John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I have responded. It is time to move on. If the Senator from Kentucky has an amendment concerning this issue, I will be glad to address it. I have responded, and I will continue to respond. I am trying to change a system that corrupts all of us. I believe there is ample evidence, as I have cited, of this system's pernicious effect, in my view, and in the view of most objective observers. I am not going to let this debate, in the few days we have, get bogged down on this issue. It is time we move on with the amending process. I have responded. I have said to the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Kentucky that I am fighting a system here. I will continue to fight that system, with its pernicious effects on the American people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. McCAIN. I would like the floor to respond.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to respond to the Senator from Utah. In September 19, 1997, I wrote a letter to the Senator from Utah. I never received an answer. A year later, I came to the Senator from Utah and handed him a copy of the letter. The Senator from Utah never answered. Let me read parts from the letter to the Senator from Utah to remind him because he never answered the letter: September 19, 1997, Honorable Robert F. Bennett, United States Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Bob: I am writing about the recent efforts to add funds to appropriations measure for the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City. By my count, the Senate has approved earmarks in three of the appropriations bills, earmarking $14.8 million for next year alone to fund various activities related to planning and preparation for the Utah Olympics. These funds were not included in the FY 1998 budget request, and many were not considered during the Appropriations Committee's review of the bills. Bob, you are aware of my long history of opposing location- specific earmarks of taxpayer dollars. We discussed several of these amendments when they were offered, and I explained why I was particularly opposed to earmarking funds for the Olympics. I have to say that I am disappointed with the approach being taken to earmark funding for the Utah Olympics. In light of the Republicans' long-fought efforts to balance the budget and provide relief to American taxpayers, and with all of the concerns about lack of federal resources to ensure that our children and less fortunate citizens are not unduly harmed as we reduce government spending, I am surprised that you would earmark millions of dollars for a sporting event. And I fear this is just the beginning-- And those fears in 1997 were well justified. --if the experience of the Atlanta Olympics is any indication. Of course, I understand your desire, and that of your constituents, to ensure that transportation, security, communications, and other support for the 2002 Olympics is completed in an efficient and cost-effective manner. However, I find it disturbing that adding money for the Olympics would be your highest priority, at least according to your staff. Randomly adding millions of dollars to the appropriations bills, without benefit of appropriate Administration or Congressional review, is not the way business is done in the Senate, nor is it an appropriate way to ensure we spend the taxpayers' dollars wisely. That is why I have opposed unauthorized and location-specific earmarks in an appropriations bill, whether for the Olympics or for any other defense or domestic expenditure. If this process, to which I am unalterably opposed, continues and these funds do not go through the normal authorizing and appropriating process, then I will have to use whatever parliamentary means are available to me to prevent further unauthorized expenditures of taxpayer dollars, for whatever purposes. Again, Bob, I recognize that proper preparation for the Olympics is vital to the success of the games. It seems to me, though, that the best course of action would be to require the U.S. Olympic Committee, in coordination with the Administration and Congress, to prepare and submit a comprehensive plan detailing, in particular, the funding anticipated to be required from the taxpayers for this event. As you may know, the Commerce Committee, which I chair, has jurisdiction over the activities of the U.S. Olympic Committee. I am willing to work with you, the Administration, and the Olympic Committee to devise such a plan, and I will hold hearings in the Committee as expeditiously as possible to review the plan and provide appropriate authorization for appropriations in support of an approved plan. Please call me so that we can start work immediately to establish some predictability and rationality in the process of preparing for Olympics events in our country. Sincerely, John McCain. That was written to you in September of 1997, a little over 2 years ago. Since I received no response whatsoever, a year later I handed you a copy of this letter asking for a response. I know how busy you are, but I never got an answer. But what I did see was exactly what I was warning about in 1997; that is, these unauthorized, unappropriated moneys going into an enterprise--which since then we have found out has maybe had some other problems associated with it, which my committee is going to have hearings about. So my answer to you, sir, is that even in light of the fact that I wrote you a letter and then personally handed you a copy and beseeched you to go through the normal process of authorization and appropriation as