John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Wisconsin has 1 minute.

Mr. McCAIN. Concerning campaign finance reform. So if the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Virginia are basing their objections to this amendment on the grounds that it would harm the Defense authorization bill, then they should have no objection--no objection-- to the unanimous consent agreement that this amendment be placed on the next appropriate vehicle by the Parliamentarian. But instead, the Senator from Virginia is objecting--I take it the Senator from Colorado would object--clearly revealing that the true intentions here have a lot more to do with this amendment than with the defense of this Nation. So the fact is, on blue slips, all revenue bills must originate in the other House. The precedents of the Senate on pages 1214 and 1215 know eight types of amendments. I ask unanimous consent that this be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. I thought the Senator from Virginia would object. So I will ask another unanimous consent agreement, that in case this amendment does cause it to be blue-slipped, it be in order on the next appropriate vehicle, as determined by the Parliamentarian, that a vote be held on this amendment with no second-degree amendments. I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. McCAIN.. I will not yield to the Senator from Colorado until I have finished my statement.

Mr. McCAIN. I have the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today I am introducing three amendments to S. 2549, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001. The first amendment will provide more pay for mid-career enlisted service members. The second amendment will authorize survivor benefit improvements for the families of service members. The third amendment will improve benefits for members of the National Guard and Reservists. Last year, I was pleased to see military pay table reform enacted into law. Our servicemembers will receive a much needed pay raise next month, and I commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle who voted for this legislation. However, there was one group of servicemembers that was under- represented in last year's pay table reform. Our E-5s, E-6s and E-7s have seen their pay erode in comparison to other pay grades. With our severe recruitment and retention issues still looming, we must adequately compensate our mid-grade enlisted servicemembers who are critical to leading the junior enlisted force. We have significantly underpaid these enlisted members since the advent of the All-Volunteer Force. The value of their pay, compared to that of a private/seaman/airman, has dropped 50% since the all volunteer force was enacted by Congress. The 1990s placed undue burdens on our career NCOs. Their expansion of duties during the drawdown came with little or no pay incentives, resulting in the departure of mid-grade NCOs and Petty Officers from the uniformed services. On promotion to grades E-5 through E-8, the gap between military and civilian pay begins to widen. Last year's pay table reform, which helped to alleviate this gap, increased the pay of mid-grade officers, but is lacking for the mid-grade enlisted force. My amendment would alleviate this inequity by increasing the pay for E-5s, E-6s and E-7s to the same level as those of officers with similar lengths of service. The amendment is estimated to cost approximately $200-300 million a year and is similar to legislation recently introduced in the House. My second amendment would provide low-cost survivor benefit plan improvements for the survivors of active duty personnel who die in the line of duty. Under current SBP rules, only survivors of retired members or those of active duty members who have greater than 20 years of service are eligible for SBP. My amendment, at an estimated cost of only $800 thousand in FY01 and $12.6 million over 5 years, would extend SBP coverage to all survivors of members who die on active duty with the annuities calculated as if the member had been retired with a 100% disability on the date of death. This is an inexpensive amendment that would greatly help the survivors of our courageous servicemembers who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of our country. The second part of this amendment is a no-cost initiative that would allow the spouses and children of active duty personnel to participate in the Serviceman Group Life Insurance Program. Junior servicemembers can rarely afford commercial insurance on their spouses and children, and the unexpected loss of their spouses--who in many cases are the primary care givers of their children--places an extreme strain on the service members' ability to properly take care of their families. Premiums for this insurance would be significantly lower than comparable life insurance programs, because the Serviceman Group Life Insurance Program is composed of a consortium of insurance companies. This amendment would simply authorize spouses to buy up to 50% of the servicemember benefits--a maximum of $100,000 in coverage, and each dependent child could be covered for up to $10,000. The final amendment I have offered today increases benefits for the Total Force--members of the National Guard and the Reserve Components. The National Guard and Reserves have become a larger percentage of the Total Force and are