very much to see a reform of the Vacancies Act and to see that reform enacted in this Congress. Senator Byrd and Senator Thompson and others deserve the thanks of all of us for bringing the Senate's attention to this issue. Senator Byrd, again, took the lead in prompting the Governmental Affairs Committee to hold a hearing on this topic last March and pointed out the Justice Department's regrettable practice of having persons serve as acting officials in top-level positions for significant periods of time without Senate confirmation. By having acted, officials serve in this way; and ignoring the purpose of the existing Vacancies Act, the Department delays or avoids Senate confirmation. The Vacancies Act was originally enacted in 1868. Its whole purpose is to encourage the President to submit nominations in a timely fashion. In 1988, the Governmental Affairs Committee amended the act to preclude an agency--in particular, the Justice Department--from avoiding Senate confirmation and the requirements of the Vacancies Act by arguing that the act did not apply to their Departments. Unfortunately, the technical language that the committee used back then to accomplish this didn't do the job, at least in the eyes of the Department of Justice, and some agencies--and the Department of Justice, for one--have continued to operate outside of the intent of that law. The bill before the Senate, then, attempts to rein in agencies like the Justice Department. It also attempts to set clearer guidelines on what agencies can and can't do with respect to vacancies, and it creates an action-enforcing mechanism that will encourage Presidents to act promptly on submitting nominations. Now, in the eyes of many Members of this body, the Senate also has an important responsibility to act promptly on the nominations once they are received. That is why it would be relevant to debate the question as to whether or not a bill which amends the Vacancies Act to force the President to make timely nominations--in order to evade the clear constitutional role of the Senate in advising and consenting to such nominations--that such a bill could also appropriately address the Senate's duty to act on such nominations once they are submitted. That doesn't mean approve the nominations, that simply means to act on those nominations. When we take up this subject of nominations, we need a bill which will ensure that nominations are made in a timely way, but we also have to avoid crafting an unrealistic bill that could leave many key positions vacant. I don't think any of us want to do that. That is why this bill extends the time that a new administration would have in order to fill these positions without triggering the action-enforcing mechanism. We need to recognize, however, that this vetting process for nominees--the exploratory process, the FBI checks--has become much more complicated and complex than it was even a decade ago when the act was last amended. Increasingly adversarial confirmation proceedings have required that background investigations and other steps in the vetting process are more thorough and lengthy. We asked the Congressional Research Service to look at the length of time it took for the first Clinton administration to make nominations and the time for Senate confirmation of those nominations, and to compare those numbers to the time it took the first Reagan administration in 1981 to make those nominations and for the Senate to act on those nominations. The results reflect that both the nomination and the Senate confirmation process are simply taking longer. In 1981, President Reagan took an average of 112 days to submit a nomination; President Clinton, in 1993, took an average of 133 days to make a nomination. In addition to Presidents taking longer because the process simply takes longer, the Senate is also taking much longer to confirm nominees. In 1981, the Senate took an average of 30 days to confirm nominees; in 1993, the Senate took an average of 41 days to confirm Clinton administration nominees. So the reality that it takes a greater period of time for these nominations to be made should be reflected in the bill. It is reflected by a 30-day extension for the time period, which we have all referred to. Whether or not that is enough is subject to debate, and there will be amendments on that subject as well. As I have indicated, in addition to crafting a bill that reflects today's more adversarial nominations climate, there are many who feel strongly that we in the Senate should acknowledge our own responsibility to act on nominations that we receive from the administration. We, in the Senate, rightfully want to protect our constitutional prerogative to advise and consent on nominations and not to have positions filled by people whose nominations have not been confirmed by the Senate. By the same token, we should discharge our duties in a prompt matter once those nominations are submitted to us. Currently, there are many, many examples of the Senate failing, both in committee and on the floor, to act on nominations. We are appropriately critical of the administration for not sending up nominations in a timely way, but it is also appropriate for us as an institution to act one way or the other on those nominations once they are received. It is the desire of some of our colleagues to offer amendments that would require the Senate to act in a timely fashion on nominations, both by considering them in committee and by requiring a vote on them on the Senate floor. Again, not a positive vote guaranteed, just a vote. Madam President, I think this bill moves us in the right direction. It is a bill that would close loopholes which many of us did not think even existed but which are being utilized by administrations to make appointments of these temporary people for long periods of time without submitting the nominee's name to the Senate for advice and consent. There are many provisions about which concerns have been raised, and it is perfectly appropriate, I believe, for those issues to be debated and to be resolved here on the Senate floor. I also would plan on offering an amendment to provide for a cure of a violation; that is, to allow an official to temporarily act in a vacant position once a nomination has been submitted, even if that nomination is submitted during a long recess. The bill is not clear, in my judgment, as to what happens when the 150-day period runs prior to, for instance, a sine die recess but when the intention to nominate a particular person is submitted to the Senate to the extent that is permitted during a sine die recess. It would seem to me that, just as the bill appropriately holds the 150-day period when a nomination is submitted and permits somebody to serve in that capacity where there is an intent to nominate, so if the 150-day period happens to run out before a recess but the intention to nominate a particular person is submitted to the Senate during that recess, then also a temporary appointment ought to be permitted. Madam President, I will offer an amendment at an appropriate time to have a person as an acting official permitted after the 150-day period has expired, when a recess occurs and the nominee or a nominee's name is submitted to the Senate during that recess. There are a number of concerns which a number of our colleagues have raised with the bill as drafted, and some of these concerns, again, would be reflected in relevant amendments but which are not technically germane and would be precluded and foreclosed if cloture were invoked. For example, the bill restricts who can be an acting official, in case of a vacancy, to a first assistant or another advice and consent nominee. That is too restrictive a pool of acting officials and does not give this administration, or any administration, the ability to make, for instance, a long-time senior civil servant within the agency an acting official. Such senior civil servants may be the best qualified to serve as acting officials. First assistants may not exist for all vacant positions. Further, designating another advice and consent nominee to serve as an acting official takes that person away from the duties of their regular job. The category of persons who can act needs to be made larger, in my judgment, and in the judgment of others who will be offering amendments along this line--who, at least, want to offer amendments along this line, assuming that they are afforded the opportunity to do so. This provision that I have referred to, the restriction that I have referred to, may be operating particularly harshly at the start of a new administration when many vacancies exist. At such times, not many first assistants may be holding over from previous administrations. Therefore, the first assistant slots may be empty, also. Similarly, few other Senate-confirmed officers will exist that the President could choose from to serve in a vacant position. One of our colleagues intends to offer an amendment to allow qualified civil servants to be acting officials, also. And again, this amendment, like some of the other amendments that are sought to be offered here, may not be technically germane and can