John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Of course. Of course. I hope that would move the process forward, once we are on record. And perhaps that might increase our chances of reaching 60 votes, I would say to my friend.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Utah for his courtesy. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Utah be recognized for 20 minutes, the Senator from Oregon for 15 minutes, the Senator from Nebraska for 20 minutes, and then the Senator from Wisconsin for 20 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. I amend the unanimous consent agreement. The Senator from Utah would like how many minutes?

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to make that request.

Mr. McCAIN. I think I have consumed 7 or 8 minutes. I hope the Senator from Utah will recognize that both the Senator from Nebraska and the Senator from Oregon have been here for a long time. I hope he would give them the opportunity to speak before the 5:45 vote.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I haven't yielded the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I think Senator Hagel was here first. Is that OK?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I agree with the Senator from Nevada; there are many ways to approach the issue of campaign finance reform. I agree with him; there are many laudable aspects of campaign finance reform that deserve serious consideration. One that doesn't seem to surface as much as it should is free television time for candidates. The broadcasters receive $70 billion worth of free digital spectrum. It seems to me there should be some obligation along with one of the great rip-offs in the history of the United States of America. But we really are down to soft money, I say to the Senator from Nevada. We are really down to that. We can build on that. There is no reform that could have any meaning unless it meant, at its fundamental heart, the banning of soft money. We have been through a number of debates about what independent campaigns do. By the way, before I leave the issue, I heard the Senator from Ohio say that banning of soft money does not in any way affect labor unions. Yesterday or the day before, there was a notice in the paper that the labor unions plan on spending $45 million in soft money in the upcoming campaign. I am afraid the Senator from Ohio is misinformed because this banning of soft money does enormous damage to the ability of labor unions to engage in the kind of practices we are trying to eliminate, just as much as it does the other side. I want to make perfectly clear, the reason that I and the Senator from Wisconsin are seeking to table or asking for a vote on a tabling motion is so we can have the Senate on record on the issue of soft money. If the Senate, in its wisdom, decides that we should table the Reid amendment and that we should, therefore, not ban soft money, then obviously this entire exercise is largely futile. I think there are about three Members on the other side who may not be voting who would vote for us, and I would take that into account in this vote because, really, this vote is about the intentions and the will of the Senate. The soft money reports from Common Cause: Soft money, CWA-COPE, $2,593,000; American Federation of State and County Municipal Employees, $2,334,000--these are obviously all Democrats--Service Employees Union, $1.5 million. I hope the Senator from Ohio will take a look at the enormous amount of money that is coming in from labor unions that he somehow believes would not be affected by a ban on soft money. Also, recently information came out that the Democratic Party is raising now as much soft money as the Republican Party, a very interesting turn of events. We have, at most, 48 hours left on this legislation. We have not made a lot of progress. It is time we did. I believe having the Senate on record on soft money is a very defining vote. I talked extensively with Senator Feingold about this before we decided to make this move. I hope my colleagues will vote not to table the Reid amendment, which bans soft money. I hope my colleagues will vote not to table the McCain tabling motion of the Reid amendment. I believe Senator Bennett is next under the unanimous consent agreement. I believe both Senators Hagel and Wyden have been waiting. I don't know what the disposition of that is. Senator Reid?

Mr. McCAIN. I not only acknowledge it, but it is worthy of mention; the Senator from Nevada and I have been close and dear friends for nearly 20 years. One thing I have tried to do during the course of this debate is keep it from in any way personalizing or showing any disrespect to any individual, no matter where they stand on this issue. I thank the Senator from Nevada. Did the Senator from Kentucky want to make a comment?

Mr. McCAIN. Absolutely.