essential partners in a wide range of military operations. Due to the high operating tempo demands on the active component, the Reserve components are being called upon more frequently and for longer periods than ever before. We must stop treating them like a ``second class'' force. This amendment will specifically authorize five improvements for the National Guard and Reserves. First, it will urge through a sense of Congress that the President should adequately request in the DoD budget the funds necessary to modernize these forces, and support their training and readiness accounts to ensure that the Total Force can continue to support our National Military Strategy. Second, this amendment will authorize National Guard and reserve servicemembers to travel for duty or training on a space-required basis on military airlift between the servicemember's home of record and their place of duty. Third, it will authorize National Guard and reserve servicemembers who travel more than 50 miles from their home of record to attend their drills to be able to stay at Bachelor Quarters on military installations. Fourth, it will increase from 75 to 90 the maximum number of reserve retirement points that may be credited in a year for reserve service. Finally, it will authorize legal/JAG services be extended for up to twice the length of period of military service after active duty recall for National Guard and reserve servicemembers to handle issues or problems under the Sailor and Soldier Act. In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of enacting meaningful improvements for our servicemembers; our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, their families and their survivors. They risk their lives to defend our shores and preserve democracy and we can not thank them enough for their service. But we can pay them more, improve their benefits to their survivors, and support the Total Force in a similar manner as the active forces. Our servicemembers past, present, and future need these improvements, and these three amendments are just one step we can take to show our support and improve the quality of life for our servicemembers and their families.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Arizona has the floor. The Senator from Colorado said, on October 18, 1999: I strongly believe that sunshine is the best disinfectant.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Can I engage the Senator for 30 seconds?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Please go ahead.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the amendment I propose today is one which we have attempted on several occasions in the past. It authorizes two rounds of U.S. military installation realignments and closures to occur in the years 2003 and 2005--in other words, BRAC, or Base Realignment and Closure. I am pleased to join Senators Levin, Robb, Voinovich, Reed, DeWine, and Wyden as cosponsors. We have heard for the last several years of the severe problems that exist in the military. We addressed one of those problems, food stamps, earlier in the proceedings on this legislation. We have heard in the Senate Armed Services Committee repeated testimony of plunging readiness and modernization programs that are decades behind schedule and quality-of-life deficiencies so great that we can't retain or recruit quality personnel necessary to defend this Nation's vital national security interests. Statistics are sometimes numbing but sometimes interesting also. The Air Force will be 2,000 pilots short by the end of next year, the Navy SEALS are losing two-thirds of their officer corps, and the Army is struggling to retain its captains. In the last few weeks, there was a well publicized study conducted by the Army which shows an unprecedented exodus of Army officers at the rank of captain from the U.S. Army. The consequences of losing the majority of your junior officers at that rank are indeed disturbing and even alarming. Equipment is falling in disrepair. The Marine Corps spends more time fixing broken equipment than it does training on it. And the Air Force is discovering that its F-16 fleet is only safe to fly for 75 percent of its original planned service life. The Army is in need of new engines for its entire M-1 tank fleet. Modernization of our military equipment has all but ceased for the very large and risky programs such as the Joint Strike Fighter, Comanche helicopter, and excessively expensive ship and submarine programs of questionable design and questionable requirement. There is no doubt that many of the woes of our military can be addressed in areas other than the budget, but more judicious use of the military by the national command authority and reduced operational tempo will help with personnel retention. Any person in the military will tell you today that our military personnel, both active duty as well as Guard and Reserve forces, are being deployed all too frequently at the expense of their lifestyles, their family lives, and ultimately their desires to continue to serve the country in the uniform of the military. Streamlined training and greater attention to exercise management will result in less strain on our service members and their equipment. But ultimately we must pay for the last 7 years of chronic underfunding of our military. Finding these dollars at a time when we must also carefully attend to