John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, I may be in some disagreement with the distinguished Democratic leader about an upcoming motion to proceed because some feel very strongly about the issue of partial-birth abortion and whether that vote might be interpreted as a vote in favor or against it. Let me assure the distinguished Democratic leader--and I will elaborate on this in a second--we have not been treated fairly in this process by either side. So, therefore, Senator Feingold and I feel no obligation except our obligation to campaign finance reform, and that is to do whatever is necessary, at whatever time, to make sure this issue is voted on, as were the terms of the original unanimous consent agreement that was agreed to by the majority leader. I think it is fair to say that neither I nor the Senator from Wisconsin began this debate with the expectation that we were close to achieving 60 votes for campaign finance reform, although we have to be encouraged by the fact that three new Republican votes were cast in favor of campaign finance reform in this last vote. We did, however, believe that we had a chance to build a supermajority in support of some reform. We hoped that by dropping those provisions from the bill that drew the loudest opposition last year, and by allowing Senators to improve the legislation through an open amendment process, we might begin to approach consensus. It appears we were mistaken. The opponents of comprehensive reform oppose even the most elemental reform. Those opponents abide on both sides of the aisle--if not in equal numbers, then in sufficient numbers--to render any attempt to clean up the system a very difficult challenge, indeed. I suspect the opponents were concerned that were we ever allowed a truly clean vote on a soft money ban, we might come close to 60 votes. I believe that explains the extraordinary efforts from both Democrats and Republicans to prevent that clean vote from occurring. I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle that I have argued with my Republican colleagues in the last two Congresses that reform supporters deserve a decent chance, through an open amendment process, to break a filibuster. I can hardly complain to them now that the other side has apparently decided it could not risk such a process, fearing that we might achieve what Democrats have long argued we should have-- reform. The Senator from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli, claims that the right wing of my party forced me to change our legislation. That will be news to them. I have noticed no reduction in the intensity of their opposition to a soft money ban now that it no longer is accompanied by restrictions on issue advocacy. All I have noticed is that the Senator from New Jersey has now become as passionately opposed to reform as are the critics of reform in my party. Although I cannot criticize Republican Senators for reneging on a commitment to an open amendment process, I must observe that we were promised 5 full days of debate. That promise has not been honored. Moreover, the leadership decided to deny us even the opportunity to appeal to our colleagues before this vote, a rare and unusual occasion around here. We were not allowed to continue our debate between the vote last night and the votes we have just taken. Whether this was done to treat us unfairly or to respond to the tactics of the minority matters little to me. In the end, we are denied a fair chance to pass our reforms, as we have been denied in the past. And although I am not all that surprised by the tactics employed by both sides, I am, of course, a little discouraged. However, Mr. President, neither Senator Feingold nor I are so discouraged that we intend to abandon our efforts to test Senate support for a ban on single source contributions that total in the hundreds of thousands, even million of dollars. We will persevere. And we believe we are no longer bound by any commitment to refrain from revisiting this issue in the remainder of this session of Congress. I know there is not a lot of time left before adjournment, but if the opportunity exists to force an up or down vote on taking the hundred- thousand-dollar check out of politics, we will do so, Mr. President. Some Senators may wonder why would we persist in these efforts when it is clear that the enemies of reform are numerous, resourceful, and bipartisan. Are we just tilting at windmills? I don't believe so Mr. President. I believe that some day, the American people are going to become so incensed by the amount of money that is now washing around our political system that they will hold Senators accountable for their votes on this issue. Then, I suspect, we will achieve some consensus on reform. Until then, it is our intention to do all we can to make sure the public has a clear record of support or opposition to reform upon which to judge us. Yesterday's cynical vote for a ban on soft money indicates to me just how fearful of a straight, up or down vote the opponents are. Mr. President, I want to respond again to the criticism that my stated belief that our campaign finance system is corrupting is untrue and demeaning to Senators. Let me read a few lines from the 1996 Republican Party platform. Congress had been an institution steeped in corruption and contemptuous of reform. Scandals in government are not limited to possible criminal violations. The public trust is violated when taxpayers' money is treated as a slush fund for special interest groups who oppose urgently needed reforms. It is time to restore honor and integrity to government. I repeat again. I am quoting from the Republican Party platform of 1996. Mr. President, I'm not saying anything more than what is, after all, the official position of the Republican Party. Or is it my Republican colleagues' view that only Democratic-controlled congresses are ``Steeped in corruption and contemptuous of reform''? As I said last week, Mr. President, something doesn't have to be illegal to be corrupting. Webster's defines corruption as an ``impairment of our integrity.'' I am not accusing any Member of violating Federal bribery Statutes. But we are all tainted by a system that the public believes--rightly--results in greater representation to monied interests than to average citizens. No, Mr. President, there is no law to prevent the exploitation of a soft money loophole to get around Federal campaign contribution limits. There is no law, but there ought to be. That's why we're here. Does anyone really believe that our current system has not impaired Congress' integrity or the President's for that matter? When special interests give huge amounts of cash to us, and then receive tax breaks and appropriations at twice or five times or ten times the value of their soft money donations. What is it these interests expect for their generosity? Good government? No, they expect a financial return to their stockholders, and they get it, often at the expense of average Americans. Would they keep giving us millions of dollars if they weren't getting that return? Of course not. Cannot we all agree to this very simple, very obvious truth: that campaign contributions from a single source that run to the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars are not healthy to a democracy? Is that not evident to every single one of us? A child could see it, Mr. President. The Senator from Kentucky said the other day that there is no evidence, no polling data, no indication at all that the people's estrangement from Congress would be repaired by campaign finance reform. He is correct, there is no such evidence. But I have a hunch, Mr. President, that should the public see that we no longer lavish attention on major donors, should they see that their concerns are afforded just as much attention as the concerns of special interests, should they see some evidence that their elected representatives place a higher value on the national interest than we do on our own re-elections, should they no longer see tax bills, appropriations bills, deregulation bills that are front-loaded with breaks for the people who write hundred-thousand-dollar checks to us while tax relief or urgent assistance or real competition, or anything that could immediately benefit the average American is delayed until later years, if ever, should they see that, Mr. President, I have a hunch, just a hunch, that the people we serve might begin to think a little better of us. Mr. President, no matter what parliamentary tactics are used to prevent reform, no matter how fierce the opposition, no matter how personal, no matter how cynical this debate remains, the Senator from Wisconsin and I will persevere. We will not give up. We will not give up in the Senate. And we will take our case to the people, and eventually, eventually, we will prevail. I ask my colleagues, why must we appear to be forced into doing the right thing? Why can't we take the initiative, and show the people that it matters to us what they think of us? Mr. President, despite our protestations to the contrary, the American people believe we are corrupted by these huge donations. And their contempt for us--even were it not deserved--is itself a stain upon our honor. Don't allow this corrupt--and I use that term advisedly--this corrupt system to endure one day longer than it must. We have it in our power to end it. We must take the chance. Our reputations and the reputations of the institution in which we are privileged to serve depend on it. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President----

