John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Addressing every one of those individuals, if the chairman and I picked up the telephone and said, ``Do you think we should have a base-closing commission?'' they would say yes. They would say yes. I argue, even though I understand and appreciate and sympathize with the position of our nominee for President of the United States not to interfere too much with what goes on in the Congress, I believe he would be very supportive as well. On the other side of the aisle, if it should occur that the nominee from the other side of the aisle were elected President of the United States, the fact is very well known the Vice President of the United States supports a base-closing commission as well and has voted on this floor for the appointment of a base-closing commission. By the way, I want the Record to be very clear that I have the greatest respect and friendship for the Vice President of the United States. It is the decision of the people of this country who will be the next President of the United States. I had respect for the Vice President and his involvement in military issues when he and I served together, as we did, in the Senate.

Mr. McCAIN. Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership and the courage he has displayed on a number of occasions on a number of issues. First, I respond to my friend from a practical standpoint. This amendment authorizes a base-closing commission. The President of the United States does not have to appoint the Commissioners and the President of the United States can reject the findings of the Commission. So I do not believe we are forcing the next President of the United States in that respect. My second point is, it is well known the advisers, at least to the party on this side of the aisle, to the person we believe will be the next President of the United States--George Shultz, Brent Scowcroft, Condolleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Robert Zoellick----

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my support for the need for responsible military health care reform. There is a critical need for real military health care reform. I am concerned that if this amendment passes today, that this body, as well as the lower chamber, will wipe their hands of this problem and move on to other issues. Our servicemembers past, present, and future deserve a world class military health care delivery system, and the Congress should accept no less. When the defense bill before us today came out of committee, I voted against it for several reasons. One of the most pressing reasons was that the health care legislation included in the defense authorization bill did not address the broken ``promise'' of lifetime medical care, especially for those over age 65. Voting for its passage would have been an abrogation of my responsibility as a Senator to let our declining military health care system continue without a responsible legislative remedy. One of the areas of greatest concern among military retirees and their families is the ``broken promise'' of lifetime medical care, especially for those over age 65. While the Committee included some key health care provisions, they failed to meet what I think is the most important requirement, the restoration of this broken promise. This week, we recognize the anniversary of the invasion of the European continent to free hundreds of millions of people from the grasp of a tyrannical dictator. Our servicemembers have served courageously in Korea, Vietnam, the Persian Gulf, and other locations throughout the world. We owe our servicemembers, past, present, and future a health care delivery system that adequately supports those who have served with honor and courage throughout the years. Today, our military health care delivery system is facing some very difficult and costly challenges. One of these is how best to reconfigure the military health care delivery system so that it might continue to meet its military readiness and peace-time obligations at a time of continuous change for the armed forces. In the process of deciding how to proceed, I have met with and heard from many military family members, veterans and military retirees from around the country. I have been inundated with suggestions for reform. In every meeting and in every letter, I encountered retired service men and women who have problems with every aspect of the military medical care system--with long waiting periods, with access to the right kind of care, with access to needed pharmaceutical drugs, and with the broken promise of lifetime health care for military retirees and their spouses. I heard these concerns expressed as I have traveled across the United States over the past year. I was proud to introduce S. 2013, the Honoring Health Care Commitments to Service Members Past and Present Act of 2000. S. 2013 was drafted with the help of the Military Coalition and the National Military and Veterans Alliance. The Military Coalition has strongly endorsed S. 2013, stating, ``We applaud your leadership in introducing comprehensive legislation aimed at correcting serious inequities in the military health care benefit.'' I am proud of the work on S. 2013, and I was prepared to re-introduce key provisions of this bill as an amendment to the defense authorization bill. However, the Warner amendment, and the more comprehensive Johnson, Coverdell, and McCain amendment, are coming up for a vote today, and I would like to comment on their attributes and my concerns. I would like to commend my colleagues, Senators Johnson and Coverdell, whose amendment fully restores the ``broken promise'' to our military retirees and their families. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of this amendment, as well as their companion bill, S. 2003. This amendment fully restores the ``broken promise'' by providing free military medical health care to military retirees and their spouses. I am a strong proponent of this amendment, because it gives the retirees what they were promised, military medical health care for life. This health care would be provided through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment. Our service members deserve our support, and we have an obligation not to renege on a promise made to them many years ago. As I have mentioned, I was prepared to offer an amendment today--a version of S. 2013--that builds on the limited health care improvements provided in the defense authorization bill. However, I have decided to withhold my amendment at this time to fully support the Johnson amendment, as well as vote for the Warner amendment. The Warner amendment provides a substantial increase in the health care benefit provided to over-65 military retirees and their families that current law and the Armed Services Committee-reported bill, S. 2549, have failed to address. The Warner amendment is not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. Mr. President, I commend my colleagues for their efforts to address many of these important military health care challenges. Not lost on any of us is the urgent need to address the over-age-65 issue, since there are reportedly 4,000 World War II, Korean and Vietnam War-era military retirees dying every month. It is imperative that as changes are made to our nation's armed forces, Congress not only stay focused on bringing health care costs under control, but that steps be taken to retain the health care coverage so critical to our nation's active duty personnel, their families, retirees, and survivors. Make no mistake, retiree health care is a readiness issue as well. Today's servicemembers are acutely aware of retirees' disenfranchisement from military health coverage, and exit surveys cite this issue with increasing frequency as one of the factors in members' decisions to leave service. In fact, a recent GAO study found that ``access to medical and dental care in retirement'' was a significant source of dissatisfaction among active duty officers in retention- critical specialties. Mr. President, this year will be, in the words of the Joint Chiefs, the year of health care reform. Whether we are successful or not will depend on several factors: Congress' ability to realize real health care reform and provide the necessary resources, the Pentagon's ability to work with private industry to control costs on pharmaceuticals and health insurance plans, and the military retirees who utilize the system coming together and galvanizing support for the future of military health care. Vote on Amendment No. 3173, as further modified

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If I may respond briefly to my friend, Senator Warner was involved in this many years ago when we had enormous retention problems in the military, especially in what we call critical rates--those who had specialized skills and talents. The chairman was involved in this because we decided we would give higher pay to people who were of the same time or even less time in the military because they had special skills. And they are today, and were then, receiving higher pay because of the special skills and the need to retain those people with special skills. I have always felt that the backbone of the Navy was the bosun's mate. Yet we find in the Navy that the bosun's mate is the lowest paid, while the electronic technician, the computer specialist, and others, who are of equal rank--or rate, to be accurate--receive a much higher salary. We did that for practical reasons, which was that it was an absolute criticality of maintaining people in the Navy and other branches of the military who had these critical skills. We are sort of doing the same thing here. We are trying to correct the morale problem that exists when the word spreads throughout the military and in our recruiting efforts in high schools all over America that if you are going to join an organization, i.e., the U.S. military, and you have children, you may still be on food stamps. I think there is some comparability between those two situations, although not an absolute one. I hope the chairman takes my point here.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I am sure the Senator from Virginia is aware, as he points out, that this is a problem, although the reason why we chose $180 a month was so that while it would not completely close the gap, which is higher than that between the two ranks he just stated, far more important than that--I can only quote the prospective Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, when asked by Chairman Warner this past May 16, a few weeks ago, about this exact issue he raises. The response of the prospective Chief of Naval Operations was: My view is that it is far, far more important to not have our people on food stamps than it is to have a small inequity. . . . This is the kind of thing that speaks volumes, much more than a few dollars that are involved in it, about . . . how important we think they are. I support any measure that would put us in a position where we do not ever have to have a single Sailor on food stamps. Also, as I mentioned in my remarks earlier, every enlisted association: the Noncommissioned Officers Association, the Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, et cetera, who are also aware of this situation, still because of the gravity of the problems, support this $180-a-month increase for those who are on food stamps.

Mr. McCAIN. It is not clear because we have gotten two or three different estimates, I say to the Senator from Virginia. Several experts say this will largely eliminate the problem. There are others who say there will still be a few remaining, but all agree this would eliminate the overwhelming majority of service members on food stamps.