the health of our Social Security system and other much needed social benefits will be absolutely difficult. It is against this backdrop that we should acknowledge the absolute requirement to close unneeded military bases. The armed services is carrying the burden of managing and paying for an estimated 23-percent excess infrastructure costing at least $3.6 billion a year. Let me point out again, Mr. President, keeping these bases open is not without significant cost. In fact, about $3.6 billion every year could be saved when these unnecessary bases are ultimately closed. By the year 2003, these costs will grow to a total of over $25 billion. If Congress allows the military to streamline its infrastructure, these costs can be realized as real savings that can be used to address the military's readiness shortfalls. Many have heard strong testimony supporting further BRAC rounds from the service chiefs, all the service Secretaries, and the Secretary of Defense. Potential savings are dramatic. The savings in 1 year alone would more than pay for the proposed personnel pay benefits--including health care, buy over 36 new F-22 strike fighters for the Air Force, fully fund our Nation's ballistic missile defense program, or pay for 75 percent of the next generation aircraft carriers. Savings over the next 4 years are conservatively estimated to reach $25 billion. The annual net savings from previous BRAC rounds have grown from $3 billion in 1998 to $5.6 billion to $7 billion a year by 2001. That is an important statistic because so many of the opponents of a base-closing round argue that money is not only not saved but spent because of the cleanup costs that are associated with base closings. There are two points to be made. One is that these cleanups, although lengthy and difficult sometimes, depending on the type of operations that took place on that military base, have now been completed to a large degree, and the money is being saved. As I mentioned, between $5.6 to $7 billion will be saved next year. Also, it should disturb us if these bases are not cleaned up anyway, whether they are open or closed. It is an expense that probably will continue to grow. To say that we shouldn't close bases because of the cleanup costs then, I guess, using a certain logic, would mean we would want areas that are hazardous to ourselves and our children's health to remain unaddressed. These savings are, as I said, real. They are coming sooner and they are greater than anticipated. The GAO recently noted that in most communities where bases were closed, incomes were actually rising faster and unemployment rates were lower than the national average. In my own home State of Arizona there was great wailing and gnashing of teeth as Williams Air Force Base appeared on the base-closing list several years ago. It is now called Williams Gateway Airport and it is generating sizably more revenue for the community and the State of Arizona than it was when it was a military installation. That is true at bases throughout the Nation. There is a provision in this bill that allows for the no-cost transfer of property from the military to the community in areas affected by closures. This amendment authorizes two additional rounds of base closure in 2003 and 2005. The amendment is similar to that introduced last year except the rounds are 2003 and 2005 instead of 2001 and 2003. Why did we change the date from 2001, which would then obviously mean it would take action well into the next administration? Due to the justifiable mistrust, particularly on this side of the aisle, about this President's nonpoliticization of the process. There are credible arguments that the last base-closing round, as far as Kelly Air Force Base in Texas and McClellan up in Sacramento, were politicized. Last year, when Senator Levin and I and others brought this amendment up, the distinguished chairman of the committee said: There will be immediately ``acting'' in the bowels of the Pentagon to somehow politicize this process. I say to my friend from Virginia, the distinguished chairman of the committee, they won't be acting in the bowels of the Pentagon, at least until the year 2003, under this proposal. So we are talking about an evolution that would not take place. The round would not take place for 3 years, 3 years from now, and then obviously those recommendations would not be implemented until beginning with the final determination of the base-closing commission and approval by the President and the Congress. Additionally, under this proposed legislation, privatization in place would be permitted only when explicitly recommended by the Commission, which I hope would prevent a recurrence of the kind of machinations, whether legitimate or not, that were conducted by the present administration, which has caused so much skepticism about the results of the last Base Closure Commission. Finally, the Secretary of Defense must consider the total cost the final base closure rounds have on the Government, not just cost or savings to the Department of Defense. We can continue to maintain a military infrastructure that we don't need or we can provide the necessary funds to ensure our military can fight and win future wars. Our men and women are deployed and continuing to train and prepare for upcoming deployments, many to active combat regions. They are undermined, increasingly short on critical