prescribed by the rules of the Congress of the United States, you refused to do so; therefore, I identified it on my web site as not meeting the criteria that I mentioned before. Now, I will repeat again what Elizabeth Drew wrote in her book that this process of money has done great damage to all of us and has had a pernicious and corrupting effect on the process. But for you to say that this clearly unauthorized, unacceptable procedure, at least as far as my taxpayers are concerned, because the people of Arizona would at least like to have a hearing before their tax dollars go to the State of Utah--this is, in my view, something that we have to obviously fix. I do not know if we will ever stop this practice of earmarking and pork barreling, but I will never stop resisting it. And I will never stop trying to see that the taxpayers of America receive an open and fair hearing before--I have forgotten. We will total it up for the Record later on how much you stuffed into the appropriations bills without a single hearing. We will total it up. In fact, I think it was--oh, yes, the GAO estimates that the Federal funding and support plan for the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics in Salt Lake City totals more than $1.9 billion in Federal funding. I am on the oversight committee. We have never had a hearing on that oversight because it has never been requested. It has been stuffed into an appropriations bill, sometimes even in a conference report. I would think that the Senator from Utah might think that is not a good way to do business in the Congress of the United States, and it then gives rise--then gives rise--to the suspicion that young Americans have about the way we do business and whether they are well represented. I go to schools in Arizona. I say to the schoolchildren, Do you know that $1.9 billion of your money and your parents' money is going to support the 2002 Olympics and Paralympics, without a hearing, without a decision as to whether it is needed or not, without any kind of scrutiny; that there is a Senator who goes through the appropriations process, puts it in an appropriations bill, and it is a line item that we read about? Then maybe you can understand a little better why there is this suspicion, I would say to the Senator from Utah. In fact, I would hope the Senator from Utah would, as a result of this dialogue, understand why people to whom I talk all over America are so upset about the way we are doing business here in Washington.

Mr. McCAIN. No, that is not right. It is a system. It is a system that has violated the process and has therefore caused the American people to lose confidence and trust in the Government.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Kentucky will not accept that answer, there is no point in me continuing to answer. I have already answered.

Mr. McCAIN. First of all, I have already responded to the Senator that I will not get into people's names. I will, indeed, repeat, again, to the Senator from the web site from which he is quoting. Here it is: For 10 years, Senator McCain has reviewed the annual appropriations bills to determine whether they contain items that are low priority, unnecessary, or wasteful spending. In this process, he has used five objective criteria. And I go on to list them. That is why----

Mr. McCAIN. I will be glad to yield for question.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like to finish. That would defeat the purpose because, as I have said many times before, this system makes good people do bad things. It makes good people do bad things. That is to go around the process which is prescribed for the Senate--the Congress of the United States--to operate under. When I go to San Diego and I meet enlisted people who are on active duty who are required to stand in line for food, for charity, and we are spending money on projects and programs that are unwarranted, unnecessary, and unauthorized, I will tell my friend from Kentucky, I get angry. I do not know much about the background of the Senator from Kentucky or his priorities, but I have mine. One is that I am not going to stand by without getting very upset when young Americans who are serving this country are on food stamps while we are wasting $6.4 billion in pork barrel projects. All I can say to the Senator from Kentucky, if he wants to engage in this kind of debate, I think it will be a waste of our 5 days of time. But I believe, as Elizabeth Drew has said, this system is wrong, it needs to be fixed, and the influence of special interests has a pernicious effect on the legislative process. The Senator from Kentucky is entitled to his view that he does not agree with that, or obviously the Senator from Utah. That is my considered opinion. But I will state to the Senator from Kentucky now, I am not in the business of identifying individuals or attacking individuals. I am attacking a system. I am attacking a system that has to be fixed and that has caused 69 percent of young Americans between 18 and 35 to say they are disconnected from their Government, that caused in the 1998 election the lowest voter turnout in history of 18- to 26-year-olds. Those 18- to 26-year-olds were asked: Why didn't you vote? And they said they believe we do not represent them anymore, because they have lost confidence. They say they will not run for public office, that they believe we are corrupt. It is the appearance of corruption that is causing young Americans to divorce themselves from the political process, refuse to run for public office, and there is poll after poll and data that will so reflect.