Mr. McCAIN. He said: My view is that it is far, far more important to not have our people on food stamps than it is to have a small inequity. . . . The Commandant of the Marine Corps and the current Chief of Naval Operations also share those views.

Mr. McCAIN. Today, you could have a lieutenant who is an aviator making more money than a nonaviator officer, an E1 or E2 ranked senior to that person because of the criticality of keeping those people in the Navy.

Mr. McCAIN. I have amendment No. 3179 at the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this amendment would provide the funding necessary to end the food stamp military. I come to the floor with this proposal which I introduced in March. Two months ago, I offered an amendment to the congressional budget resolution for fiscal years 2001 through 2005. The Senate adopted an amendment then to secure funding to end the ``food stamp military'' by a vote of 99-0. I would expect a similar vote, but I think it is important that we get Members on record to try to rectify what is really a very deplorable and unacceptable situation, and that is, our junior enlisted service personnel, mostly in the pay grades E1 through E5 are on food stamps. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles in the Washington Post, and several other newspapers--the Memphis Commercial Appeal, the London Sunday Telegraph--be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, these are stories concerning the lifestyles of the service men and women in the military. One in the Washington Post article of July 20 concerns Quantico Marine Corps Base in Virginia. One of the enlisted marines says: I think it stinks, really, that a member of the armed forces has to go to food stamps,'' said Lance Cpl. Damon Durre, 25. But that is what the Quantico Marine did after finding he could not support his wife and two children on his take-home pay. In the London Sunday Telegraph there is a story: Food stamps worth $142 a month have helped eke out the $1,000 monthly pay check on which L/Cpl Bradshaw, his wife Tenille and their two young children must live in a small, tin house in the middle of the base. Mrs. Bradshaw said: ``Without food stamps my children would not be having much of a Christmas.'' But the system can be humiliating. Despite having no other means of paying, L/Cpl Bradshaw was not allowed to buy a loaf of bread at the base's military supermarket recently because although he had his food stamps, he did not have with him an official card stating he was entitled to them. These are just demonstrations of a situation that exists in our Armed Forces today; that is, that approximately 6,300 service members receive food stamps. That is an unofficial DOD report, while the General Accounting Office and Congressional Research Service place the number at nearly 13,500. There is some disparity with the numbers, but the fact is that there are still thousands on food stamps. Obviously, I believe this is a national disgrace and it needs to be repaired. The amendment will cost approximately $28 million over 5 years. That is an average of less than $6 million per year, to pay for an additional allowance of $180 a month to military families who are eligible for food stamps. Additionally, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that this amendment would save millions of dollars in the Food Stamp Program by removing service members from the food stamp rolls for good. As we know, in recent years military pay increases have barely kept pace with inflation. But last year there was a significant increase, including a pay raise for admirals and generals, who received a 17- percent pay raise last year. And enlisted families continue to line up for free food and furniture. I was pleased to hear the prospective Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Vern Clark, support a food stamp stipend when he testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 16. Admiral Clark was asked by Chairman Warner if he was concerned that a food stamp stipend would create an inequity between service members who qualify for food stamps and those who do not. Admiral Clark stated: My view is that it is far, far more important to not have our people on food stamps than it is to have a small inequity. . . . This is the kind of thing that speaks volumes, much more than a few dollars that are involved in it, about . . . how important we think they are. I support any measure that would put us in a position where we do not ever have to have a single Sailor on food stamps. I commend Admiral Clark for his clear thinking and his support of a measure that will reflect whether or not we care fundamentally for our service members. Admiral Clark is right. We need to rectify this problem. There is no provision in the bill at this time concerning the food stamp issue. I might point out, this amendment is supported by The American Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Association for Uniformed Services, the Disabled American Veterans, The Retired Officer's Association, and every enlisted association or organization that specifically supports enlisted service member issues in the Military Coalition and in the National Military/Veterans Alliance. These associations include the Non Commissioned Officers Association, The Retired Enlisted Association, the Fleet Reserve Association, the Air Force Sergeants Association, the U.S. Coast Guard Chief Petty Officers Association, the Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States, and the Naval Enlisted Reserve Association. During the budget resolution, I talked for a long time about this problem in the military. We are talking about, I believe, a $290-some billion authorization. We are talking about now an additional $6 million a year to handle a problem which has received enormous publicity, enormous visibility. In the view of officers and enlisted alike, it is a problem that has caused a great impact on the morale of the men and women in the military, whether they happen to be on food stamps or not. I urge adoption of the amendment. I thank my colleague, Senator Warner, the chairman of the committee, for allowing me to offer this amendment at this time. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have an amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. That is basically correct.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to engage in a brief colloquy with the chairman.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this amendment. I think the remarks of both pointing out that this is not a perfect fix but is a significant step in the right direction is entirely appropriate. Obviously, we will have to review the situation after we see what the result of this amendment is once it is enacted into law. I thank both Senator Warner and Senator Levin. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, Zimbabwe is in the midst of a political crisis that threatens its future, and that is destabilizing its regional neighbors. I believe the Senate should go on record in support of Zimbabwe's democratic activists and against the authoritarian tactics of President Robert Mugabe, whose campaign of state-directed violence and intimidation against opposition party members, farmers, and farm workers are devastating the nation he leads, impoverishing his people and tarnishing his country's prospects. As my colleagues know, in February, President Mugabe lost a referendum he had called in expectation of victory to grant himself additional constitutional powers. This historic loss, coupled with the emergence of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, signaled that Mugabe's days as President were numbered. But after twenty years in power, hopes that Mugabe would go quietly into the night after founding and presiding over his nation for two decades are demonstrably naive. Mugabe today is clearly doing everything in his power to avoid joining the tiny cadre of African leaders who have voluntarily transferred power following free and fair elections. On the contrary: Mugabe has incited a racial crisis over property rights and sent his army to fight a war in which Zimbabwe has no stake, all in the hopes of prolonging his hold on the power he apparently regards as his birthright. But the average Zimbabwean, who is poorer by one-third than when Mugabe came to power twenty years ago and who currently suffers the effects of 50 percent unemployment and an inflation rate of 70 percent, would likely disagree with Mugabe's assessment of the continuing benefits of his rule. President Mugabe has shamelessly encouraged the squatter occupation of Zimbabwe's commercial farms for political purposes. In doing so, he actively abandons the rule of law in favor of mob rule, in the process destroying the nation's wealth. An internationally agreed-upon process of land redistribution funded by Britain, the United States, and other powers collapsed after it became clear that the only land redistribution Mugabe favored was that which transferred white-owned farms intact to his political cronies. As if economic collapse and politically motivated race-baiting weren't enough, Mugabe has dispatched 12,000 troops to fight in the civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo, at a cost of millions of dollars to his government, while an AIDS crisis and economic stagnation grow. Independent observers cannot discern any tangible Zimbabwean national interest in Congo that merits a costly troop deployment, although such observers do note that Mugabe and his military allies have profited handsomely from using the mission to exploit Congo's natural resource base. Facing heavy domestic and international pressure, Mugabe has finally scheduled elections for next month. Based on its level of popular support, the beleaguered Movement for Democratic Change should do very well in the upcoming parliamentary elections, assuming they are not stolen by Mugabe and his ZANU-PF. The current rubber-stamp parliament, in which the ZANU-PF controls 147 of 150 seats, would likely change hands, altering the country's course and hopefully reinstating the rule of law and the democratic protections Zimbabwe's people deserve. Many observers believe, however, that only intense and sustained international pressure can prevent an electoral outcome inconsistent with the wishes of Zimbabwe's voters. The