weapon systems, and are struggling to overcome a multitude of readiness deficiencies. Recently, one of the Army divisions was declared in the lowest category of readiness. It struck home to a lot of us in this body who happen to still revere the great and wonderful Senator from Kansas, Mr. Dole, who was our majority leader, who served and sacrificed in the famous 10th Mountain Division. He, among others, was surprised when a division with that glorious and wonderful history was declared, for all intents and purposes, unfit to be deployed into a combat situation. The cost associated with maintaining excess infrastructure represents real money that is not available for essential programs and for alleviating real defense programs. Earlier this year, the Armed Services Committee met to discuss the need to add critical funds to the defense account for much needed modernization projects. I was amazed that although there were arguments for the need for increased defense spending, no one could see that critical defense reforms such as further BRAC rounds were required. These rounds could provide long-term funding for modernization and readiness programs without risking other key programs. We must finish the job we started by authorizing a new round of base closures. I urge my colleagues to join in support of this amendment and work diligently to put aside politics for what is clearly in the best interests of our military forces in our Nation. We had kind of an unusual occurrence last year in that the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in what was deemed by most observers as a rather unusual move, they testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that they had significant shortfalls in funding. The committee asked for detailed responses as to what were those shortfalls in funding. The Army came up with some $5.5 billion in unfunded requirements they thought were necessary. This comes from the uniformed heads of the services. The Army needed $5.5 billion for programs ranging from Longbow Apache to night vision goggles, to UH-60 Blackhawk procurement. The list is very detailed and very long: The Navy needed about $5.8 billion; the Marine Corps needed $1.6 billion; the Air Force needed $3.5 billion; the Special Operations Command needed $260 million; the Army National Guard needed $800 million; and the Air National Guard came in with a requirement for $2.4 billion. We are taking strides to improve funding for our military. But when you add all of this up, it comes to a very significant amount of money, about $20 billion, that the military chiefs have submitted in written testimony to the Congress as to the needs of the individual services. I have to be sort of candid. I am not sure we are going to come up with $20 billion that the services need. We are increasing funding, and that is the first time in some years. But I do not see that in the realm of this $20 billion, when you look at the additional costs which are already basically there without us being able to do anything about it--first, the funding for the new fighter aircraft, funding for the additional ships, planes, tanks, et cetera, that will be necessary to replace existing aging equipment and modernize our armed forces. So here is $20 billion the chiefs say they need. I do not see a huge increase of that size, frankly, in the future, as far as the Congress is concerned, nor, at least under this administration, do I see that sizable additional request. Obviously, as I pointed out earlier, it would be a savings of some $25 billion over a period of the next 4 years. The savings are conservatively estimated to reach about $25 billion. I do not want to have any of my colleagues be misled. That would be the case if we had a base-closing commission that declared its decisions today. But if the base-closing commission, in the year 2003, made its decisions, we could save over the following 4 years some $25 billion. I want to make it clear. Yes, there will be initial costs for cleanup of these bases. That is a sad fact--and at that time an unexpected--experience that we had. But I also argue, with the perspective of time, we have found there is now, as a result of the earlier base closings, annual net savings which are growing from $3 billion in 1998 to $5.7 to $7 billion per year by next year. I would be distressed if Yuma Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma were on the base-closing list. I would be distressed if Luke Air Force Base in Phoenix were on the base-closing list. I would be distressed if Davis Mountain Air Force Base in Tucson were on the base-closing list. I see my friend from Nevada here, one of the cosponsors of this amendment. I am sure he would be deeply distressed if Nellis Air Force Base in Reno were on the base-closing list. There is not, I believe, a Senator or very few Senators who would not feel the impact of a base- closing commission. But I challenge the opponents of this amendment to find me one--I say one--credible military expert who resides outside of the Congress of the United States who will not say that we need to have a base-closing commission to decide on the elimination of unneeded infrastructure in the reform of bases that the military does not need. I ask any of us to pick up the phone and call up Gen. Colin Powell; call up Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf; call up Cap