Mr. McCAIN. I would not, I say to the Senator from Kentucky. He is entitled to his views, his opinions, and his conclusions. I am entitled to mine.

Mr. McCAIN. Recently there was a book written by Elizabeth Drew called ``The Corruption of American Politics.'' I commend it to the reading of the Senator from Kentucky. In chapter 4 titled ``The Money Culture,'' she says: Indisputably, the greatest change in Washington over the past twenty-five years--in its culture, in the way it does business, and the ever-burgeoning amount of business transactions that go on here--has been in the preoccupation with money. Striving for and obtaining money has become the predominant activity--and not just in electoral politics--and its effects are pernicious. The culture of money dominates Washington as never before; money now rivals or even exceeds power as the preeminent goal. It affects the issues raised and their outcome; it has changed employment patterns in Washington; it has transformed politics; and it has subverted values. It has led good people to do things that are morally questionable, if not reprehensible. It has cut a deep gash, if not inflicted a mortal wound, in the concept of public service. That is basically what Elizabeth Drew, who has been around this town for many years, said in her book. She states: Private interests have tried to influence legislative and administrative outcomes through the use of money for a long time. The great Daniel Webster was on retainer from the Bank of the United States and at the same time was one of its greatest defenders in the Congress. But never before in the modern age has political money played the pervasive role that it does now. By comparison, the Watergate period seems almost quaint. There was a time when people came to Washington out of a spirit of public service and idealism. Engendering this spirit was one of John F. Kennedy's most important contributions. Then Richard Nixon, picking up from George Wallace, and then Ronald Reagan, in particular, derided ``federal bureaucrats.'' The spirit of public service was stepped on, but not entirely extinguished. But more than ever, Washington has become a place where people come or remain in order to benefit financially from their government service. (A similar thing could be said of journalists--and nonjournalists fresh out of government service--who package themselves as writers, television performers, and highly paid speakers at conventions.) I have for many years had a set of criteria indicating that which I have said we cannot, should not, abide. Perhaps a lot of it is because I am a member of authorizing committees. I took the floor here just a couple of hours ago to talk about $6.4 billion that was added to the Defense appropriations bill. I will have to get the statement again to refresh myself with the specific numbers, but $92 million was for military construction projects which had not been authorized--no hearing, nothing whatsoever that had to do with the authorizing followed by the appropriating process. I worked with a number of organizations: Citizens Against Government Waste, Citizens For A Sound Economy, and other organizations in Washington that are watchdog organizations. We developed a set of criteria. Those criteria have to do with: Whether it was requested in the President's budget, whether there was an authorization, whether there was a hearing, et cetera. There are a number. They are on their way over, the criteria I have used for many years. Because when you bypass the authorizing and appropriating process, you obviously do not, No. 1, abide by the prescribed way we are supposed to do business around here; but then it opens up to improper procedures. We have 12,000 enlisted families on food stamps. Yet we will spend $92 million, and other funds, on programs that the Secretary of Defense says specifically are not of the priority on which to be spending money: I have said for 10 years I have reviewed annual appropriations bills to determine whether they contain items that are low priority, unnecessary, or wasteful spending. In this process I have used five objective criteria to identify programs and projects that have not been appropriately reviewed in the normal merit-based prioritization process. These criteria are: Unauthorized appropriations, unrequested locality-specific earmarks, research-facility- specific earmarks, and other earmarks that would circumvent the formal competitive award process, budget add-ons that would be subject to a budget point of order, transfer or disposal of Federal property or items under terms that circumvent existing law, and new items that were added in conference that were never considered in either bill in either House. The web site goes on to say: Senator McCain's criteria are not intended to reflect a judgment on the merits of an item. They are designed to identify projects that have not been considered in an appropriate merit-based prioritization process. I do not intend to let this debate, which is about banning soft money, get into some kind of personal discussion here. I simply will not do it, except to say that Elizabeth Drew has it right. Many other people who judge this town have it right. The fact is, there is a pernicious effect of money on the legislative process. I refuse to, and would not in any way, say that any individual or person is guilty of corruption in a specific way, nor identify them, because that would defeat--

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator yield the floor?