level of election-related violence and intimidation against the opposition is made clear by a May 22, 2000, International Republican Institute report, from which I quote: The [Movement for Democratic Change] released on May 10 a comprehensive report documenting more than 5,000 acts of violence and intimidation throughout the country in the past 10 weeks. At least 15 black MDC members and supporters, four white farmers, and a policeman have been killed since the February constitutional referendum that marked ZANU-PF's first defeat at the ballot box since taking power in 1980. At least 300 people have been driven from rural homes that have been wrecked or burned. Hundreds have been beaten and maimed. At least eight women have been raped because of perceived allegiance to opposition parties. In 92 percent of the cases, the perpetrators of the violence were either known supporters of the ruling party or government employees. Of the victims, 41 percent were MDC supporters and 51 percent were black farm workers and suspected MDC sympathizers. Most observers agree that land reform is not the real issue, but is being used as a smokescreen to mask government efforts to crush political opposition. The International Republican Institute, which I chair, is deeply involved in pre-election security, training, and registration and will play an important monitoring role throughout Zimbabwe's electoral process. IRI is sponsoring an audit of Zimbabwe's voter registration rolls, training 3,000 domestic poll monitors, conducting voter education and public opinion polling, providing funding to support legal challenges to electoral conditions inimical to a free and fair vote, sponsoring an election-related violence-monitoring unit, and fielding a bipartisan international election observation team to observe and report on the electoral process in Zimbabwe. Both IRI and its counterpart, the National Democratic Institute, have indicated that the conditions for credible democratic elections simply do not exist at present. In light of these grim pre-electoral assessments, and the heavy- handedness of Mugabe's rule in the period preceding the vote, I believe the Senate should clearly state its support for free and transparent elections in Zimbabwe, the rule of law, appropriate international assistance for a peaceful process of land reform, and the political activists who brave Mugabe's wrath in the name of democratic rule. My resolution makes a series of findings concerning the violence, breakdown of rule of law, and troubled pre-election period in Zimbabwe. The resolution resolves that the Senate: (1) extends its support to the vast majority of citizens of the Republic of Zimbabwe who are committed to peace, economic prosperity, and an open, transparent parliamentary election process; (2) strongly urges the Government of Zimbabwe to enforce the rule of law and fulfill its responsibility to protect the political and civil rights of all citizens; (3) supports those international efforts to assist with land reform which are consistent with accepted principles of international law and which take place after the holding of free and fair parliamentary elections; (4) condemns government-directed violence against farm workers, farmers, and opposition party members; (5) encourages the local media, civil society, and all political parties to work together toward a campaign environment conducive to free, transparent and fair elections within the legally prescribed period; (6) recommends international support for voter education, domestic and international election monitoring, and violence monitoring activities; (7) urges the United States to continue to monitor violence and condemn brutality against law-abiding citizens; (8) congratulates all the democratic reform activists in Zimbabwe for their resolve to bring about political change peacefully, even in the face of violence and intimidation; and (9) desires a lasting, warm, and mutually beneficial relationship between the United States and a democratic, peaceful Zimbabwe. I hope my colleagues will join me in expressing our strong support for the democratic rights and freedoms of the people of Zimbabwe. Their will, not President Mugabe's personal whims, should determine their country's course. Democratic rule in neighboring South Africa, Botswana, and Mozambique has served those countries well. Zimbabwe's citizens should be no less fortunate.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to summarize the case against the confirmation of Professor Smith to the FEC. My colleague from Kentucky yesterday stated Mr. Smith has been demonized. That is not true. I have criticized the nominee because I strongly disagree with his view that ``The most sensible reform is a simple one: repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act.'' I understand Professor Smith is not very old. In fact, Professor Smith could not have read the history or known about the abuses that took place in the 1972 campaign associated with the Watergate scandal which brought about the modern Federal Elections Campaign Act. I strongly disagree with his conclusion that ``campaign reform is not about good government. It's about silencing people whose views are inconvenient to those with power. . . .'' Professor Smith goes on to say--these are his words: The real campaign-finance scandal has little to do with Senator Fred Thompson's investigation. The real scandal is the brazen effort of reformers to silence the American people. I take strong exception to that view of history and the motivation of those of us and millions of decent men and women, honest men and women, who believe this situation needs to be cleaned up. This morning's Washington Post has a story about ``MCI Center's Menu: Ribs and a Record Democratic Fundraiser: ``There is no donor fatigue, no Clinton fatigue, no Democratic fatigue,'' said an exhilarated Terence R. McAuliffe, who made 200 calls a day for seven weeks for his crowning achievement as Clinton's mean man in chief. McAuliffe used four telephones at a time--three for aides to dial, to put would-be donors on hold, and one for him to coo into his headset, bringing home the big-dollar bacon. The tribute has 21 vice chairs, who gave or raised $250,000; 42 Friends, who gave $100,000; and 32 hosts, who gave or raised $50,000. But what sets this dinner apart is the altitude of the top donor tier--the co-chairs, who each gave or raised $500,000. There are 26 of them, including 10 labor unions. The article goes on: Another of the co-chairs is Senator Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) who is not seeking reelection and will become president of New School University, in New York City. Kerrey said such efforts renew his commitment to campaign finance reform. ``When someone puts up half a million, you just cannot persuade people that they aren't getting something for it.'' Senator Kerrey aptly described the situation that will take place at the dinner at the MCI Center: ribs and a record Democratic fundraiser, which is a record only because it exceeds the Republican fundraiser that recently was held where $24 million was raised. If on the floor of this body 10 years ago I said there were going to be $500,000 donors, no one would give any credibility to that statement. The Supreme Court also disagrees with Mr. Smith. We seem to be debating this issue of campaign finance reform and its validity in a vacuum because neither the Senator from Kentucky nor Mr. Smith seem to believe that, in January of the year 2000, the Court upheld Missouri campaign contribution limitations in a 6-3 opinion. The Court rejected Mr. Smith's premise that large contributions do not affect votes. This is what Justice Souter wrote for the Court on the issue of the constitutionality of contribution limits: In speaking of ``improper influence'' and ``opportunities for abuse'' in addition to ``quid pro quo'' arrangements, we recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public officials, but extending to the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large contributors. These were the obvious points behind our recognition that Congress could constitutionally address the power of money ``to influence governmental actions'' in ways less ``blatant and specific'' than bribery. In defending its own statute, Missouri espouses those same interests of preventing corruption and the appearance of it that flowed from munificent campaign contributions. Even without the authority of Buckley there would be no serious question about the legitimacy of the interests claimed, which, after all, underlie bribery and anti-gratuity statutes. While neither law nor morals equate all political contributions, without more, to bribes, we spoke in Buckley of the perception of corruption ``inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions'' to candidates for political office . . . as a source of concern almost equal to ``quid pro quo'' improbity. . . . Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance. Democracy works ``only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption. . . .'' Mr. President, the event tonight, I promise you, has aroused amongst my constituents suspicions of malfeasance and corruption for any objective observer of the political process. Justice Stevens, in his concurring opinion said: Justice Kennedy suggests that the misuse of soft money tolerated by this Court's misguided decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of the constitutional issues raised by Congress' enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this Court's resolution of those issues in Buckley v. Valeo. In response to his call for a new beginning therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results. Mr. President, we must consider this nomination, and the message it sends to the people of this country, in light of the reality of this year's campaign fundraising excesses. Let me reiterate four points that summarize my opposition to Mr. Smith's nomination to become an FEC Commissioner. He has long advocated the repeal of campaign finance regulation. How can he now take an oath to uphold and enforce the very laws he has so long sought to eliminate altogether? He has continually argued the unconstitutionality of restraints on campaign finance regulation. His position has been that the Supreme Court erred in its Buckley v. Valeo opinion which upheld restraints on campaign contributions. Even as recently as his confirmation hearing in March, after the Supreme Court had again upheld campaign contributions limitations in the Missouri Shrink case, he neither acknowledged that most recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, nor changed his viewpoint as to the constitutionality of contribution regulation. How can he now agree to uphold and enforce laws and regulations which he believes are unconstitutional? Mr. President, I do not believe that we would confirm as EPA Administrator someone who advocated the repeal of environmental laws. I do not believe we would appoint an Attorney General who believes that the criminal laws are unconstitutional or a conscientious objector to be Secretary of Defense. Why should we confirm Mr. Smith as a Commissioner for the FEC? Although he acknowledges the campaign finance abuses of the 1996 election, he sees nothing wrong with giving free rein to such activity by eliminating all campaign finance regulation. If we would not conform as EPA Administrator someone who advocated the repeal of the environmental laws, nor confirm an Attorney General who believes that the criminal laws are unconstitutional, or a conscientious objector as the Secretary of Defense, why would we confirm Brad Smith as a Commissioner for the FEC? Also in yesterday's debate, Senator McConnell raised questions about the appropriateness of Danny McDonald, the choice of the Democrats as a nominee, to serve on the FEC. I appreciate the concerns that my colleague from Kentucky has raised. I totally concur that we should apply the standards equally for nominees to these most important positions. Based upon the issues Senator McConnell has raised, I will rethink my position on Mr. McDonald, and vote against his confirmation as well. Mr. President, I cannot speak more directly or frankly against this nominee. I urge my colleagues who have fought for campaign finance reform--my colleagues who believe in the need for integrity in our election system--to vote no on Brad Smith. As the New York Times said earlier this year: A vote to confirm Mr. Smith is a vote to perpetuate big- money politics. . . . Mr. Smith does not belong on the FEC, and anyone in the Senate who cares about fashioning a fair and honest system for financing campaigns should vote against his appointment. As chairman of the Commerce Committee, I have been involved with moving more nominees that almost any other Member of this body. I have allowed nominees to move forward, even when I disagreed with the nominee. But, Mr. President, this case is different. I do not expect to agree with all the views of those nominated. But Mr. Smith's views are not just different from mine--again, a fact I would respect--they are radically different from 100 years of court and congressional precedence that some restrictions on campaign contributions are necessary to ensure the integrity of this body and the electoral process as a whole. This is not just my opinion of the law. Let me read from Justice Breyer's concurring opinion, in which Justice Ginsberg joined, in the most recent pronouncement of the Supreme Court on campaign finance regulation--the Shrink Missouri PAC case: If the dissent believes that the Court diminishes the importance of the first Amendment interests before us, it is wrong. The court's opinion does not question the constitutional importance of political speech or that its protection lies at the heart of the First Amendment. Nor does it question the need for particularly careful, precise, and independent judicial review where, as here, that protection is at issue. But this is a case where constitutionally protected interests lie on both sides of the legal equation. . . . On the one hand, a decision to contribute money to a campaign is a matter of First Amendment--not because the money is speech (it is not); but because it enables speech. Through contributions the contributor associates himself with the candidates's cause, helps the candidate communicate a political message with which the contributor agrees, and helps the candidate win by attracting votes of similarly minded voters. . . . both political association and political communication are at stake. . . . On the other hand, restrictions upon the amount any one individual can contribute to a particular candidate seek to protect the integrity of the electoral process--the means through which a free society democratically translates political speech into concrete governmental action. . . . Moreover, by limiting the size of the largest contributions, such restrictions aim to democratize the influence that money itself may bring to bear upon the electoral process . . . In doing so, they seek to build public confidence in that process and broaden the base of a candidate's meaningful financial support, encouraging the public participation and open discussion that the First Amendment itself presupposes. Unfortunately, the views of this nominee make him unfit to serve on the FEC. This is not, as I have stated, meant to be personal. I have nothing against Mr. Smith personally. I am sure he is a fine individual. But this body is constitutionally mandated to advise and consent on nominations. I take that role extremely seriously. And as such, I cannot support this nominee, and I urge my colleagues to do the same. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Mr. Smith to the Federal Election Commission. I intend no personal aspersions toward Mr. Smith, and I am sure he is a fine man. However, he should not serve in the position to which he has been nominated. Sending Brad Smith to the FEC is akin to confirming a conscientious objector to be Secretary of Defense. It would be well to put the debate we are having today and for a short period tomorrow in the context of what is going on as we speak. Tuesday, May 23, from an LA Times article, ``Democratic Fund-Raising King Has 26 Million Reasons to Gloat''. Brash, unapologetic Terry McAuliffe helps party raise ``greatest amount of money ever.'' Critics decry ``political extortion.'' Even on an average day, Terry McAuliffe is exuberant. But these days, the Democrats' fund-raising master can barely contain himself. After six weeks of making 200 telephone calls a day, attending happy-hour rallies with small time fund-raisers and wooing new high-dollar givers at intimate dinners, McAuliffe is on track to raise $26 million at a blue-jeans-and-barbecue event at a downtown sports arena Wednesday night--``the greatest amount of money ever in the history of American politics.'' Then, turning to leave for another dinner where he would woo a likely big-money contributor, McAuliffe added: ``Get those checkbooks out!'' Although a $100,000 contribution was a benchmark in the last presidential election, this time around fund-raisers are collecting scores of checks for $250,000 and more from those who want to qualify as political players. For Wednesday night's event at Washington's MCI Center, no fewer than 25 people raised or donated at least $500,000, McAuliffe said. By March, unregulated ``soft money'' donations to both parties were soaring, with Democratic totals nearly matching Republicans for the first time. Officials of both parties say that the record-setting inflow reflects enthusiasm for their candidates and their platforms, but the reality is more complicated. ``There is just raw greed on the part of the solicitors, and it is corrupting,'' said Fred Wertheimer, a longtime leader in the effort to reform the nation's campaign finance laws. ``When you're dealing with $250,000 and $500,000 campaign contributions you are flatly dealing with influence -buying and -selling and with political extortion.'' Faced with what many would consider a daunting task, the callers appeared driven by a mix of humor, commitment, swagger and chutzpah. ``I want to ask you a question,'' McAuliffe told one donor on the phone. ``If the world blew up tomorrow would you do 500?'' meaning $500,000. ``We should have gone for RFK,'' McAuliffe bellowed, referring to the 50,000-seat stadium that once housed the NFL's Washington Redskins. But when one top DNC donor inquired about getting a second table at the event, McAuliffe said, ``For 500 grand, I think we could give him two tables. In the few in-depth conversations . . . donors seem more interested in talking about pet legislative issues than about the merits of the Democrats' presidential nominee, Al Gore. Mr. President, that is the context in which we are considering the nomination of a man who has written extensively and spoken, not very persuasively, on the fact of no regulation whatsoever concerning the role of money in American politics. We know that the role of the FEC is to ``administer, seek to obtain compliance with, and formulate policy with respect to'' the Federal Election Campaign Act. The FEC has the exclusive authority with respect to civil enforcement of the act. Clearly, then, it is obvious that FEC Commissioners should be dedicated to the proposition of Federal election regulation. Each Commissioner must be committed to ensuring a fair and open election process which is not tainted by the appearance of impropriety. Each Commissioner must be prepared to--I emphasize--uphold the law and preserve its intent by prohibiting the use and proliferation of loopholes. I do not believe Mr. Smith has a philosophical commitment to upholding the intent of the law necessary to perform the duties of an FEC Commissioner. In fact, Mr. Smith has been highly critical of campaign reform. It is not that Mr. Smith simply disagrees with particular details of campaign finance reform. He disagrees with the basic premise that campaigns should be regulated at all--a distinctly and unique minority position in America--or that campaign contributions play any part in public cynicism of our political system. I read from a March 17, 1997, article that Mr. Smith wrote, published in the Wall Street Journal. It is entitled ``Why Campaign Finance Reform Never Works.'' The title says it all in terms of his philosophy. Apparently, Mr. Smith never heard of Theodore Roosevelt. I quote from his article, Mr. President: In fact, constitutional or not, campaign finance reform has turned out to be bad policy. For most of our history, campaigns were essentially unregulated, yet democracy survived and