Weinberger; call up Dick Cheney; call up Zbigniew Brzezinski; Call up anyone, anyone today, who is a person who has credentials as far as military readiness is concerned, and I think you would be hard pressed to find anything but the overwhelming majority--perhaps not totally but the overwhelming majority of opinion on this issue by credible military experts is that we have excess infrastructure in the form of too many bases which we do not need and which should be closed in order to use those funds for badly needed military requirements. I apologize to this body, to keep going back to the plight of the service men and women in the military today. But we do have service men and women in the military on food stamps. We do have service men and women in the military in my own State residing in barracks that were built during World War II. We do have service men and women in the Marine Corps who are, for example, retreading military vehicle tires so they can get additional money in order to have ammunition with which to practice. The stories go on and on.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield to the distinguished chairman at any time, including now.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Michigan whatever time he uses.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I simply conclude by saying I hope we can authorize this. It is important, not only because of the money we save which is critical for defense, but we as a body should understand that it does not enhance our reputation about our concerns about the needs of the military when we refuse to take what is a very logical step, and that is to approve a base closure commission which would make recommendations which could be either accepted or rejected by the President of the United States and rejected by this body if this body, in its wisdom, decided those recommendations were invalid. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. The Vice President of the United States, who is the nominee of the other party on the other side of the aisle, is also supportive of and would support a base-closing commission. I believe whoever will be President of the United States supports at this time authorizing further base-closing commissions. I believe the advisers to both individuals also support a base-closing commission, and if that commission were authorized, it still would not require the next President of the United States to act even in the appointment of commissioners, much less accepting the recommendations of that commission. I yield to the Senator from Virginia, if he has any additional comments.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I offer this amendment on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, and Senator Lieberman. This amendment would mandate that the names of contributors to entities operating under section 527 of the Tax Code be disclosed. This amendment is simple. It is straightforward. It would impose no substantial burdens on any entity. And most importantly, it is constitutional and in no way infringes on the free speech of any individual or group. Before I discuss the matter further, I thank my colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold, for all they have done to close this 527 loophole. They have been stalwarts in this effort, and their hard work and dedication deserves note and praise. In fact, Senator Lieberman has separate legislation supported by myself and Senator Feingold on this very issue. On May 18 of this year, USA Today stated: What's happening? Clever lawyers for partisan activists, ideological causes and special interests have invented a new way to channel unlimited money into campaigns and avoid all accountability. Hiding behind the guise of ``issue advocacy'' and an obscure part of the tax law, nameless benefactors with thick bankrolls can donate unlimited sums to entities known as ``section 527 committees,'' beyond the reach of the campaign-reporting laws designed to curb such abuses. If the Chinese Army had discovered this tactic first, its infamous contributions of 1996 would have been quite legal. It wasn't supposed to be this way. Post-Watergate reforms a quarter-century ago required that all donations of $200 and more be publicly reported by name. There would be no more ``hidden gifts'' of $2 million and up like those that helped fuel the illegal activities of Richard Nixon's re-election campaign. At least voters would know where a candidate's political debts lay. But that is not the way the system has evolved. And today no one knows how many anonymous contributors are exploiting the loopholes in the law or how much these loopholes are adding to the swamp of money in politics. USA Today sums it up well. This is a dark, uncontrolled sector of the political landscape. It is a danger to our electoral system. Unfortunately, unless we act, the problem will only grow worse. The Associated Press reported on June 6: At crucial moments in the presidential campaign, George W. Bush has benefited from millions of dollars in advertising paid for by mysterious groups and secret donors. Similar ads have also boosted Vice President Al Gore, but they generally were done by well-established organizations with clear agendas. Still, their donors remained secret, too. It's a new form of political warfare that's quickly becoming the tool of choice for people looking to influence