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we now begin debate again on an issue which is important to the American people. Before I begin my opening statement, it is my understanding that the Senator from Kentucky will manage on his side and I will manage on this side, along with the Senator from Wisconsin; is that correct?

Mr. McCAIN. In support or opposition?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is customary with a piece of legislation when the sponsors of the bill are on the floor they manage the conduct of the legislation and the opposition manages the other. If the Senator from Nevada has other desires, I guess we can worry about it later on, but that is the way it has been in this debate. Before I begin my remarks, I recognize a very unusual, incredible and great American, a true patriot, an incredible woman who is 89 years of age, named Doris Haddock. Doris, known to all of us, and now millions of Americans, as ``Granny D,'' began her walk months ago, beginning in the State of California. She has now arrived in the State of Tennessee. I believe she represents all that is good in America. She, at the age of 89, has taken up this struggle to clean up American politics. We are honored by her presence. She is in the gallery today, and we thank her for her commitment to open, honest government of which the American people can be proud. So, ``Granny D,'' you exceed any small, modest contributions those of us who have labored in the vineyards of reform have made to this Earth. We are grateful for you. We ask you not to give up this struggle because we know that we will prevail. Mr. President, on December 6, 1904, Theodore Roosevelt, addressing the people of the United States, said: The power of the government to protect the integrity of the elections of its own officials is inherent and has been recognized and affirmed by repeated declarations of the Supreme Court. There is no enemy of free government more dangerous and none so insidious as the corruption of the electorate. No one defends or excuses corruption, and it would seem to follow that none would oppose vigorous measures to eradicate it. The details of such law may be safely left to the wise discretion of the Congress. So said President Theodore Roosevelt in his fourth annual message delivered from the White House on December 6, 1904. On August 31, 1910, Theodore Roosevelt said: 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. That is one of our tasks today. And he goes on. Some things obviously never change, such as the cycles of American politics. In 1907, thanks to the efforts of Theodore Roosevelt, a law was passed in Congress that banned corporate contributions to American political campaigns. I do not pretend to be as eloquent as Theodore Roosevelt was in that campaign against the influences of special interests on American politics. Suffice it to say, he succeeded. He succeeded in getting through Congress a law, which still remains on the statutes, that outlaws corporate contributions to American political campaigns. In 1947, the Republican-controlled Congress of the United States outlawed union contributions to American political campaigns. And after the Watergate scandal of 1974, further limitations were placed on the influence of special interests in American political campaigns. It is now legal in America for a People's Liberation Army-owned corporation in China, with a subsidiary in the United States of America, to give unlimited amounts of money to an American political campaign. That is wrong. It is wrong and it needs to be fixed. The pending legislation is very simple. It does only two things: first, it bans Federal soft money and, second, it codifies the Beck decision. Soft money is the unlimited 6- and 7-figure contributions that now go into American political campaigns. In the past, my colleague from Wisconsin and I have offered comprehensive campaign finance legislation. That measure was widely debated and many on this side of the aisle expressed criticism of certain provisions in the bill. As a result, we have taken a new approach, a simpler approach. We only seek to ban soft money, those big checks of ten thousand, one hundred thousand, and even one million dollars that powerful special interests use like clubs to make their narrow voices heard so loudly in the great chamber, and to codify the Beck decision. We leave all other issues off the table and instead would hope such matters could be dealt with in the amending process. And as such I implore my colleagues to come down to the floor, debate and offer amendments, and let us move forward on this simple, common sense and urgently needed reform. I want to express my sincere hope that before this debate is over that we will have either passed this measure or will have come to agreement on how to move forward constructively on this very important subject. Before I go on, I want to assure the Senator from Kentucky that I respect his opposition. I neither question his motives nor his integrity. He is a man who is willing to stand up and fight for what he believes in. The conduct of the debate in previous years has been characterized by mutual respect for the ideas and proposals of either side. I know I speak for the Senator from Wisconsin. I think it is important we maintain this debate