flourished. However, since passage of the Federal Elections Campaign Act and similar State laws, the influence of special interests has grown, voter turnout has fallen, and incumbents have become tougher to dislodge. . . . Apparently, Mr. Smith lived in some other nation during the Watergate scandal, when unlimited amounts of money would be carried around this town in valises, when corporations and companies and individuals were literally being extorted for money which was unaccounted for. Apparently, Mr. Smith missed the widespread, nationwide revulsion at these abuses, which brought about the campaign finance reform laws of 1974. Apparently, Mr. Smith was not seeking public office, as I was in 1982, when there was no such thing as soft money, where we had to go out and raise small amounts of money from many, many donors, where we had to conduct the kind of grassroots campaign to which Americans have grown accustomed. Perhaps Mr. Smith was not aware that, until late into the 1980s, campaigns were conducted in a very different fashion than today. Not recognizing any role that creative evasion of the laws has played in these results, Mr. Smith concludes his article by writing: When a law is in continual revision to close a series of everchanging ``loopholes,'' it is probably the law, and not the people, that is in error. The most sensible reform is a simple one-- I am quoting from Mr. Smith's article in the Wall Street Journal: The most sensible reform is a simple one: repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act. That is a remarkable statement, a remarkable statement, from one who is required in his new position to enforce the very law that he wants repealed. Remarkable, Mr. President, remarkable. Is someone who advocates a total repeal of the very law he would be enforcing as a Commissioner the right person for this job? Additionally, what job, over time, does not need revision or reauthorization? I am pleased to be the chairman of the Commerce Committee. We spend a great deal of time reauthorizing agencies of Government. That is an important part of our duties because time and circumstances and technology and issues change. For Mr. Smith to somehow condemn a law that is as important as the Federal Election Campaign Act because it needs to be reviewed, revised, and renewed, is, of course, showing incredible ignorance of the way that Congress functions. Unfortunately, this is not an isolated example. In January 1998, Mr. Smith authored an article for USA Today. In that article, he said: The First Amendment was based on the belief that political speech was too important to be regulated by the government. Campaign finance laws operate on the directly contrary assumption that campaigns are so important that speech must be regulated. . . . The solution to the campaign finance dilemma is to recognize the flawed assumptions of the campaign finance reformers, dismantle the Federal Elections Campaign Act, and the FEC bureaucracy, and take seriously the system of campaign finance ``regulation'' that the Founding Fathers wrote into the Bill of Rights: ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' Is Mr. Smith ignoring the fact that President Theodore Roosevelt led the fight to enact meaningful reform in 1907? Is Mr. Smith ignoring the fact that Republican majorities in Congress led the fight to prohibit union campaigns and corporate contributions to American political campaigns? Is Mr. Smith ignorant of the fact that the overwhelming majority of both Houses of Congress enacted comprehensive campaign finance reform in 1974? I stand proudly by Theodore Roosevelt in believing the 1907 reforms were valid. Mr. Smith does not. Apparently, Mr. Smith missed, or has not heard of, the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which directly repudiates Mr. Smith's assertions. I also find it curious that a person would hold views that have been directly repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court--not holding their views as to the validity or his commitment to them, but certainly it is hard for me to understand how he would hold views that the U.S. Supreme Court, in their appointed duties, has ruled as constitutional. In one of the comments made by the U.S. Supreme Court, in U.S. Supreme Court decisions, at the end of part B, the U.S. Supreme Court goes out of its way to even mention Mr. Smith: There might, of course, be need for a more extensive evidentiary documentation if petitioners had made any showing of their own to cast doubt on the apparent implications of Buckley's evidence and the record here, but the closest respondents come to challenging these conclusions is their invocation of academic studies said to indicate that large contributions to public officials or candidates do not actually result in changes in candidate's positions. Brief for Respondents Shrink Missouri Government PAC; Smith, Money Talks: Speech, Corruption, Equality, and Campaign Finance; Smith, Faulty Assumptions and Undemocratic Consequences of Campaign Finance Reform. Other studies, however, point the other way. Obviously, the U.S. Supreme Court did not agree with Mr. Smith's conclusions. If Mr. Smith were intellectually honest, he would note in his next upholding of his view that his view has been directly repudiated by the U.S. Supreme Court. Another example. In light of Senator Thompson's investigation in the 1996 finance scandal, the unfettered buying and selling of influence, which the Clinton-Gore campaign practiced, such as overnight stays at the White House, selling seats on foreign trade missions, and receiving money from foreign governments, what Mr. Smith wrote in USA Today on July 8, 1997, was this: Campaign reform is not about good government. It's about silencing people whose views are inconvenient to those with power. . . . The real campaign-finance scandal has little to do with Senator Fred Thompson's investigation. The real scandal is the brazen effort of reformers to silence the American people. I have been around here a lot of years. An allegation of that nature, even though I have been here for some period of time, I find very offensive. I repeat what Mr. Smith said: The real scandal is the brazen effort of reformers to silence the American people. I think the record is clear of not only my advocacy but my service to this Nation on behalf of free speech, and certainly to argue that those of us who have a different opinion than Mr. Smith are conducting a brazen effort to silence the American people is obviously something that not only do I find offensive, but something that I find disqualifying in Mr. Smith. It is clear that Mr. Smith believes there is no such thing as appropriate campaign finance reform. He believes that all campaign contributions, spending, and influence peddling are protected without limitation. He has advocated time and again the repeal of the very law he would be sworn to uphold and enforce. How can we seriously consider confirming his nomination to serve as a Commissioner? I would like to say a word about his really inappropriate remarks about Senator Fred Thompson's advice. Senator Fred Thompson's investigation got into some very serious issues, such as breach of national security, such as foreign influence peddling, such as unlimited amounts of money coming in from foreign nations to influence our political process. Whether most Americans believe Senator Thompson's conclusions were correct, I think they certainly agreed it was an appropriate action. In fact, it was agreed to by both Republicans and Democrats that Senator Thompson's investigative hearings take place. Mr. Smith says, ``The real scandal is the brazen effort of reformers to silence the American people.'' That is a remarkable statement among many remarkable statements Mr. Smith has made. Others are equally concerned about Mr. Smith's suitability to serve on the FEC. The Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law has this to say. This is the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law: Imagine the President nominating an Attorney General who believes that most of our criminal laws are `profoundly undemocratic' and unconstitutional. Or an SEC Commissioner who has publicly called for the repeal of all securities laws with the plea, `We should deregulate and just let it go.' Or a nominee for EPA Administrator who believes that the agency he aspires to head and `its various state counterparts' should be abolished. It would be unthinkable. In a society rooted in the rule of law, we would never tolerate the appointment of a law enforcement officer who has vocally and repeatedly denounced the very laws he would be called upon to enforce, much less one who has called for the repeal of those laws and the abolition of the very agency he aspires to head. `Unthinkable. Yet, President Clinton, at the urging of Senator Lott and Senator McConnell, has nominated Bradley A. Smith to fill one of the vacancies on the Federal Election Commission. Brad Smith, a law professor at Capital University Law School, has devoted his career to denouncing the FEC and the laws it is entrusted to enforce in precisely those strident terms. He believes that virtually the entire body of the nation's campaign finance law is fundamentally flawed and unworkable-indeed, unconstitutional. He has forcefully advocated deregulation of the system. And if the James Watt of campaign finance had his way, the FEC and its state counterparts, would do little more than serve as a file drawer for disclosure reports . . . Brad Smith's sponsors and supporters are floating the myth that it is campaign finance reformers, rather than Smith, who are the radicals on these issues. However, the Supreme Court only last month in Shrink Missouri cited two of Smith's academic articles by name in its opinion and then repudiated his view that there is no danger of corruption or the appearance of corruption from large campaign contributions. However, we do not need the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us that Brad Smith is a radical, who is out of step with the mainstream. In his own words, when he was approached about serving on the FEC, Smith stated: `My first thought was ``they've got to be just looking at me put my name on the list so that whoever they really want will look less radical.'' Even Smith did not believe, at first, that the Republicans