Mr. McCAIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I want my colleagues to know this is a defining vote of this debate. This is a defining vote because it all has to do with soft money. This is the fundamental proposition that the Senator from Wisconsin and I are propounding. There has been parliamentary maneuvering. There has been substitutes. There has been a filling up of the tree. There have been a lot of things that have been going on which have sort of not surprised me but disappointed me. Friday, on the other side, for reasons that are still not clear to me, the Senator from Nevada, and others, chose not to allow the amending process to go forward. On this side, we have had some delays, which I would argue were not particularly helpful to the process. So this tabling motion of the Reid amendment is basically a defining vote on whether or not we want to ban soft money. I intend to vote not to table the Reid amendment. I would hope that my colleagues would vote not to table the Reid amendment. Then we will have the Senate on record as to whether we are for or against soft money in American political campaigns. On Friday, Senator Kerrey of Nebraska--it is funny; we were talking about this today at the Vietnam Veterans Memorial luncheon today that Senator Hagel and I attended, that there is kind of an interesting relationship that exists between those of us who had the privilege of serving in that conflict. One of the traits I find true with Senator Hagel, Senator Cleland, Senator Robb, and Senators Kerrey and Kerry, is that there is a certain degree of honesty and straightforwardness which I find extremely attractive. Senator Kerrey, on Friday, who is also the former chairman of the Senatorial Campaign Committee, said: There will be all kinds of amendments offered to change the bill, some of which I support strongly. It seems to me our only chance of getting this legislation passed is to stick as closely as possible to the bill we currently have in front of us. He went on to say, in an exchange with the Senator from Wisconsin: I wonder if the Senator from Wisconsin will tell me if what I am saying is true. I like Shays-Meehan. I like the bill. The junior Senator from Nebraska, Mr. Hagel, has an amendment I like as well. He goes on to talk about: . . . It makes it much more likely we will fail to break a filibuster and, as a consequence of that failure, fail to enact legislation, and as a consequence of that, we will never go to conference and never change the law. Then Senator Kerrey of Nebraska went on to say: . . . The Senator is very kind to say I have always been a supporter. Actually, I have not always been a supporter . . . Speaking of campaign finance reform. He says: When I came to the Senate in 1989, this was not a very important issue. Indeed, at one point, I joined the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, to defeat campaign finance reform. Then 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 do not 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 we know it may not be, and the people believe the system is corrupt. Equally important to me, I discovered in 1996, 1997, and 1998 that there are men and women who would love to serve. They say: I can't be competitive; I can't possibly raise the money necessary to go on television; Oh, and by the way, my reputation could get damaged as a consequence of what could be said on television against me. He went on to say: I am persuaded this law needs to be changed for the good of the Republic, for the good of democracy. I hope Members, such as myself, who are enthusiastic about changing that law will take the advice of the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona to heart because we may have to vote against things we prefer in order to make certain we get something that not only we want but the Nation desperately needs. Madam President, it is impossible for me to elaborate on that kind of comment from my esteemed colleague and American hero, Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to explain to the Senator from Kentucky. It is basically the soft money amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Table.

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

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, in the interest of time, I would be glad to move to table the Reid amendment, which does not require unanimous consent, and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. During consideration of the pending, underlying legislation, would such an amendment be in order?

Mr. McCAIN. If such an amendment were adopted, and it contained a new rules change, how many votes would be required to invoke cloture?

Mr. McCAIN. I still have the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. No. I asked if the Senator would yield. I did not ask if the Senator would yield for a question.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator would allow----

Mr. McCAIN. I cannot ask you a question. I can only answer. You can yield the floor, and I will be glad to yield the floor back.

Mr. McCAIN. I will try to frame it as a question. Is the Senator aware that up until half an hour ago we were not allowed to see the amendment nor have we been able to see your proposed unanimous consent request--we were not allowed to look at it. Now we have a chance to look at it. We would be glad to look at it, but I still say, if the Senator from Kentucky wants to really move forward, then we go into a quorum call, we sit down, as has been my habit in 13 years on the floor here, and see if we cannot work out an agreement. If we cannot, then we will not. But that is the way we usually do it. I want to assure the Senator from Kentucky that, from my viewpoint, as long as we are protected, as long as we can make sure this is a straightforward process, then I am eager for additional amendments to be considered when debate on this particular amendment has been consumed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.