be foreclosed after cloture. I don't think it is appropriate that relevant amendments should be foreclosed. That is why I am somebody who believes we need to amend the Federal Vacancies Act in order to close the existing loophole, and in order to protect the constitutional prerogative of the President, and I also want to protect the prerogative of Senators to offer relevant amendments. That is the issue we are going to be voting on--whether or not Senators ought to have an opportunity to offer relevant amendments, or whether they should be precluded from doing that by cloture being invoked so prematurely, when a bill has just been brought to the floor, and then being denied the opportunity to offer amendments on issues that are clearly relevant to this issue. So the bill is an important one. The issue is an important one. I think we are all in the debt of the sponsors for bringing this bill to the floor. It is appropriate that the Senate debate this bill and that Senators who have relevant amendments, although not technically germane, be offered the opportunity to offer those amendments, have them voted on, and to have these issues, some of which I have discussed, resolved. I hope we will vote against cloture and that we will proceed to continue on the bill and have people offer amendments--hopefully relevant amendments--and to try to work out a unanimous consent agreement to see if we can't come up with a list of relevant amendments that people could offer on this subject so that they would not be foreclosed, being in a postcloture situation, from offering amendments that are relevant to this important issue, but not technically germane. I yield the floor. Mr. THOMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. The modified request, we have no objection to.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am submitting for the Record and my colleagues' consideration an amendment to S. 2131, the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1998, which I hope will be included in that legislation. It is a relatively simple measure. Contaminated sediments are a serious problem in our nation's waterways and ports and a potential threat to human and environmental health. S. 2131 presents a long overdue and perfectly appropriate opportunity to begin addressing this problem. The EPA submitted a report to Congress this year on the quality of sediments across the nation, pursuant to WRDA of 1992. The report shows that we have cause to worry. Ninety-six areas of probable concern are identified where public and environmental health may be threatened by contaminated sediments. Yet, we have at least six different Federal statutes with implementation responsibilities spread over seven Federal agencies, including a great many specific provisions regarding the Army Corps of Engineers' duties in recent WRDAs, two major programs-- Superfund and Clean Water--within EPA, and numerous state and local governments coming at the problem of contaminated sediments in a variety of ways. The inefficiency of this setup and the lack of information exchange and data availability reduces the chances of an expeditious solution. My amendment is intended to improve communication and cooperation among agencies, affected parties and all levels of government, and motivate them to address the problem sooner rather than later. My amendment requires the National Contaminated Sediment Task Force, as authorized in section 502 of WRDA of 1992 but never funded, to actually meet and make recommendations on how to improve contaminated sediment management practices. Also, this Task Force would have to report on the status of remedial actions on contaminated sediment sites across the nation, including Superfund sites, within one year. This report would also have to identify remediation status, programs and funding for cleanup, the nature and sources, etc. of contaminated sediments. EPA and the Army Corps would jointly publish a recurring report on ways to assess the threat of contaminated sediment, on the status of any guidelines issued designed to protect human and environmental health or to reduce deposition of toxics into sediment, and on guidelines issued intended to encourage the beneficial use of dredged material. Finally, the amendment makes modifications to cost-share provisions for environmental dredging, remediation technology assistance, and establishes a pilot program to give grants to communities that try to reduce contamination of downstream sediments. Mr. President, there have been years of inaction on contaminated sediments. My amendment is primarily intended to gather information and stimulate the agencies with jurisdiction to take this matter seriously and begin working together. If the information I am seeking is prepared in a timely way, the reauthorizations of Superfund and the Clean Water Act will be greatly enhanced from an environmental perspective, insofar as my colleagues would like to truly address the multi-media threat posed by contaminated sediments.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am opposed to S. 1645, the so-called Child Custody Protection Act. This legislation would prohibit and set penalties for transporting an individual under the age of 18 across a state line to obtain an abortion even though the abortion is legal in the state that individual is taken to. It would subject close relatives such as grandmothers, aunts, and siblings to criminal prosecution for an action totally legal where taken. In fact, an amendment that would have excluded grandmothers and other close adult relatives from federal prosecution was defeated in Committee by proponents of this bill. Invoking cloture at this time would preclude this amendment on the Senate floor. When faced with difficult choices regarding abortion and reproductive health, young women should be encouraged to seek counsel from their parents or other trusted adults. In many cases, even in states without mandatory parental consent laws, young women involve one or both parents. However, if a young woman feels that she cannot involve her parents for whatever reason, such as her fear it would put her in danger of abuse or if the pregnancy is the result of incest, she should not be discouraged from seeking the counsel of a trusted adult. I support adult involvement in this very difficult decision, but we must recognize that in some cases it is not always possible for the adult to be a parent. This bill would make it a federal misdemeanor for a grandmother to take her granddaughter to another state for an abortion even if the mother is dead and the father is in jail for incest. Without question, we should encourage parents, educators and counselors to help prevent teenage pregnancy within their state and communities. Teenagers need to be informed of the responsibility that comes with sexuality and parenthood. But making it more difficult for young women to turn to a trusted adult, be it an older sister, aunt, or grandmother, is clearly not the way to do this. This legislation also raises some unusual federalism questions that concern me. Under this bill, state laws would follow the people who live in those states when they travel to other states. The legislation would require the federal government to prosecute people for an activity that is lawful in the states in which the activity takes place (if that activity is not lawful in the state in which they reside). The Federal government does not impose this same restriction on crossing state lines in any other case that I can think of such as to gamble or buy liquor, cigarettes or guns. For the first time since slavery this legislation would make it criminal to go to a state to act in a way that is legal in that state. This is a terrible precedent. This legislation would impose federal penalties in states that have opted not to implement parental involvement requirements. I believe such decisions should be made by the citizens of each state, not by the residents of a neighboring state. People who act legally in Michigan should not be prosecuted because acts are illegal in another state and Michigan citizens should not be prosecuted for acts which are legal in the state in which they are performed.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will vote to sustain the President's veto. 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 late term 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 intervention of legislative bodies into medical decision making is inappropriate, ill advised, and dangerous.'' 