Election 2000, made possible by a once-obscure provision in the tax code that lets anyone form a group and spend money on campaign-style ads without saying who is paying for them. This amendment in no way restricts the ability of any individual or organization from spending money to influence a political or electoral system. I believe 527 should be abolished completely. I am not sure that at this moment in time we have sufficient votes to do that in the Senate. This amendment protects free speech but recognizes that the public has a right to know who is speaking. This amendment gives the American public an answer to the question raised by the Associated Press story; namely, who is paying for these multimillion-dollar ad campaigns? While the rhetoric of speech being protected is sometimes bantered around without much thought, it is not actually speech that is constitutionally protected but the individual who is protected to speak his or her thoughts. Speech is not naturally occurring. It is not created of matter and therefore exists outside of the human realm. It is the individual who is protected. Under this amendment, the individual is protected. He or she can speak their will. Again, the public is given the right to know who is speaking. The 2000 Federal election cycle has brought a new threat to the integrity of our Nation's election process: the proliferation of so- called stealth PACs operating under section 527 of the Tax Code. These groups exploit a recently discovered loophole in the Tax Code that allows organizations seeking to influence Federal elections to fund their election work with undisclosed and unlimited contributions at the same time as they claim exemption from both Federal taxation and the Federal election laws. Section 527 of the Tax Code offers tax exemption to organizations primarily involved in election-related activities such as campaign committees, party committees, and PACs. It defines the type of organization it covers as one whose function is, among other things, ``influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election, or appointment of any individual to any Federal, State, or local public office. . ..'' Because the Federal Election Campaign Act uses near identical language in defining entities it regulates, organizations that spend or receive money ``for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office,'' section 527 formerly had been generally understood to apply only to those organizations that register as political committees under, and comply with, Federal election campaign laws, unless they focus on State or local activities and do not meet certain other FECA requirements. Nevertheless, a number of groups engaged in what they term ``issue advocacy campaigns'' and other election-related activity recently began arguing that the near identical language of FECA and section 527 actually mean two different things. In their view, they can gain freedom from taxation by claiming they are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office but may evade regulation under FECA by asserting they are not seeking to directly influence an election for Federal office. Let me repeat that. This is what these organizations are saying: They can gain freedom from taxation by claiming they are seeking to influence the election of individuals to Federal office, but they evade regulation under Federal election laws by asserting they are not seeking to directly influence an election for Federal office. As we have seen in the past, they simply avoid using the infamous six words noted in the Buckley decision as a footnote; namely, ``vote for, vote against, support'' or ``oppose.'' As a result--because unlike other tax exempt groups such as 501(c)(3)s and (c)(4)s, section 527 groups don't even have to publicly disclose their existence--these groups gain both the public subsidy of tax exemption and the ability to shield from the American public the identity of those spending their money to try to influence our elections. Indeed, according to news reports, newly formed 527 organizations pushing the agenda of political parties are using the ability to mask the identity of their contributors as a means of courting wealthy donors who are seeking anonymity in their efforts to influence our elections. There are some in this body who would fully regulate 527s under the FECA. This amendment doesn't do that. While I would personally support such an effort, this amendment does not impose the burdens mandated under FECA to 527 organizations. This amendment would, however, require 527 organizations to disclose their existence to the IRS, to file publicly available tax returns, and to file with the IRS or make public reports specifying annual expenditures of over $500 and identifying those who contribute more than $200 annually to the organization. What could be more simple? What could be more fair, honest, and straightforward? The Washington Post recently stated: For years, opponents of campaign finance reform have been saying that disclosure is disinfectant enough. Don't enter the swamp of trying to regulate the raising and spending of campaign money, they say; just require the prompt reporting of contributions, and let the voters perform the regulatory function at the polls. This is an argument that has been made continuously by my colleagues. On September 26, 1997, the senior Senator from Kentucky