would seriously put forward his name for this position because his views are so extreme. . . Brad Smith and his supporters have asserted that, although Smith personally disagrees with much of the law, he can nevertheless be counted on to faithfully enforce it. One is forced to ask, however, why an academic who has made his career by criticizing the nation's election laws would want the job of stoically enforcing those laws? The answer, of course, is that Brad Smith recognizes that federal election law, like any complex regulatory regime, is open to interpretation and it is the process of interpretation that gives the law its meaning. Brad Smith's goal, whenever there is any room for interpretation, will doubtless be to allow federal campaign finance law to whither on the vine. And any member of Congress that supports additional campaign finance regulations--such as McCain-Feingold or Shays-Meehan, should be very troubled by the prospect that the rules and regulations governing their implementation might be drafted by such an arch-nemesis of those reforms. I think there are a couple of additional points to be made here. One is, how can the President of the United States be committed to finance reform and submit Mr. Smith's name? That nominating process comes from the President of the United States. The next time you hear the President of the United States reiterate his commitment to meaningful campaign finance reform, remember the type of person who was nominated by the President of the United States for this position. In deference to the President of the United States, we have a little unwritten rule that the President gets to appoint some and the majority--in this case, the Republicans--appoint others. The President still had the ability and the authority to reject this most extreme nominee for any position that I have seen in my years here since 1987. There is another point that I think is important. Why would someone who disagrees with campaign finance laws, who believes they should be scrapped, and who believes fundamentally they are unconstitutional--not just the personal dislike but a firmly held tenet that all campaign finance laws should be scrapped and are unconstitutional--how in the world could you then expect someone to face a fundamental contradiction of their basic beliefs that a law is unconstitutional and yet seek the position where his sole duties are to enforce those laws? How Mr. Smith could even take an oath to uphold the same laws of which he has time and again rejected and advocated their repeal is a mystery. What does that say? Either he is willing and able to cast aside lifelong beliefs and principles in order to hold a prestigious position or he is less than sincere in undertaking enforcement of campaign reforms or enforcing existing law. President Reagan once said no to a Democrat whose name was submitted. President Clinton could have done the same. I say, shame on you, Mr. President, for not rejecting this name. Let me be perfectly clear that I do not oppose Mr. Smith simply because he disagrees with my proposed legislation. Many of my closest friends take issue with aspects of McCain-Feingold. I respect the opinion of others, and I respect the right of Mr. Smith to hold a view contrary to mine. It is because he objects to any form of campaign finance regulation that I oppose him. If you took a poll of the 100 Members of this body, I don't think you would find more than perhaps 1 who would hold the view that Mr. Smith does. My friends on both sides of the aisle at least say we need some form of campaign finance reform. Most are offended by this latest loophole called 527. Most find it egregious that we now have $500,000 contributors. Most of them believe the money chase has lurched out of control to the point where, by actual acts of commission and omission, young Americans have become cynical and alienated from the political process. The 1996 election had the lowest voter turnout of 18- to 26- year-olds than at any time in the history of this country. There was recently a poll taken by the Pugh Research Center--which I will submit for the Record at a later time--which showed that 67 percent of young Americans say they are disconnected from government. And the reason given is the influence of special interests and big money in Washington. The system cries out for reform, if not for McCain-Feingold, then some other vision of reform. Mr. Smith believes campaign finance reform is not about good government. It is about silencing people whose views are inconvenient to those with power. The real scandal, Mr. Smith says, is the brazen effort of reformers to silence the American people. A statement such as this impugns the motives of many millions of good and decent Americans who believe this reform is necessary in a remarkable way. I do not impugn the motives of Mr. Smith. I disagree with him. I do not believe Mr. Smith is trying to silence the American people. I do believe he is wrong in his positions and he is wrong for this job. It is because he objects to any form of campaign regulation that I oppose him, because he can acknowledge all the examples of campaign abuse witnesses in the 1996 election, as he did in an article published by the American Jewish Committee in December 1997, and still he contends that the only reform necessary is deregulation. So those kinds of abuses become the norm. In that article he cited the many unsavory examples of fundraising by the Clinton-Gore campaign. He goes on to say: Yet, we now see, on videotape and in White House photos, shots of the President of the United States meeting with arms merchants and drug dealers; we learn of money being laundered through Buddhist nuns and Indonesian gardeners; we read that the acquaintance of the President are fleeing the country or threatening to assert Fifth Amendment privileges to avoid testifying before Congress. . . . What troubles me most abut Mr. Smith is that, after acknowledging all of these incidents, he concludes that since campaign reform has not eliminated those abuses, we should simply give up and allow a free for all. That's like saying, ``Since the laws against murder haven't eliminated murders, we should simply legalize murders.'' Or, ``Since the country's drug laws haven't been enforced sufficiently to eliminate illegal drug deals, we should simply legalize drug use.'' Is someone with that kind of attitude the right person for the job? I don't think so, and I cannot believe that my colleagues can in good faith and with a straight face assert that he is. It should be a grave concern to my colleagues that Brad Smith concedes all of the facts of the 1966 campaign scandal, but apparently sees nothing wrong with perpetuating and legalizing those wrongs. I do not believe the American public concurs. Mr. Smith advocates anything goes in election campaigns and says no tactic is too unseemly, too corrupt to be protected by the first amendment of the Constitution. By the way, I believe it was Justice Stevens who said in his opinion in the Shrink Missouri decision that money is property, money is not free speech. I do not agree that our Founding Fathers could have intended such a result any more than prosecuting someone yelling ``fire'' in a crowded theater. The Supreme Court has concurred in the recent Shrink Missouri decision in upholding the State of Missouri's campaign contribution limits. The Court reiterated its determination from their earlier Buckley v. Valeo decision that the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption is a constitutionally sufficient justification for limiting contributions as a form of speech. Mr. Smith's position is in direct contradiction to what the U.S. Supreme Court stated in Shrink Missouri. I repeat, the U.S. Supreme Court said the prevention of corruption and the appearance of corruption is a constitutionally sufficient justification for limiting contributions as a form of speech. In speaking of ``improper influence'' and ``opportunities for abuse'' in addition to ``quid pro quo'' arrangements, we recognized a concern not confined to bribery of public officials, but extending to the broader threat from politicians too compliant with the wishes of large contributors. These were the obvious points behind our recognition that the Congress could constitutionally address the power of money ``to influence governmental action'' in ways less ``blatant and specific'' than bribery. As Justice Stevens said in his concurring opinion in the Shrink case, responding to the arguments raised by Justice Kennedy in his dissent: Justice Kennedy suggests that the misuse of soft money tolerated by this Court's misguided decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, demonstrates the need for a fresh examination of the constitutional issues raised by Congress' enactment of the Federal Election Campaign Acts of 1971 and 1974 and this Court's resolution of those issues in Buckley v. Valeo. In response to his call for a new beginning, therefore, I make one simple point. Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results. I find it incredible that a law professor speaking on the topic of constitutionality of campaign finance reform would not cite the most recent Supreme Court ruling and opinion pertinent to the topic. Yet, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court issued its ruling in the Shrink case in January of this year, in Mr. Smith's testimony during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Rules Committee in March offered no recognition that the Supreme Court had most recently upheld campaign contribution limitations. He made no attempt to renounce his earlier writings or opinions based upon the opinion. He made no acknowledgment that the Supreme Court had recently reached a conclusion as to the constitutionality of contribution limitations at odds with his views. Instead, he focused his presentation on the uncertainty of the law, and in particular the confusion surrounding the Buckley opinion. This, even though the Supreme Court had in Shrink reiterated and clarified the state of the law. Perhaps it was because he had not read the Shrink opinion, a disturbing omission for a law school professor--or perhaps simply because he disagrees with it. In either case, I find the omission troubling and indicative of why Mr. Smith would be unsuitable as an FEC Commissioner.