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. The bill vetoed by the President does not meet that test because the exception it provides for does not include language relative to a woman's health. Principally for both those reasons, I voted against this legislation and I continue to oppose it. Instead, I support an alternative 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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask that the following joint statement of myself and my colleague from Michigan, Senator Spencer Abraham, be printed in the Record. The joint statement follows: Joint Statement of Senator Levin and Senator Abraham in Recognition of The March . . . Coming Together to Conquer Cancer Mr. President, we are pleased to join today in recognition of the hundreds of thousands of people gathering here in Washington and in every state in the country on Saturday, September 26, 1998 for The March . . . Coming Together to Conquer Cancer. Statistics tell us that cancer will affect the lives of virtually every American. According to the American Cancer Society, American men have a 1-in-2 lifetime risk of developing cancer, and American women have a 1-in-3 lifetime risk. It is estimated that more than 1.2 million new cancer cases will be diagnosed this year, and cancer kills Americans at a rate of more than 1,500 per day. In our state of Michigan, cancer is the second leading cause of death for all people, and is the leading cause of death for people between the ages of 35 and 49. In 1995, cancer took the lives of nearly 20,000 Michigan residents. What statistics cannot show us are the real people behind the numbers whose lives have been forever changed by cancer. They are parents and children, husbands and wives, sisters and brothers, friends and colleagues. They are counting on us, and on policymakers at all levels, to renew our commitment to the effort to develop a cure for this deadly disease. We are proud that our home state of Michigan is a national leader of The March and in cancer research and treatment. The Karmanos Cancer Institute, one of the premier cancer treatment facilities in the country, is coordinating Michigan's March-related activities. The Michigan March will be held in Lansing to coincide with The March in Washington on September 26th. A steering committee, coordinated by the Karmanos Cancer Institute, is working hard to ensure that people from every corner of Michigan participate in The March in Lansing. Organizers are expecting 10,000 people in Lansing on September 26th, including cancer survivors, friends and family of survivors and of those who have lost their lives to cancer, health care professionals, government leaders, and many others. We know that even though they will be divided by geography, the 10,000 people in Lansing will feel a sense of unity with the hundreds of thousands of others gathering in cities throughout the country for a common purpose. Mr. President, we have all been touched by cancer in one way or another. We all have friends, family, or loved ones who have been its victims. The March will give a voice to those whose voices have been silenced by cancer, and it will serve as a call to action in the war against this deadly disease. We are pleased to stand with those participating in The March in Lansing and in Washington, and encourage our colleagues to join us in expressing our profound respect and gratitude to The March participants for their courageous action.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator. Very properly, Senator McCain made reference to the bipartisan nature of the problem and the bipartisan nature of the effort. I commend Senator McCain for doing that, for his strong leadership, which is essential if this is going to succeed. I want to put in the Record some documents, for the sake of completeness, showing how bipartisan this problem is. Senator McCain, very appropriately, put in a document relative to what the benefits of major contributors to the Democrats are going to be offered. I don't know if that was actually implemented under that document or not, but plenty was implemented. I ask unanimous consent that these two documents be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the struggle for life for campaign finance reform is going to be determined by a test of wills between the bipartisan majority that believes in it, reflecting the will of the American people, and the minority that will attempt to filibuster this bill to death. The supporters of campaign finance reform need not withdraw, should not withdraw, and I believe and hope will not withdraw the bill if the filibuster survives this cloture vote. It will then be up to the filibusterers to continue the filibuster. Hopefully, over time they will see that the American people are determined to change a system which is not only corrupt but has a corruption which permeates and undermines public confidence in our democratic electoral process. I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Cloture Motion

Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Wisconsin. I commend him and Senator McCain and the bipartisan group that has worked so hard to pass campaign finance reform. A couple of nights ago, Mark McGwire hit his 62nd home run. In doing so, he defied the odds. He warmed the hearts of Americans everywhere with his grit, his determination, and his dedication. It was a shining moment for American baseball and for America. Today, we should hold him up as our example. We need to show equal grit and equal determination. We need to hit a home run for the American people by passing campaign finance reform. To do that, we are going to have to defy the odds. The House did it; they defied the odds. They passed campaign finance reform, and now the question that we are going to face in the days ahead is whether we can. Can the Senate rise to the occasion? Or will we go with the status quo, continuing the demoralizing and debilitating money chase that now funds our election campaigns and undermines public confidence in our democracy? Seventy-five percent of the American people want campaign finance reform. They want limits restored on contributions, real limits. They want the end of the loophole called the soft money loophole. The House passed a strong bipartisan bill. The President is ready to sign it. A majority of the Senate supports similar legislation which is before us now. We are ready to vote to enact this legislation into law. But instead of going to a vote on the bill, the majority leader has instead filed a cloture motion. And what is surreal about this cloture motion is that while a cloture motion is usually intended to be a device to close debate on an issue, and to move to a vote, the Senators who signed the cloture motion in this instance do not want to end debate or go to a vote. They oppose their own petition. They hope that the pending legislation and this issue will go away. They hope the supporters of campaign finance reform will withdraw the bill because it is being filibustered. This is an inside-out filibuster. The opponents of reform want to filibuster the reform bill without actually filibustering it. They are hoping that if supporters do not have the 60 votes to close debate, that the supporters will agree to withdraw their own amendment. I believe it would be wrong to withdraw this bill because opponents are filibustering the bill. Opponents have the right to filibuster under our rules. They have the right to filibuster. But the supporters have no obligation to help them succeed by agreeing to change the subject or by agreeing to withdraw the amendment. This is an issue of transcendent importance. Huge contributions that come through that soft money loophole have sapped public confidence in the electoral process. The House has acted. They did what conventional wisdom said could not be done. They passed a bill with meaningful campaign finance reform to close the soft money loophole. Our colleague from Kentucky said that when the House passed reform and sent it over here, that the bill and reform was dead on arrival, DOA. Well, it was not. The struggle for life for campaign finance reform will be determined by a test of wills between a bipartisan majority who support campaign finance reform and the minority that is filibustering in opposition to campaign finance reform. But campaign finance reform is not dead on arrival. It is struggling for life here on the Senate floor in a kind of a titanic struggle which has existed with prior legislation of this importance, legislation which has such meaning to the country that both its supporters and its opponents are willing to test their strength. Opponents filibustering, as is their right, but supporters not yielding to that filibuster, as is our right. So just as the House defied the odds by passing a bill, just like Mark McGwire defied the odds by hitting home run No. 62, now it is our turn at bat. The American public is waiting for us to step up to the plate and to fight for campaign finance reform. And that is what our intention is. Again, I commend the bipartisan group that has led this effort. It is a vital effort for the well-being of democracy in this country. It is worth fighting for. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. One of these documents is an invitation to the Republican National Committee Annual Gala 1997, in which for $250,000, the contributors to the Republican National Committee get to attend a luncheon with Senate and House leadership and the Republican Senate and House committee chairmen of your choice. That is $250,000. You get a luncheon with the committee chairmen. Next is a 1992 Republican President's Dinner. Major contributors got a private reception, among other things, hosted by President and Mrs. Bush at the White House. And the Republican Eagles promised major contributors who became members of the Republican Eagles' contributor group ``foreign economic and trade missions,'' in which the Eagles have been welcomed enthusiastically by heads of state, such as Premier Li Peng of the People's Republic of China. Again, Mr. President, I think the point Senator McCain very properly made is that we have a major, massive, bipartisan problem that is undermining public confidence in elections in this country. It is a bipartisan problem. It requires a bipartisan solution, and hopefully this coalition will stand together in the face of a filibuster and say, yes, you have a right to filibuster; that is your right, but we need not withdraw in the face of a filibuster. This problem is so huge that it requires action, and we cannot simply defer it year after year. There has never been a better time for action than when the House has acted on reform, against the odds, just as we have to act against the odds if we are going to succeed. I thank Senators McCain and Feingold, the leaders on both sides of the aisle, who can succeed if we hang tough here and not withdraw in the face of a filibuster.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that, if enacted, will go a long way toward eliminating deceptive practices in mailings that use games of chance like sweepstakes to induce consumers to purchase a product or waste their money by paying to play a game they will not win. The use of gimmicks in these contests, such as a large notice declaring the recipient a winner--oftentimes a ``guaranteed'' winner or one of two final competitors for a large cash prize--has proliferated to the point that American consumers are being duped into purchasing products they don't want or need because they think they have won or will win a big prize if they do so. Complaints about these mailings are one of the top ten consumer complaints in the nation. I have received numerous complaints from my constituents in Michigan asking that something be done to provide relief from these mailings. Earlier this month we held a hearing in our Governmental Affairs Committee federal services subcommittee on the problem of deceptive sweepstakes and other mailings involving games of chance. We learned from three of our witnesses, the Florida Attorney General, the Michigan Assistant Attorney General and the Postal Inspection Service, that senior citizens are particular targets of these deceptive solicitations, because they are the most vulnerable. State Attorneys General have taken action against many of the companies that use deceptive mailings. The states have entered into agreements to stop the most egregious practices, but the agreements apply only to the states that enter into the agreements. This allows companies to continue their deceptive practices in other states. That's why federal legislation in this area is needed. The bill I'm introducing today will eliminate deceptive practices by prohibiting misleading statements, requiring more disclosure, imposing a $10,000 civil penalty for each deceptive mailing and providing the Postal Service with additional tools to pursue deceptive and fraudulent offenders. Sweepstakes solicitations are put together by teams of clever marketers who package their sweepstakes offers in such a way so as to get people to purchase a product by implying that the chances of winning are enhanced if the product being offered is purchased. Rules and important disclaimers are written in fine print and hidden away in obscure sections of the solicitation or on the back of the envelope that is frequently tossed away. Even when one reads the rules, it frequently takes a law degree to understand them. The bill I am introducing will protect consumers from deceptive practices by directing the Postal Service to develop and issue regulations that restrict the use of language and symbols on direct mail game of chance solicitations, including sweepstakes, that mislead the receiver into believing they have won, or will win a prize. The bill also requires additional disclosure about chances of winning and the statement that no purchase is necessary. Any mail that is designated by the Postal Service as being deceptive will not be delivered. This will significantly reduce if not eliminate the deceptive practices being used in the direct mail industry to dupe unsuspecting consumers into thinking they are grand prize winners. The direct mail industry should benefit as a result. The adverse publicity recently aimed at the industry because of ``You Have Won a Prize'' campaigns has malign the industry as a whole. Cleaning up deceptive advertising will certainly improve the industry's image. For those entities that continue to use deceptive mailings, my bill imposes a civil penalty of $10,000 for each offense that violates Postal Service regulations. Currently the Postal Service can impose a $10,000 daily fine for evading or not complying with a Postal Service order. My bill imposes a fine concurrent with issuing an order. This has the effect of applying the penalty to the deceptive offense, not for noncompliance of the order. My bill allows the Postal Service to quickly respond to changes in deceptive marketing practices by tasking them to draft regulations and language that will be effective against the ``scheme du jour.'' A deceptive practice used today, may not be used tomorrow. As soon as authorities learn about one scheme, it's changes. If legislation is passed that requires a specific notice, it won't be too long before another deceptive practice will pop up to by-pass the legislation. The Postal Service, who is in the business of knowing what is going on with the mails, will be able to evaluate what regulatory changes will be required to keep pace with deceptive practices. This will ensure that deceptive practices are weeded out in a timely manner by keeping regulations current. The bill also gives the Postal Service administrative subpoena power to respond more quickly to deceptive and fraudulent mail schemes. Currently the Postal Service must go through a lengthy administrative procedure before it can get evidence to shut down illegal operations. By the time they get through all the administrative hoops, the crook has folded up operations and disappeared, or has destroyed all the evidence. By granting the Postal Service limited subpoena authority to obtain relevant or material records for an investigation, the Postal Service will be able to act more efficiently against illegal activities. Subpoena authority will make the Postal Service more effective and efficient in its pursuit of justice. The Deceptive Sweepstakes Mailings Elimination Act of 1998 takes a tough approach to dealing with sweepstakes solicitations and other games of chance offerings that are sent through the mail. If you use sweepstakes or a game of chance to promote the sale of a product and provide adequate disclosure and abide with Postal Service regulations, then the Postal Service will deliver that solicitation. If deceptive practices are used in a sweepstakes or a game of chance solicitation, then the Postal Service will be able to stop the solicitation, and impose a significant penalty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Well, just for one brief comment, if I might, to the majority leader. I thank him for his comments. When the proponents of civil rights legislation were faced with a filibuster, they didn't succeed the first time to get the necessary votes, which I think then was two-thirds. They didn't withdraw the civil rights bill. Because they felt it was so important to the Nation that we pass that legislation, they decided that the filibuster, which is their right under the rules--it is not required that people who offer a bill or an amendment withdraw their amendment or their bill just because they are being filibustered. The situation here is that there is a bipartisan group, a majority, who feel very, very strongly that this is a transcendent issue, that this is an issue which cuts across so many other issues, that the soft money loophole has undermined public confidence in a significant way in our elections. I think it is important that everybody be straight with each other, and I think you have been straight with us and we have been straight with you. Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have worked on a bipartisan basis in a way which is really important for the Nation. It is important that everybody understand that this amendment will be reoffered on the next appropriations bill because of the seriousness with which it is held on a bipartisan basis, and then folks who want to filibuster have that right, but folks who don't want to help that filibuster succeed also have rights to reoffer it. Those are the rights which will clash. That is why we are here to do this in a civil way. The majority leader has always been civil in his dealings on this issue, as on all other issues. I want to add both the statement that I have made and also to be very clear and be very straight with the leadership as to what the intent is, which is to reoffer this amendment on the next appropriations bill.

Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator withhold that for one moment so I can add one comment?

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing a bill that, if enacted, will go a long way toward eliminating deceptive practices in mailings that use games of chance like sweepstakes to induce consumers to purchase a product or waste their money by paying to play a game they will not win. The use of gimmicks in these contests, such as a large notice declaring the recipient a winner--oftentimes a ``guaranteed'' winner or one of two final competitors for a large cash prize--has proliferated to the point that American consumers are being duped into purchasing products they don't want or need because they think they have won or will win a big prize if they do so. Complaints about these mailings are one of the top ten consumer complaints in the nation. I have received numerous complaints from my constituents in Michigan asking that something be done to provide relief from these mailings. Earlier this month we held a hearing in our Governmental Affairs Committee federal services subcommittee on the problem of deceptive sweepstakes and other mailings involving games of chance. We learned from three of our witnesses, the Florida Attorney General, the Michigan Assistant Attorney General and the Postal Inspection Service, that senior citizens are particular targets of these deceptive solicitations, because they are the most vulnerable. State Attorneys General have taken action against many of the companies that use deceptive mailings. The states have entered into agreements to stop the most egregious practices, but the agreements apply only to the states that enter into the agreements. This allows companies to continue their deceptive practices in other states. That's why federal legislation in this area is needed. The bill I'm introducing today will eliminate deceptive practices by prohibiting misleading statements, requiring more disclosure, imposing a $10,000 civil penalty for each deceptive mailing and providing the Postal Service with additional tools to pursue deceptive and fraudulent offenders. Sweepstakes solicitations are put together by teams of clever marketers who package their sweepstakes offers in such a way so as to get people to purchase a product by implying that the chances of winning are enhanced if the product being offered is purchased. Rules and important disclaimers are written in fine print and hidden away in obscure sections of the solicitation or on the back of the envelope that is frequently tossed away. Even when one reads the rules, it frequently takes a law degree to understand them. The bill I am introducing will protect consumers from deceptive practices by directing the Postal Service to develop and issue regulations that restrict the use of language and symbols on direct mail game of chance solicitations, including sweepstakes, that mislead the receiver into believing they have won, or will win a prize. The bill also requires additional disclosure about chances of winning and the statement that no purchase is necessary. Any mail that is designated by the Postal Service as being deceptive will not be delivered. This will significantly reduce if not eliminate the deceptive practices being used in the direct mail industry to dupe unsuspecting consumers into thinking they are grand prize winners. The direct mail industry should benefit as a result. The adverse publicity recently aimed at the industry because of ``You Have Won a Prize'' campaigns has malign the industry as a whole. Cleaning up deceptive advertising will certainly improve the industry's image. For those entities that continue to use deceptive mailings, my bill imposes a civil penalty of $10,000 for each offense that violates Postal Service regulations. Currently the Postal Service can impose a $10,000 daily fine for evading or not complying with a Postal Service order. My bill imposes a fine concurrent with issuing an order. This has the effect of applying the penalty to the deceptive offense, not for noncompliance of the order. My bill allows the Postal Service to quickly respond to changes in deceptive marketing practices by tasking them to draft regulations and language that will be effective against the ``scheme du jour.'' A deceptive practice used today, may not be used tomorrow. As soon as authorities learn about one scheme, it's changes. If legislation is passed that requires a specific notice, it won't be too long before another deceptive practice will pop up to by-pass the legislation. The Postal Service, who is in the business of knowing what is going on with the mails, will be able to evaluate what regulatory changes will be required to keep pace with deceptive practices. This will ensure that deceptive practices are weeded out in a timely manner by keeping regulations current. The bill also gives the Postal Service administrative subpoena power to respond more quickly to deceptive and fraudulent mail schemes. Currently the Postal Service must go through a lengthy administrative procedure before it can get evidence to shut down illegal operations. By the time they get through all the administrative hoops, the crook has folded up operations and disappeared, or has destroyed all the evidence. By granting the Postal Service limited subpoena authority to obtain relevant or material records for an investigation, the Postal Service will be able to act more efficiently against illegal activities. Subpoena authority will make the Postal Service more effective and efficient in its pursuit of justice. The Deceptive Sweepstakes Mailings Elimination Act of 1998 takes a tough approach to dealing with sweepstakes solicitations and other games of chance offerings that are sent through the mail. If you use sweepstakes or a game of chance to promote the sale of a product and provide adequate disclosure and abide with Postal Service regulations, then the Postal Service will deliver that solicitation. If deceptive practices are used in a sweepstakes or a game of chance solicitation, then the Postal Service will be able to stop the solicitation, and impose a significant penalty. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. I yield Senator Conrad 4 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff wrote Senator Inhofe a letter on August 24, which I ask unanimous consent to be printed in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, part of the Joint Chiefs' letter is the following: * * * we reaffirm our support for the current [National Missile Defense] policy and deployment readiness program. Those are the key words. Based on these considerations, we reaffirm our support for the current [National Missile Defense] policy and deployment readiness program. Then General Shelton wrote the following: Our program represents an unprecedented level of effort to address the likely emergence of a rogue ICBM threat. It compresses what is normally a 6-12 year development program into 3 years with some additional development concurrent with a 3-year deployment. This emphasis is indicative of our commitment to this vital national security objective. The tremendous effort devoted to this program is a prudent commitment to provide absolutely the best technology when a threat warrants deployment. Given the present threat projections and the potential requirement to deploy an effective limited defense, we continue to support the ``three-plus-three'' program. It is our view that the development program should proceed through the integrated system testing scheduled to begin in late 1999, before the subsequent deployment decision consideration in the year 2000. Then he points out that: Additional funding would not buy back any time in our already fast-paced schedule. Finally, General Shelton said the following: The [ABM] Treaty contributes to our strategic stability with Russia and, for the immediate future, does not hinder our development program. Mr. President, our program now calls for the development of defenses against long-range missiles. Let no one misunderstand that, or misstate that. That is our current program. We are moving as quickly as possible. Indeed, it is a high-risk move that we are making because we have collapsed this development schedule so much. We are not going to speed up this schedule 1 day by threatening to destroy the ABM Treaty. All we will do, if this bill passes, is to contribute to the threat of the proliferation of nuclear weapons on the soil of Russia. That is not in our security interest. I hope we do not proceed to the consideration of this bill. I yield the floor. Mr. COCHRAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield 4 minutes to Senator Dorgan.