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend, first of all, I never argued that games were being played. I would not make that allegation. I believe the Senator from Kentucky and I had a colloquy on Friday where it was clear that the situation was such that even if an amendment were considered on Friday and adopted, it would have fallen with a vote on the underlying legislation that was pending, which I think correctly, in the view of the Senator from Kentucky, made further amendments and debate meaningless. I see the Senator from Kentucky is on the floor. I think that was his comment. If he disagrees, I will be glad to yield for a question from him in that respect. On Friday, I was disappointed, and I think the Senator from Kentucky was, that we didn't move forward with genuine amendments that would have stood or fallen on their own merit. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Kentucky for a question on that.

Mr. McCAIN. It is my understanding the Senate has never voted up or down on that specific issue, at least since 1907, when, thanks be to one of the greatest Republicans and greatest Presidents in history, Theodore Roosevelt, who alleged there was corruption at that time--and I will include many of his remarks in the Record--because of the influence of major corporations and robber barons and special interests on the American political process, I believe the Senate did vote to ban soft money. And I believe that statute is still on the books.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to respond to my friend. I am hearing that the distinguished majority leader may try to remove the bill from the consideration on the floor of the Senate tomorrow. We know that it is cluttered with various amendments, some of them very important. The Senator from Minnesota spoke very eloquently in favor of his amendment, which I am sure has some merit. But the crux and heart of this matter is soft money. We all know that. I worry if we do not get this vote, that we could possibly reach a situation where the Senate is gridlocked; and eventually, over time, obviously, we would not even have recorded votes on this important and crucial issue.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be glad to yield for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask for the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I move to table amendment No. 2299 and ask consent the vote occur at 5:45.

Mr. McCAIN. It was agreeable to the leadership. I was told they wanted a vote at 5:45, but I would be willing to set the time for that vote at any time. I am told by staff, 5:45 is the time for the vote.

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN. Was he aware on Friday Senator Kerrey of Nebraska came to the floor and said: I had the experience of going inside the beast in 1996, 1997, and 1998, when I was chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. I don't want to raise a sore subject for the Senator from Maine. It changed my attitude in two big ways. One, the apparent corruption that exists. People believe there is corruption. If they believe it, it happens. We all understand that. If the perception is it is A, it is A, even though it may not be. And the people believe the system is corrupt. The Senator is aware of the statement of the Senator from Nebraska yesterday, which I think is a very precise and informed opinion?

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Could I hear the unanimous consent, just to be sure. Parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. McCAIN. I agree.

Mr. McCAIN. I object to that because we are going back and forth from one side to the other.

Mr. McCAIN. Maybe I can sort it out. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Levin, then Senator Voinovich, then Senator Wellstone, and then Senator McCain be recognized.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak after Senator Levin.

Mr. McCAIN. I object.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the tabling motion occur at 5:45.

Mr. McCAIN. Roughly.