on that level. I know we will do so as we have in the past. Mr. President, will the banning of soft money clean up our elections completely? Of course not. But it is an important first step. Should more be done? Absolutely. For that reason, I hope we can engage in a constructive debate that addresses the concerns of senators from both parties who are sincerely interested in achieving genuine reform. We have an obligation--a duty--to at least close the most politically pernicious loophole in campaign finance law. Let me stress at the outset, before reform opponents falsely charge proponents with an assault on the first amendment, that this legislation does not ban political speech, it is in truth about saving it. I want to protect the hard earned $100 contribution given by the small town business owner or union machinist to his or her Congressman. I want to protect the contribution of the local supporter, the little guy. The hard earned contribution given to a candidate by a voter, with a firm handshake and an honest look right in the eye and the expectation of good government, not a special corporate tax loophole or million dollar IOU to a union boss. What this fight is all about is taking the $100,000 check out of American politics for good. It's about putting the little guy back in charge, and freeing our system from the corrupting power of the special interests bottomless wallet. It's about forcing our government to pay attention to the little guy, those people who actually cast votes to elect us, and not just to the richest in corporate America or the powerful union bosses. We are blessed to be Americans, not just in times of prosperity, but at all times. We are a part of something noble; a great experiment to prove to the world that democracy is not only the most effective form of government, but the only moral government. And, at least in years past, we felt more than lucky to be Americans. We felt proud. But, today , we confront a very serious challenge to our political system, as dangerous in its debasing effect on our democracy as war and depression have been in the past. And it will take the best efforts of every public-spirited American to defeat it. The threat that concerns me is the pervasive public cynicism that is debilitating our democracy. When the people come to believe that government is so corrupt that it no longer serves their ends, basic civil consensus will deteriorate as people seek substitutes for the unifying values of patriotism. A poll taken this July found that more than twice a many Americans-- 64 percent--feel disconnected from government as compared to those who feel connected to it. More than half of Americans--55 percent--refer to ``the government'' rather than ``our government.'' Mr. President, as elected officials, we should find this trend alarming. We are a prosperous country, but many Americans, particularly the young, can't see beyond the veil of their cynicism and indifference to imagine themselves as part of a cause greater than their self-interest. This cynicism in younger Americans is particularly acute. Among younger Americans--those 18-34--69 percent feel disconnected from the government with one in three of that 69 percent feeling ``very disconnected.'' This country has survived many difficult challenges: a civil war, world war, depression, the civil rights struggle, a cold war. All were just causes. They were good fights. They were patriotic challenges. We have a new patriotic challenge for a new century: declaring war on the cynicism that threatens our public institutions, our culture, and, ultimately, our private happiness. It is a great and just cause, worthy of our best service. It should not, and neither I nor my friend from Wisconsin will allow it to, be casually dismissed with parliamentary tactics. Those of us privileged to hold public office have ourselves to blame for the sickness in American public life today. It is we who have squandered the public trust. We who have, time and again, in full public view placed our personal and partisan interests before the national interest, earning the public's contempt for our poll-driven policies, our phony posturing, the lies we call spin and the damage control we substitute for progress. It is we who are the defenders of a campaign finance system that is nothing less than an elaborate influence peddling scheme in which both parties conspire to stay in office by selling the country to the highest bidder. All of us are tainted by this system, myself included. I do not make any claims of piety. I have personally experienced the pull from campaign staff alerting me to a call from a large donor. I do not believe that any of us privileged enough to serve in this body would ever automatically do the bidding of those who give. I do not believe that contributions are corrupting in that manner. But I do believe they buy access. I do believe they distort the system. And I do believe, as I noted, that all of us, including myself, have been affected by this system. The opponents of campaign finance reform will tell you the voters do not care. They are wrong. Most Americans care very much that it is now legal for a subsidiary of a corporation owned by the Chinese Army to give unlimited amounts of money to American political campaigns. Most Americans care very