Mr. LEVIN. I yield Senator Bingaman 3 minutes.

Mr. LEVIN

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

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the American body politic has a disease. It is a serious disease that some would argue is a critical disease. It is called ``the money chase.'' No party and few candidates are immune from it. The good news is that it is curable. The bad news is that there may be enough Members in this body--the Senate--who want to block the cure so that the cure cannot succeed. To inoculate our democratic system against this disease, we passed a series of laws in the 1970s to limit the role of money in Federal elections. It was our intent at that time to protect our democratic form of government which relies so heavily on the interchange of ideas and actions between the government and the private sector and to protect our form of government from the corrosive influence of unlimited and undisclosed political contributions. We wanted to ensure that our elected officials were neither in reality nor in perception beholden to special interests who are able to contribute large sums of money to candidates and their campaigns. These laws were designed to protect the public's confidence in our democratically elected officials. For many years those laws setting limits on campaign contributions worked fairly well. The limits that they set were respected, and these limits, indeed, are still on the books today. Those same laws that purportedly set limits on how much people can contribute to campaigns are on the books. And here is what they say. 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 supposed to be prohibited from contributing to any campaign. Contributions from foreign countries, foreign citizens, and foreign corporations are prohibited. And Presidential campaigns are supposed to be financed with public funds. That is the law. That is what it says on the law books today. Yet in the last few years we have heard story after story after story about contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars from individuals, corporations, and unions, and even about contributions from foreign sources. And we have heard stories about Presidents and Presidential candidates spending long hours on fundraising tasks. Now, how is that possible? Well, what has happened is that a pretty good law setting limits on the size and source of contributions had some soft spots which, over the years, both parties took advantage of. Both parties pushed up against those soft spots and created holes in the law, big loopholes that allowed the big money to pour in. So now there are effectively no limits at all. That is why we hear about a $1.3 million contribution to the RNC from just one company in 1996, and a half-million dollar contribution from just one couple to the DNC the same year. Some in this Chamber like it that way. They don't want any limits. The majority leader has said it is ``the American way.'' I disagree. We have got to plug those loopholes. We have to make the law whole again and, in making it whole, to make it effective. If we don't do that, we risk losing the faith the American people have that we represent their best interests. Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution and spending limits of our campaign finance system. Soft money is the 800-pound gorilla sitting right in the middle of this debate. Some want to pretend that it is not there, but it is. Soft money is at the heart of this problem. All soft money means is money which is unregulated and unlimited that, for one reason or another, crawls through that loophole that has been pierced by both parties in our campaign finance limits. Look at the most recent data. In the 1996 election, Republicans raised $140 million in soft money contributions, while Democrats raised $120 million--almost as much. In the first 18 months of the 1998 election cycle, Republicans have raised about $70 million, and Democrats have raised about $45 million. That was double the amount that both parties raised in the first 18 months of the 1996 elections. That money currently is legal, and it is legal because of the loopholes in the law that we must close with the McCain-Feingold bill. The way both parties have gotten around the law of the 1970s has been to establish a whole separate world of campaign finance. It is the world of soft money--contributions that are not technically covered by the limits under current law. Once that soft money loophole was opened, once the loophole was viewed as legitimate, the money chase was on by both parties. Couple that with the high cost of television advertising, and you have the money chase involving just about all candidates. The chase for money has led most of us in public office or seeking public office to push the envelope, to take the law to the limits, to get the necessary contributions. The money chase led the head of the Republican National Committee, Haley Barbour, to use a subsidiary of the RNC, the National Policy Forum, to obtain some $750,000 in what, practically speaking, became a foreign contribution from a Hong Kong businessman to run ads in key congressional races. The money chase drove the actions of Roger Tamraz, a large contributor to both parties who, during last year's investigation, became the bipartisan symbol for what is wrong with the current system. Roger Tamraz served as a Republican Eagle in the 1980s during Republican administrations and a Democratic trustee in the 1990s during Democratic administrations. He was unabashed in admitting his political contributions were made for the purpose of getting access to people in power. Tamraz showed us in stark terms the all too common product of the current campaign finance system--using unlimited soft money contributions to buy access. And despite the condemnation by Members of Congress and the press of Tamraz's activities, when asked at a hearing to reflect on his $300,000 contribution to the Democrats in 1996, Tamraz said, ``I think next time I'll give $600,000.'' What happened to the limits? What happened to the $1,000 limit and the $5,000 limit on PAC contributions, and the overall $25,000 limit per year? What happened to the intent of this Senate and the House of Representatives back in the 1970s to establish limits on contributions to candidates? How is it that a Roger Tamraz can unabashedly appear in front of a Senate committee and say, ``Yes, I gave $300,000 to the Democrats. I did it to gain access.'' And when asked, ``Would you do it again?'' indicated that, next time, he'll give $600,000, if necessary. Now, what do we believe the public feels and senses when they hear and see that? What do we think goes through the average person's mind when they see a Roger Tamraz unabashedly, boldly, without any shame, saying, ``Hey, I can give you guys $300,000, I can give you $600,000, using that loophole, and I will do it again''? Is that what we want