stated, in regards to contributor information reported by the Democratic National Committee: Disclosure would have been the best disinfectant. On the same day, on the floor of the Senate, the majority leader stated: Why don't we, instead, go with freedom, open it up, have full disclosure and let everybody participate to the maximum they wish? I believe this amendment is 100 percent in accordance with Senator Lott's comments. For the information of my colleagues, the amendment places no new restrictions of any kind on giving to so-called 527 organizations or how they spend their money. It merely mandates full disclosure. Senator Lott stated on May 13, 1992: It seems to me that something that has that big an influence on an election, campaign election, should at least be reported. Disclosure. That is the key. Let us always disclose to the American people where we are getting our money, where it is being spent. That is the answer. On September 26, 1997, Senator Bennett stated: So, if you are going to look for a local example of something that works, you could say, based on my state's experience, that we ought to open the whole thing up and let corporate contributions come in as well as individual contributions. The one thing that we do have in Utah that has made it work is full and complete disclosure so that everybody knows that, if the Utah Power and Light company is giving to X campaign, that is on the public record. And when the Governor goes to deal with utility regulation, everybody knows how much the power company gave him. Under this amendment, 527 entities would disclose their contributors exactly in the manner Senator Bennett claims should be done. Senator Craig, on February 24, 1998, stated: Instead [of McCain-Feingold] full and immediate public disclosure of campaign donations would be a much more logical approach. To be fair, Senator Craig was referring to contributions to candidates. But we all recognize that political ads that run under the 527 loophole are designed to accomplish the exact same goal as candidate-run ads: to elect or defeat candidates or causes and, as such, the contributors to 527s, such as contributors to candidates, should be immediately and fully disclosed. The clarion call for greater disclosure has been heard and it is time we acted. This amendment is not designed to give any one party any advantage over the other. As I noted earlier in my remarks, both parties are the beneficiaries of 527 expenditures. As the Washington Post editorialized: Both parties use these Section 527 committees. The failure to disclose is insidious, the ultimate corruption of a political system in which offices if not the office holders themselves, are increasingly bought. At least, they could vote for sunshine. Or is the truth too embarrassing for either donors or recipients? Many times, I have stood on the floor of the Senate and argued for the constitutionality of the so-called McCain-Feingold legislation. I strongly believe that campaign contributions should not only be disclosed but that they can be constitutionally limited. Recent Supreme Court decisions clearly affirm that fact. But there was dissent noted in the most recent Supreme Court case on campaign finance reform. I want to note for the Record that in Justice Kennedy's dissent he stated: What the Court does not do is examine and defend the substitute it has encouraged, covert speech funded by unlimited soft money. In my view, that system creates dangers greater than the one it has replaced. The first danger is the one already mentioned: that we require contributors of soft money and its beneficiaries mask their real purpose. Second, we have an indirect system of accountability that is confusing, if not dispiriting, to the voter. The very disaffection or distrust that the Court cites as the justification for limits on direct contributions has now spread to the entire discourse. In his dissent, Justice Kennedy also points out: Among the facts the Court declines to take into account is the emergence of cyberspace communication by which political contributions can be reported almost simultaneously with payment. The public can then judge for itself whether the candidate or the officeholder has so overstepped that we no longer trust him or her to make a detached neutral judgment. This is a far more immediate way to assess the integrity and the performance of our leaders than through the hidden world of soft money and covert speech. In his dissent concerning the same campaign finance reform case, Justice Thomas paraphrases the Buckley case and states: And disclosure laws ``deter actual corruption and avoid the appearance of corruption by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity.'' Based on the dissent issued in the Missouri case and what was clearly stated by the majority, the kind of disclosure mandated by this amendment would not only be constitutional but is clearly in the public's best interest. Mr. President, this amendment is the right thing to do. It is not as comprehensive an approach as I believe is necessary to deal with the numerous problems associated with our current campaign finance system. I believe much more needs to be done, and I intend to continue my fight with my friend from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, to truly reform our campaign finance laws. But it is a simple, easy-to-understand solution to one