John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Nevada, it is a compelling argument for reform. I have a lot of friends who live in your State. In all due respect to the quality of the commercials that were run during that campaign, I heard many friends of mine who live in Nevada say they had enough, considering they were inundated--for how long? The campaign went on for a year and a half?

Mr. McCAIN. Could I ask my friend, some of the estimates I heard on the independent campaign expenditures were as high as the $20 million spent by both you and your opponent?

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Nevada, I am from a neighboring State and I paid a lot of attention to that race. It was a very close and hard-fought race--I mean this in all due respect--in what is a relatively small State, population-wise, although dynamically growing. I think percentage-wise, it is the fastest growing State in America. I believe--I may be wrong--it was about $10 million each.

Mr. McCAIN. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the letter is from Mr. Robert Evans, of the American Bar Association: I write on behalf of the American Bar Association to urge you to support reform that will strengthen the electoral process; reduce the influence of special interests; allow members and candidates to devote more time to substantive issues. . . . They support full disclosure, reasonable contribution limits, adjusted and indexed for inflation. The ABA opposes campaigns of soft money, and also public participation of legal permanent residents. Also, the League of Women Voters, referred to earlier by the Senator from Kentucky, says that Senator McConnell's statement on the floor suggested the League of Women Voters is in support of his position. On the contrary. The League's position is opposite that of Senator McConnell, who in their words ``opposes any meaningful campaign finance reform.'' They support comprehensive campaign finance reform. In fairness, the League of Women Voters thinks the Senator from Wisconsin and I are now too weak in our approach. To assume somehow that as one may have in listening to the statement of the Senator from Kentucky this morning that the League of Women Voters was in agreement with this position is not the fact as demonstrated in this letter.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator think if he had a more pleasing personality and shaved his beard he would get a more positive response?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Did the Senator dare to use the word ``corruption''?

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator familiar with the tax bill of $792 billion that passed through the Senate, and then there was going to be a tidal wave of public opinion that would force the President of the United States to sign it? Does the Senator remember there were a number of special tax breaks in that bill--one for a corporation that turns chicken litter into energy and another for oil and gas, and even for people who make tackle boxes? Does the Senator remember that those tax breaks would take effect immediately upon the signature of the President of the United States and that there were provisions to repeal the marriage penalty and others that would help average working Americans who don't make big political contributions, yet those tax breaks would not kick in until well into the next century? Is the Senator familiar with those provisions of the tax bill, and, if so, what conclusions does he draw?

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator respond to an additional question?

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Minnesota, in his opening statement, used the word ``systemic corruption'' associated with the present campaign finance system. Since I have been challenged on comments such as that, would the Senator mind defining what he is saying there?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for his eloquent answer. Secondly, would the Senator be willing to name names as to examples of that corruption?

Mr. McCAIN. It is not just the fact that there is the appearance of corruption. I think most Americans believe that there was actual corruption in that case and the Indian case. What we are fighting against here in the soft money is not only against allegations but also reality. Those examples the Senator from Utah pointed out are how terrible the situation can become. When a poor, impoverished Indian tribe is asked to give money in order to have their voice heard in Washington, I hope that would compel the Senator from Kentucky to rethink his position concerning soft money.

Mr. McCAIN. As far as I know, it is not against the law.

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware that, at least in the words of the Senator from Utah, it isn't just the appearance of corruption. The Senator from Utah pointed out three cases--I can recall two: Mr. Tamraz and the Indians. Mr. Tamraz said: Next time I am going to pay $600,000--where, at least if I understood the comments of the Senator from Utah, there were actual acts of corruption.

Mr. McCAIN. Could I just----

Mr. McCAIN. I will repeat again. I believe that a system of unlimited soft money in the American political process has impaired our integrity because we are now held in such low esteem by Americans because they believe we no longer respond to their hopes and dreams and aspirations.

Mr. McCAIN. I repeat again, the definition of ``corruption'' from Webster's dictionary: The impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle. I repeat again, we have impaired our integrity when we convey to the American people the impression that soft money distorts the legislative process, such as it did, in my view, in the 1996 Telecommunications Deregulation Act, with the protection of special interests, which caused increases in cable rates, phone rates, and led to mergers rather than competition in the industry. So this system has impaired our integrity. That does not mean bribery laws were broken necessarily. They may have been. I don't know. But I do know that our integrity has been impaired. And whether that is the view of the Senator from Kentucky or the view of the Senator from Utah or my view, it is the view of the American people. That is substantiated by polling data and personal experience.

Mr. McCAIN. May I answer?

Mr. McCAIN. Is the Senator aware this is a straw man because what I said, and I repeat for about the tenth time: Special interests and unlimited contributions were a key ingredient-- And then I listed a whole bunch. I have listed for 10 years on my web site unauthorized appropriations to which I have taken great offense. I have argued that they are wrong. I will continue to argue they are wrong, and if the Senator from Utah wants to somehow interpret the fact that soft money is a key element or is not a key element in his particular appropriation, that is fine. I am telling the Senator from Utah that I listed a lot of projects. Some fall into the category of unauthorized appropriations. I have said it now about five times, and I hope we can move forward. We only have 5 days of debate. I hope we can move forward with various amendments and allow other Members to make statements; otherwise, we rapidly approach the appearance of a filibuster which was not the agreement that Senator Feingold and I entered into with the majority leader when we began. There are Senators who have been waiting to give statements. There are Senators who have been waiting to give speeches. And we have massaged this issue rather significantly. Again, I ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he agrees with me, the way we usually function in the consideration of legislation is proponents of the legislation have an amendment and then opponents have an opportunity to propose an amendment. We had understood that would be the way we would proceed. Is that the perception of the Senator from Wisconsin of this agreement, which was really a gentleman's agreement?

Mr. McCAIN. I know the Senator is aware, but for clarification, on my web site I state the general proposition that soft money creates pork barrel spending. I then identify a recent appropriations bill as an example of how big the problem of pork barrel spending is. Nowhere should it be interpreted that every single one of those pork barrel projects are as a result of soft money. But they are a result of a violation of criteria that I have held for 10 years, which the Senator from Utah seems to think is OK, which bypasses the authorizing process. I am sure the Senator from Wisconsin appreciates it. Who is corrupted by this system? All of us are corrupted by it because money buys access and access is influence. The object is not to get into a vendetta about who is corrupted and who is not because the system is what needs to be fixed. We would never fix the system if I got into a business of finger pointing, name calling. For 10 years I have identified pork barrel spending which violates a process and criteria set up, not by me, but by the Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens For a Sound Economy, National Taxpayers Union, and other objective and respected watchdog organizations. Finally, I would say I hope the Senator from Wisconsin will ask the Senator--I am ready to accept his amendment by voice vote. I hope the Senator from Kentucky appreciates the fact that we entered into this agreement and did not hold up the Senate so we could have an amending process going back and forth on both sides of this issue. I hope that is what will be adhered to. I also would say it is customary in this body to recognize one Member on this side of the aisle and another Member on the other side of the aisle, with the exception of the distinguished majority leader and Democrat leader. So I hope we could get some comity in this process, as we had intended to do at the beginning as part of the agreement. I ask my friend from Wisconsin if he agrees with that?

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

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is incorrect. Will the Senator yield? The Senator is incorrect. He is incorrect in his statement. The statement says ``a key ingredient''--the ``key ingredient.'' It doesn't say that it is the cause of it. So I hope the Senator will at least quote my web site accurately.