our election system to be--when we have passed a law which says $1,000 to a candidate, $25,000 overall in a year, that somebody can just appear in front of a Senate committee and say, ``Yes, I gave $300,000, nothing illegal about that. I used the soft money loophole, folks. If you don't like it, close it. If you want to put limits on how much money I can give, close the loophole. But until you do it, I am going to keep on giving it''? That is the Tamraz challenge to us. That is the gauntlet that he has laid down in front of us, both parties. Answering his challenge cannot be done on a partisan basis. There is no way we are going to reform these laws unless enough Democrats and enough Republicans come together, as they did in the House of Representatives, and say enough is enough. We intended limits, we intended limits to apply, and we are going to close the loopholes which have obviated those limits, destroyed them, undermined them and, in the process, undermined the confidence of the American people. The money chase also pressures political supporters to cross lines they should not in order to help their candidates get needed funds. The money chase led a national finance chair of Senator Dole's presidential campaign, Simon Fireman, to engage in a 5-year money laundering scheme which funneled $120,000 through a secret Hong Kong trust to his employees who contributed to the candidates he supported. Similarly, the money chase led members of the Lum family, a father, mother and daughter, to funnel $50,000 through company employees and stockholders to Democratic candidates they supported, resulting in the first guilty pleas in the Justice Department's ongoing campaign finance fraud case. The money chase led a foreign corporation, Korean Airlines, and four U.S. subsidiaries of foreign corporations from the same country to funnel illegal contributions through their employees to a Republican Member of Congress Jay Kim, resulting in $1.6 million in corporate criminal fines. The money chase in political campaigns is a serious disease that has become chronic and too many of us have been affected by it. Too many of us have spent too much time fund-raising and in the process, pushing the fund-raising rules to their limits. Most of us know in our hearts that the money chase is a bipartisan problem and the bipartisan solution is the McCain-Feingold bill. But we have been here before. During my career in the Senate I have lost count of the number of times that this body has debated the need for campaign finance reform, been presented with reasonable bipartisan proposals, yet, in the end, failed to get the job done. Will this time be different? The Senate has before it a bipartisan campaign reform bill, the McCain-Feingold bill, that would do much to repair our campaign finance system. It is not a new bill. It has been before this body for years now and has received sustained scrutiny from Members on both sides of the aisle. It is a bill that recognizes that the bulk of troubling campaign activity is not what is illegal, but what is legal--what is currently legal because of the soft money loophole. The McCain-Feingold bill takes direct aim at closing the loopholes that have swallowed the election laws. In particular, it takes aim at closing the soft money and issue advocacy loopholes, while strengthening other aspects of the federal election laws that are too weak to do the job as they now stand. I have heard experts and my colleagues condemn the excesses of the 1996 elections. I've also heard people bemoaning the lack of tough civil and criminal enforcement action against the wrongdoers. But there is an obvious reason for the lack of strong enforcement--the existing Federal election laws are riddled with loopholes and in many respects unenforceable. And as much as some want to point the finger of blame at those who took advantage of the campaign finance laws during the last election, there is no one to blame but ourselves for the sorry state of the law. The soft money loophole exists because we in Congress allow it. The so-called issue advocacy loophole exists because we in Congress allow it to exist. Tax-exempt organizations spend millions televising candidate attack ads days before an election without disclosing who they are or where they got their funds because we in Congress allow it. It is time to stop pointing fingers at others and take responsibility for our share of the blame. Congress alone writes the laws. Congress alone can shut down the loopholes and reinvigorate the Federal election laws. The Federal Election Campaign Act was first enacted 20 years ago, in response to campaign abuses uncovered in connection with the Watergate scandal. Congress enacted a comprehensive and tough system of laws, including contribution limits and full public disclosure of all campaign contributions and expenditures. At the time they were enacted, many people fought against those laws, claiming they were an unconstitutional restriction of First Amendment rights to free speech and free association. The laws' opponents took their case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued the Buckley decision, which held both contribution limits and disclosure requirements were constitutional. I want to repeat that, because Buckley is thrown around quite a bit on this floor, so I want to just repeat that last statement. Buckley upheld the constitutionality of contribution limits. There are those who say we should not, or cannot, limit the amount of contributions. We do limit the amount of contributions, and Buckley said that we can. The question now is whether we close the loopholes which have destroyed those limits. But in terms of the constitutionality under the first amendment, Buckley upheld the constitutionality of limits on campaign contributions. The Buckley court wrote specifically--relative to disclosure requirements, by the way--that: While disclosure requirements serve the many salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the problem. And the court held in Buckley that: We find that under the rigorous standard of review established by our prior decisions, the weighty interests served by restricting the size of financial contributions to political candidates are sufficient to justify the limited effect upon first amendment freedoms caused by the $1,000 contribution ceiling. Congress was justified [the Buckley court wrote] 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. That is Buckley explicitly holding that Congress can set and enforce contribution limits, and that the first amendment does not preclude us from doing so. The Buckley court also wrote: It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions--in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a successful campaign. . . . To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quo's from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. . . . Of almost equal concern is . . . 