Mr. McCAIN. He begins by saying: Think campaign finance reform isn't an incumbent's protection racket? Just look at the spending limits included in the Shays-Meehan and McCain-Feingold bills, the hot ``reform'' bills on Capitol Hill. I will provide for the Record that as increases in spending have gone up, they have favored the incumbents, and more incumbents have been reelected over time. Mr. Smith is obviously wrong in his allegations as far as the facts are concerned. Then obviously he goes on to say at the end that campaign finance reform has turned out to be bad policy. He goes on to say: For most of our history campaigns were essentially unregulated, yet democracy survived and flourished. However, since passage of the Federal Elections Campaign Act and similar State laws, the influence of special interests has grown, voter turnout has fallen, and incumbents have become tougher to dislodge. That is an interesting view of history. In 1974, we enacted campaign finance reform. The abuses of the 1972 campaign were well known. They were extremely egregious and everyone knows there was a movement across America to clean up those incredible abuses that took place in the 1972 campaign. I guess what Mr. Smith either doesn't know or has ignored is that for a long period after campaign finance reform was enacted, there were better campaigns in America. They were a lot cleaner. They were more participatory. It was not until beginning in the middle to late 1980s, as smart people began to find loopholes, began to find ways around those campaign finance restrictions, that the influence of special interests grew, voter turnout fell, and incumbents became tougher to dislodge. I am a student of history. One of the reasons why I am is because it has a tendency to repeat itself. There was a period late in the last century, actually in the 19th century, when the robber barons took over American politics. That is a matter of history and disputed by very few historians. Fortunately, a man came to the fore in American politics by the name of Theodore Roosevelt. His words are as true today as they were then. I quote from his fifth annual message to the Congress, Washington, December 25, 1905: All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law. Directors should not be permitted to use stockholders' money for such purposes. And moreover, a prohibition of this kind would be, as far as it went, an effective method of stopping the evils aimed at the Incorrupt Practices Act. On October 26, 1904, Theodore Roosevelt made the following statement: I have just been informed that the Standard Oil people have contributed $100,000 to our campaign fund. This may be entirely untrue. But if true I must ask you to direct that the money be returned to them forthwith. . . . Moreover, it is entirely legitimate to accept campaign contributions, no matter how large they are, from individuals and corporations on the terms on which I happen to know that you have accepted them; that is, with the explicit understanding that they were given and received with no thought of any more obligation on the part of the National Committee or of the national administration than is implied in the statement that every man shall receive a square deal, no more, no less, and that this I shall guarantee him in any event to the best of my ability. . . . But we cannot under any circumstances afford to take a contribution which can be even improperly construed as putting us under an improper obligation, and in view of my past relations with the Standard Oil Company, I fear such a construction will be put upon receiving any aid from them. On 1908, September 21, in a letter to the treasurer of the Republican National Committee, Theodore Roosevelt wrote: I have been informed that you, or someone on behalf of the National Committee, have requested contributions both from Mr. Archibold and Mr. Harriman. If this is true, I wish to enter a most earnest protest, and to say that in my judgment not only should such contributions not be solicited, but if tendered, they should be refused; and if they have been accepted they should immediately be returned. I am not the candidate, but I am the head of the Republican administration, which is an issue in this campaign, and I protest earnestly against men whom we are prosecuting being asked to contribute to elect a President who will appoint an Attorney-General to continue these prosecutions. Mr. President, in his State of the Union speech, President Roosevelt said on August 31, 1910: Now, this means that our Government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests. Exactly as the special interests of cotton and slavery threatened our political integrity before the Civil War, so now the great special business interests too often control and corrupt the men and methods of government for their own profit. We must drive the special interests out of politics. Mr. President, as I said, Theodore Roosevelt's words in those days were as true then as they are today. I believe we are again in the same situation we were in before when he was able to get an all-out prohibition of corporate contributions to American political campaigns. That law is still on the books. That law has never been repealed. Why is it that tomorrow night there will be a fundraiser when individuals and corporations are allowed to contribute as much as $500,000 to enjoy the hospitality of the Democratic National Committee at the MCI Center? It is because the loopholes have been exploited. People such as our nominee, Mr. Smith, have made the process such that we can no longer expect the influence of special interests not to predominate here in our Nation's Capitol. Young Americans are tired of it. Young Americans are cynical, and they have become alienated. The nomination of Mr. Smith has not gone unnoticed beyond the beltway. The irony of his appointment to the FEC has been the subject of numerous editorials since the name first surfaced as a potential nominee. Let me read to you some of these editorials, Mr. President. The Palm Beach Post: You wouldn't put Charlton Heston in charge of gun control, and you wouldn't put Bradley A. Smith in charge of enforcing the nation's campaign-finance laws. Come to think of it, Republicans want to do both. Mr. Smith, a law professor in Ohio, feels about soft money the way Mr. Heston feels about assault weapons: More is better. . . . Mr. Smith has advocated the abolition of Federal restrictions on campaign contributions. Yet, Republicans want to nominate Mr. Smith to the Federal Election Commission, which was founded in 1975 to enforce campaign restrictions first imposed after Watergate. . . . The quote underpinning Mr. Smith's philosophy is, ``People should be allowed to spend whatever they want on politics.'' But when Mr. Smith talks about ``people,'' he means corporations and unions and political-action committees--the big donors who give with the all-too-realistic expectation that they will receive favors from Congress in return. The story I quoted earlier from the New York Times mentioned that when the big donors were contacted by phone, they wanted to --guess what--talk about legislation before the Congress, for those who were soliciting donations. The San Francisco Chronicle, April 17: Seldom has the metaphor of the fox keeping watch over the chicken coop seemed more apt. Bradley Smith has built his career arguing that the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act, the law regulating campaign expenditures enacted after the Watergate scandal, is unconstitutional and should be abolished. In various articles, Mr. Smith, an obscure professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, has argued that our nation only spends a ``minuscule amount'' on campaigns, a mere .05 percent of our Gross National Product. Rather than corrupting the process, Smith says campaign spending promotes democracy by generating interest in candidates and issues. . . . ``If anything, we probably spend too little,'' he wrote in one of several guest columns for the Wall Street Journal. Smith might have remained little more than a professorial provocateur behind the safe ramparts of the ivory tower had not Republicans put forward his name to fill a vacant seat on the Federal Election Commission, the body created by the very law Smith thinks should be abolished. Washington Post, February 11, 2000: When the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that reasonable campaign finance regulations were constitutional, President Clinton sought to portray himself as a fighter for reform. ``For years, I challenged Congress to pass regulations that would ban the raising of unregulated soft money and address back door spending by outside organizations.'' He said, ``Now I am again asking Congress to restore the American people's faith in their democracy and pass real reform this year.'' This week, however, the President nominated to the Federal Election Commission a law professor, Bradley Smith, who not only opposes further reform, but believes that most existing campaign finance law violates the first amendment. Quite simply, Mr. Smith doesn't believe in the bulk of the FEC's work. Mr. Clinton has no business putting him in charge of it. Mr. President, this is from the New York Times, February 17, 2000: A vote to confirm Mr. Smith is a vote to perpetuate big- money politics. Campaign restrictions are only as strong as the FEC's interest in enforcing them--an interest Mr. Smith plainly lacks. In an election year in which Washington's failure to end the corrupt soft-money system has become a rallying cause for John McCain's Presidential campaign, the Senate should not seat someone on the FEC who questions the need for change. Mr. Smith, as Mr. Gore aptly noted, ``publicly questions not only the constitutionality of proposed reform, but also the constitutionality of current limitations.'' Mr. Smith does not belong on the FEC, and anyone in the Senate who cares about fashioning a fair and honest system for financing campaigns should vote against his appointment. Mr. President, I don't want to put too much credence and importance on Mr. Smith's appointment. But I do not see, after the record is replete with Mr. Smith's views concerning campaign finance reform, how anyone in this body who is a sincere supporter of campaign finance reform could possibly have the remotest idea of voting for Mr. Smith. Finally, I have on this floor many times for too many years been arguing the constitutionality of placing limitations on campaign contributions. The opponents, time after time, have taken the floor and said: Well, Buckley v. Valeo was only a 5-4 vote, a footnote, which perhaps has become one of the most famous footnotes in the history of any Supreme Court decision concerning exactly what the words are both for and against. Over time, for reasons that are not clear to me, the opponents of campaign finance reform raise the concern in many people's minds that the heart of McCain-Feingold is unconstitutional; in other words, the ability to place a limit on campaign contributions. I didn't quite understand that because in 1907 there was a law on the books that banned corporate contributions. That has never been repealed, nor declared unconstitutional. There is a law on the books in 1947 banning union contributions to American political campaigns, and then of course there is the 1974 law. On January 24 of this year, Shrink Missouri clearly and unequivocally in a 6-3 decision upheld the $1,000 limitation on a campaign contribution. By limiting the size of the largest contributions, such restrictions are aimed at democratizing the influence money itself may bring to bear upon the electoral service. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a majority opinion, goes on to say that in doing so, they seek to build public confidence in that process and broaden the base of a candidate's meaningful financial support by encouraging the public participation in open discussion that the first amendment itself presupposes. Mr. Smith directly repudiates--and still does after the U.S. Supreme Court spoke unequivocally--a 6-3 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet my colleagues feel that he is fit to enforce a law that he directly repudiates. This is a bit Orwellian, Mr. President. The Court went on to say in unequivocal terms that the imposition of a $1,000 limit is certainly not only constitutional but should be constitutional because many of the Justices expressed their utter dismay at the state of campaign financing today in a rather forthright and candid manner, which is somewhat uncharacteristic of the U.S. Supreme Court. One of the Justices said, ``Money is not free speech. Money is property.'' On the one hand, a decision to contribute money to a campaign is a matter of first amendment concern, not because money is speech; it is not, but because it enables speech through contributions. The contributor associates himself with a candidate's cause and helps the candidate communicate a political message with which the contributor agrees and helps the candidate win by attracting the votes of similarly minded voters. Both political association and political communications are at hand. On the other hand, restrictions upon the amount that any one individual can contribute to a particular candidate seek to protect the integrity of the electoral process, the means through which a free society democratically translates political speech into concrete government action. Moreover, by limiting the size of the largest contributions, such restrictions aim to democratize the influence money itself may bring to bear upon the electoral process. I don't mean to paraphrase the Supreme Court of the United States, but what they are saying is money in modest amounts is a way of participating in the political process, and it is a good and healthy thing. One of the great events in politics in the American Southwest is to have a barbecue and everyone pays $10, $15, or $20 to attend. You not only participate in the political process, but you have made an investment in that candidate. But when we are now at a point where $500,000 buys a ticket to a fundraiser, we have come a long way. We have come a long way. We have come to a Congress which is gridlocked by the special interests. If you want to look at our failure to enact a Patients' Bill of Rights, if you want to look at our failure to enact modest gun control such as safety locks and instant background checks, if you want to look at our failure to enact meaningful military reform because we continue to buy weapons systems which the military doesn't want or need, and we have 12,000 enlisted families on food stamps, you can look at a broad array of legislation that should have been acted on by any reasonable group of men and women who are elected to represent the people. Instead, it is the special interests. What is the message we are about to send to the American people when we affirm the appointment of Professor Brad Smith to the Federal Election Commission? We are saying that we are appointing a person for 5 years who not only repudiates the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court but believes that at no time in our history have we needed to clean up the abuses of the campaign finance system, and clearly has no interest in removing the incredible corruption that possesses the political process today, and is not interested in the fact that young Americans have become cynical and even alienated from the political process, to wit: The 1998 election where we had the lowest voter turnout in history of 18- to 26-year-olds. The message we are sending to America is: Americans, we are not ready yet to respond to the will of the people. We are still in the grips of special interests. Until we make their voices more clear and more strongly felt, the chances of reforming this system and returning the government to you is somewhat diminished. I know my colleague who is on the floor, Senator Feingold, and I will continue our efforts to bring McCain-Feingold and Shays-Meehan to the attention of this body for votes between now and when we go out of session. I don't know if we will be able to do that, but have no doubt about what we are trying to do and how we are trying to do it. All we ask for is a vote up or down. We will agree to 15 or 20 minutes equally divided on both sides on this issue because it has been ventilated time after time on the floor of the Senate. For anyone who has some idea we are trying to hold up legislation or block legislation, all we are asking for is a vote. We know a majority of the Senate would vote in favor. I think we are going to do something very wrong tomorrow. We are probably going to affirm a person to an office in which the American people place some trust in the enforcement of existing law. That person has made it clear that he is not interested in enforcing existing law, and, in fact, he believes that existing law is unconstitutional. I think this is a very serious mistake. I hope the American people notice that this is something that will not work in their interests but will clearly work to maintain the status quo in our Nation's Capital. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first let me remind my colleagues that Mr. Smith, in an article he wrote in the Wall Street Journal, concluded his article by saying: The most sensible reform is a simple one: repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act. I ask unanimous consent that the entire article of Wednesday, March 19, 1997, entitled ``Rule of Law, Why Campaign Finance Reform Never Works,'' by Bradley A. Smith, be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I see my friend and comrade in arms, Senator Feingold. Let me mention what is going on not only as far as the fundraiser is concerned, but recently we received information there will be a hearing tomorrow before the Senate Judiciary subcommittee and on Thursday before the House Government Reform Committee. According to a December 9, 1996, memo by FBI Director Louis J. Freeh, Mr. Radek [head of Justice Office of Public Integrity] told Mr. Esposito [who was a deputy director of the FBI] he was ``under a lot of pressure not to go forward with the investigation,'' and that Ms. Reno's job ``might hang in the balance.'' The memo said Mr. Freeh met with Ms. Reno and personally suggested she and Mr. Radek recuse themselves from the probe. What we are talking about here is a situation that, if campaign finance laws had been obeyed and enforced, we would not be subjected to as a nation; that is, disturbing allegations that information was brought by the FBI, the Director of the FBI, Mr. Louis Freeh, and by Mr. Charles LaBella, who was appointed as the head of the task force to investigate these very allegations by the Attorney General herself-- those recommendations were ignored by the Attorney General. The recommendation for the appointment of an independent counsel was ignored by the Attorney General of the United States. A recommendation by Mr. Freeh was not accepted by the Attorney General of the United States and, according to the Deputy Director of the FBI, Mr. Radek, whose office is described as the Office of Public Integrity in the Justice Department, he said he was ``under a lot of pressure not to go forward with the investigation''--I wonder who from--and that Ms. Reno's job ``might hang in the balance.'' This is the pernicious effect of a campaign finance system which has run amok. That is not confined to the Democratic Party. There have been abuses on my side as well because this system knows no party identification. This system knows only the increasing avariciousness of a system that has run amok. We are now about to confirm as one of those whose appointment is to enforce the law someone who is adamantly opposed to the law, believes the law is unconstitutional. And we are in a situation in America today that, in the view of more objective observers than I, can only be compared to the turn of the century when the robber barons of this Nation, through huge input of contributions to political campaigns, had basically bought the American Congress. Thanks to the brave and courageous efforts of one Theodore Roosevelt, joined by millions of other like-minded reformers, we brought an end to that corruption. Now we are about to appoint to that body an individual who will not only not be opposed, who will not only not support trying to clean up this system, but will try to remove the last vestiges of campaign finance reform law as it exists today. All I can say is it is a 5-year appointment. He will not be there forever. We will have campaign finance reform. As my colleagues know, I recently completed an unsuccessful campaign for the nomination of my party for the Presidency of the United States. It was one of the most rewarding and uplifting experiences of my life. I learned many things during that campaign. I will not clutter the Record with the lessons I learned. When I began the campaign, I said the theme of my campaign would be reform. Every political pundit said there was no room for reform in the political agenda. In hundreds of townhall meetings and thousands of speeches, I said: Campaign finance reform is the linchpin; if we want to reform education, if we want to reform the military, if we want to reform the Tax Code, if we want to reform the institutions of government, we must get this Government out of the hands of the special interests and back to the people. I believe that message resonated then and resonates to this day. We are about to appoint an individual now in complete contradiction to what I believe is strongly the will of the people, not only that existing laws be enforced but new laws be enacted in order to close the loopholes that have been created since the passage of the 1974 law. We, in our wisdom, are about to appoint an individual who flies in the face of everything I learned in my campaign, despite a clear voice from the American people, particularly from our young, particularly from our young citizens to whom, sooner rather than later, we will pass the torch of leadership of this Nation, who have become cynical and even alienated from the political process--not without good reason. Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Vermont. I might say to the Senator from Vermont, I had a wonderful day in his State long ago, where he is well respected and well loved by the citizens of his State. I appreciate the opportunity, always, to be in lovely Montpelier. I thank him and his fellow citizens for all their hospitality.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.