much when the Lincoln bedroom is rented out to the highest bidder. Most Americans care very much when impoverished Indian tribes must pay large sums of money to have their voice heard in Washington. If their outrage seems muted, it is only because they have resigned themselves to the sad conclusion that this cancer on the body politic is incurable. I think most Americans understand that soft money--the enormous sums of money given to both parties by just about every special interest in the country--corrupts both politics and government whether it comes from big business or from labor bosses and trial lawyers. It seizes the attention of elected officials who then neglect problems that directly affect the lives of every American. That is something about which each of us should care deeply. Americans care deeply about reforming our Tax Code, improving education, reducing the size of Government, about improving our national security, and many other pressing national issues. But, fundamental reform is not possible when soft money and special interests demand a higher return on their political investments. Most Americans believe we conspire to hold on to every political advantage we have, lest we jeopardize our incumbency by a single lost vote. Most Americans believe we would pay any price, bear any burden to ensure the success of our personal ambitions--no matter how injurious the effect might be to the national interest. And who can blame them when the wealthiest Americans and richest organized interests can make six figure donations to political parties and gain the special access to power such generosity confers on the donor. The special interests will tell you that the fight to limit soft money is an attack on the first amendment. They are wrong. They are entirely wrong. The courts have long held that Congress may constitutionally limit contributions to campaigns and political parties. In the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley versus Valeo the Justices affirmed Congress' right to uphold contribution limits in the name of preventing, and I quote, ``corruption and the appearance of corruption spawned by the real or imagined coercive influence of large financial contributions on candidates' positions and their actions.'' The Roger Tamrazes of the world, big tobacco, the labor unions, the trial lawyers, the corporate giants, and the endless number of special interests that grease their agenda with soft money know precisely what the court was saying. Stopping corruption and the appearance of corruption was why in 1907, under the leadership of Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, corporations were barred from giving directly to political campaigns. Labor unions were similarly bound in 1947. Both of these bans have survived all court challenges and remain the law of the land--which is why claims that corporate and labor soft money is constitutionally protected are so absurd. Stopping corruption and the appearance of corruption was why, in 1974, individual political action committee donations were limited. Should these amounts--and those limits on individual donors--be raised 25 years after they were enacted? Yes, they probably should. But that is reason for us not to engage in filibuster and obstruction and instead engage in constructive dialogue and the normal amendment process. Stopping corruption and the appearance of corruption is why we must now close the loophole that allows unlimited amounts of soft money to overflow political coffers. Without the big dollar ``quid'' of soft money in the electoral process, there can be no legislative ``pro quo'' that neglects the national interest in favor of big donors. That is precisely what the Supreme Court had in mind in Buckley versus Valeo. Some of my fellow Republicans have criticized my campaign finance reform proposals because they believe it leaves unaddressed the problem of union dues being used for political purposes against the wish of individual workers. I agree this is a problem that should be addressed, just as we should address the issue of corporate money being used for political purposes against the wish of stockholders. This legislation does seek to address that issue. First, as I have noted, the legislation codifies the Beck decision. And second, when we ban soft money, we are also banning union soft money. Let me emphasize this point. When we ban soft money, we are also banning union soft money spending which will have a dramatic effect on union influence in elections. Unions spend a great deal of soft money, most of it directed to elect Democrats and defeat Republicans. This bill will reduce that spending. I have advocated codifying the Supreme Court's landmark Beck decision in which the court affirmed the right of nonunion workers to bar union dues they are forced to pay from being used for political purposes and to have that money returned to them. The Clinton administration has issued regulations that emasculate this rule. I believe it should be codified and enforced. What could be more un-American, what could be more antithetical to the tenets of free political speech, than forcing workers to pay dues for election and political activities they oppose. The Beck decision should be codified, enforced, and even expanded. I would strongly support a