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. . . . Roger Tamraz spent $300,000 buying access and said, ``I'll double it next time.'' Buckley, the Supreme Court, said: Of almost equal concern . . . is 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 [the Buckley court held] 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. That is Buckley. That is Buckley ruling on contribution limits. That is Buckley saying that Congress could legitimately conclude, to use its words, 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.'' That is Roger Tamraz' challenge to us. And when he and others say, ``I can give $300,000 because of that soft money loophole, and I'll double it next time,'' the Supreme Court says that Congress can 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 Buckley Court also upheld the disclosure limits that we had in the law. In upholding both the contribution limits and the disclosure requirements, the Supreme Court used a balancing test that weighed the first amendment rights against the integrity of Federal elections, and the Court ruled that the integrity of our elections is so compelling a Government interest that contribution limits and disclosure requirements are constitutionally acceptable. Some have argued that McCain-Feingold is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech, but that analysis leaves out several key legal considerations. First, although Buckley is often cited in support of that argument, Buckley, as a matter of fact, is the decision that upheld contribution limits and disclosure requirements. Buckley did strike down spending limits, but not contribution limits which Buckley affirmed. Spending limits were stricken by Buckley, but no one is talking about mandatory spending limits in this bill. What we are talking about is contribution limits and disclosure requirements, exactly what Buckley said is a constitutional means to protect the integrity of our elections, to deter corruption and the appearance of corruption, and to inform voters. Some have correctly cited other court decisions holding that only ads which contain a short list of so-called magic words can be subjected to the Federal election law requirements and limits relative to contributions, but that analysis leaves out a decision in the ninth circuit in the Furgatch case which holds that the list of magic words, which those other courts cited, ``does not exhaust the capacity of the English language to expressly advocate the election or defeat of a candidate.'' The analysis by some relative to issue ads also leaves out, in addition to ignoring the ninth circuit Furgatch case, the fact that the Federal Election Commission has reaffirmed, on a bipartisan basis, its commitment to a broader test that goes beyond the magic words to unmask ads that claim to be discussions of issues but which are clearly intended to advocate the election or defeat of a Federal candidate. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the Federal Election Commission regulation or whether the magic words must be present before Federal election laws can be applied to ads that clearly attack or support candidates. Despite attempts to depict the constitutional picture as providing crystal clear support for unfettered speech, no matter how corrupting of our electoral system, that is not the state of the law. To the contrary. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the integrity of our elections is a weighty concern which Congress can consider. The question is how to balance that concern for the integrity of elections against the free speech concerns in the first amendment. How do you balance the two? In Buckley, the Court balanced them by saying contribution limits are constitutional; disclosure requirements are constitutional; spending limits, expenditure limits are not. That is what the Buckley Court ruled. This bill, our bill, is consistent with Buckley, consistent with Furgatch, and consistent with the Federal Election Commission s reaffirmation of the broader test for candidate advocacy. The problem with our campaign laws is that candidates and parties have pushed against the limits of the law and found loopholes to such an extent that the law's limits are no longer effective. We intended to establish limits after Watergate. Those limits have been destroyed by the soft money loophole. The Supreme Court said we can, in fact, limit contributions. The issue before us is whether we will restore those limits on contributions. Individuals can now give parties hundreds of thousands of dollars, millions of dollars at a time, claiming that they are providing soft money rather than the hard money that has to meet the legal limits. Corporations, which are not supposed to make direct contributions at all, now routinely contribute huge sums to both parties, millions to both parties. While those contributors claim to be providing money that is simply for party- building purposes and not for candidates, the issue advocacy loophole allows parties and others to televise ads that clearly attack or support candidates while claiming to be discussions of issues beyond the reach of the election laws, but which are indistinguishable from candidate ads which are subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements. To show the absurd state of the law, at least in some circuits, we can just look at one of the 1996 televised ads that was paid for by the League of Conservation Voters and which referred to House Member Greg Ganske, a Republican Congressman from Iowa, who was then up for reelection. This is the way the ad read: It's our land; our water. America's environment must be protected. But in just 18 months, Congressman Ganske has voted 12 out of 12 times to weaken environmental protections. Congressman Ganske even voted to let corporations continue releasing cancer-causing pollutants into our air. Congressman Ganske voted for the big corporations who lobbied these bills and gave him thousands of dollars in contributions. Call Congressman Ganske. Tell him to protect America's environment. For our families. For our future. The ad sponsor claimed that was an issue ad, an ad that discussed issues rather than a candidate, and so could be paid for by unlimited and undisclosed funds. If one word were changed, if instead of ``Call Congressman Ganske,'' the ad said, ``Defeat Congressman Ganske,'' it would clearly qualify as a candidate ad subject to contribution limits and disclosure requirements. In the real world, that one word difference doesn't change the character or substance of that ad at all. Both versions unmistakably advocate the defeat of Congressman Ganske. But the ad sponsor claims that only one of those ads must comply with election law contribution limits and disclosure requirements. That doesn't make sense, and McCain-Feingold would help close down that interpretation of the law. This is not the first time that loopholes have eroded the effectiveness of a set of laws. It happens all the time. The election laws are just the latest example. Congress is here partly to oversee the way that laws operate, to close loopholes that have been discovered. The question is, What are we going to do about it? The time for crying crocodile tears about campaign fundraising is over. Folks should wipe away those crocodile tears from their eyes, because if they do, they will see a public disgusted with both parties for allowing unlimited fundraising and contributions in our Federal elections. Seventy-three percent of American people in a poll conducted by the Los Angeles Times believe both parties committed campaign finance abuses in the 1996 elections; 81 percent--81 percent--of the American people believe the campaign fundraising system needs to be reformed; 78 percent of the American people believe we should limit the role of soft money. Campaign finance reform is an issue that can convert a dedicated optimist into a doomsayer, but we have before us a bipartisan bill that provides the key reforms, that has passed the House and that the President will sign. We have before us a bipartisan bill which a majority in the Senate support, and we have a bipartisan coalition that is willing to fight hard for this bill. So let us stop complaining about weak enforcement of the election laws when the wording of those laws make them virtually unenforceable. Let us stop feigning shock at the laws' loopholes while allowing them to continue. It is time to enact campaign finance reform. That is our legislative responsibility. Otherwise, we are going to be haunted by the words of Roger Tamraz that in the next election it will be $600,000 instead of $300,000. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.