specific problem that currently plagues our electoral system. It is a solution we can enact today or tomorrow. It is a solution to a problem that has just begun and one that is easily solved. I hope my colleagues will support this amendment. I have been in elected office since 1983. I first came to the other body and then to this one. If at the time I first came to the Congress of the United States you told me tickets would be sold by fundraisers for $500,000, that we would have organizations that took part in our political system and directly intervened in our elections, where it was not even required for contributors to disclose unlimited amounts of money, if you had told me that we would have a situation which would cause so much concern and anger and discontent, as in the 1996 election where money poured in even from foreign sources, that huge amounts of money from a Communist country, China, would pour into our elections-- we may never know how much--that, in my view, would have been illegal and deserved the appointment of an independent counsel. The machinations that went into the Justice Department to prevent that from happening have been revealed. If we don't require full disclosure of these 527s, then we will say as a body that it is legal for money to come from anywhere, from anyone, and it doesn't even have to be disclosed to the American people. That is a sad state of affairs, a very sad state of affairs. I see my friend, Senator Feingold, here waiting to speak, and I know others want to speak on this. I have said a couple of times on the floor of the Senate that I learned a lot in the last campaign in which I was involved. The most disheartening thing that I learned--which was affirmed long before I learned it by the 1998 election, which had the lowest voter turnout in history of the 18 to 26-year-olds in this country--was that particularly young Americans are becoming more and more disconnected and even alienated from their Government. Young Americans don't believe they are represented anymore. Young Americans in a focus group conducted by the Secretaries of State of America--those responsible for our elections in every State --the focus groups of young people were very alarming in their results. A lot of young people said they thought we were corrupt. A lot of young people said they would never run for public office. There is an unwillingness to serve the country--at least in the area of public service today--because young Americans believe that we no longer represent their hopes, dreams, and aspirations. This situation has gradually evolved, as any evil does in life. We started out with a situation where soft money was set up that required full disclosure, and different organizations calling themselves ``independent'' began to accept unlimited amounts of money. But at least they fell under laws that required full disclosure. Now we have this new, burgeoning industry. I have no idea if it is tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars that will go into this political campaign under the guise of 527. I intend, later in the debate, to quote from news articles describing the dramatic growth of these 527s. Mr. President, it has to stop. A funny thing is happening in the world. Today, the former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Mr. Helmut Kohl, is in disgrace in his nation--the man who led his nation through a great deal of the cold war for 16 years. Helmut Kohl is in disgrace in the eyes of his countrymen because Helmut Kohl refuses to disclose the names of the people who gave him money for political purposes while he was the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany. In the United States of America, the beacon of home and freedom and the institutions of democracy throughout the world, we now have a situation where it is legal for anyone to give unlimited amounts of money which will directly affect American political campaigns. There is not even disclosure. It is evil in itself that unlimited amounts of money are able to be contributed because it is a direct violation of the $1,000 contribution limit which the U.S. Supreme Court just upheld as constitutional. But now we have reached a point where the Washington Post says failure to disclose is insidious, the ultimate corruption of a political system in which offices, if not the officeholders themselves, are increasingly bought. At least we could vote for sunshine. I would like to yield to my friend from New York briefly because Senator Feingold is waiting.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from New York is correct. I would like to say to the Senator from New York that we are doing this because perhaps we can't sell the whole package; perhaps we can't do the whole thing. This is in no way an indication that Senator Feingold and I or the Senator from New York or the Senator from Connecticut are not equally committed to McCain-Feingold soft money elimination, et cetera. But at least let's get this ill cured. How in the world a vote can be cast against disclosure of this is not comprehensible to me. I thank the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent Senators be allowed to speak on this issue, and therefore ask further proceedings under the quorum call be suspended.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the pending amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.