commonsense expansion of Beck. And at the same time, we should find some mechanism to ensure that corporate contributions reflect the wishes of individual stockholders in a manner that mirrors what we do for unions. If we can come to an agreement regarding the consideration of campaign finance reform in a fair manner, I am confident we could do much more to address the problems associated with labor union involvement in the political process. If my colleagues believe more needs to be done, I would be pleased to entertain any legitimate ideas. However, to be clear, I will oppose any ideas that are meant merely to poison--or kill--any real possibility of enacting into law election reforms. The sponsors of this legislation claim no exclusive right to propose campaign finance reform. We have offered good, fair, necessary reform but certainly not a perfect remedy. We welcome good faith amendments intended to improve the legislation. But I beg my colleagues not to propose amendments designed to kill this bill by provoking a filibuster from one party or the other. If we cannot agree on every aspect of reform; if we have differences about what constitutes genuine reform, and we hold those differences honestly--so be it. Let us try to come to terms with those differences fairly. Let us find common ground and work together to adopt those basic reforms we can all agree on. That is what the sponsors of this legislation have attempted to do, and we welcome anyone's help to improve upon our proposal as long as that help is sincere and intended to reach the common goal of genuine campaign finance reform. In closing, I reiterate that I believe we can work together. I believe the majority of the Members of this body realize that reform is necessary. I think we now have an opportunity to amend, to debate, and to come together. I hope we can achieve that goal. In closing, I again thank my friend from the State of Wisconsin. My friend from the State of Wisconsin recently has felt a certain sense of loneliness because he has attempted to move this process forward in a fair, equitable, and reasonable fashion. The Senator from Wisconsin has shown his political courage. It has been a great honor and privilege for me to have the opportunity of working with him, and many others, in the cause of campaign reform. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes, I will be glad to.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, first of all, the Senator is incorrect. I did not accuse him of being corrupt. No apology or withdrawal is warranted. Secondly, the Senator engaged in a continuous practice of violating the rules of the Senate, which require authorization and then appropriation, for several years now. I hope that the Senator, as a product of this debate, will seek an authorization for the $1.9 billion which the GAO has identified as going to the Olympics. The Olympics have had a lot of problems in addition to that. I hope the Senator will address those as well. The third point is, indeed, banks and securities gave $14 million in soft money. They got, in the last tax cut, $38 billion in tax breaks. Restaurants and hotels gave $3 million in soft money; they got $14 billion in tax breaks. The oil and gas industry gave $19 million in soft money; they got $5 billion in tax breaks. Between 1991 and 1997, the chemical, iron, and steel manufacturing industries gave $22.2 million in soft money to the political parties. The 1999 tax bill included a provision to eliminate the alternative minimum tax, which will allow these industries to completely eliminate their tax liability in any one year. If the bill had not been vetoed, this single change would have saved these industries $7.9 billion over an 8-year period or almost $1 billion a year. Over the last decade, the oil industry has given $22 million in soft money donations to the political parties. What did they get? The 1999 tax bill included a provision to remove the current limit of 35 percent on Federal tax credits that oil companies can take for taxes they pay to foreign countries. If the bill had not been vetoed, the provision would have allowed oil companies to take much larger credits against their tax liability, saving them $800 million a year; return on investment, 3,600 percent. Between 1995 and 1998, the restaurant and hotel industry gave $4.3 million in soft money to the political parties. The 1999 tax bill included a provision to increase tax deductibility of business meals to 60 percent, although the industry wanted 100 percent. If the bill had not been vetoed, this provision reviving the three-martini power lunch would have cost taxpayers $4 billion over the next 10 years. The list goes on and on, I say to the Senator from Utah. Now, the specific language says in the appropriations bill: Special interests unlimited campaign contributions were a key ingredient in the pork stew that is choking the American people. They were a key ingredient in all of these that I described. Perhaps they were not in the case of the Senator from Utah. Perhaps the Senator from Utah just decided to violate the rules of the Senate, and he is free to do that, although I will do everything in my power to see that this $1.9 billion is restrained. Now, I finally want to mention an incident. I was in the Republican caucus when a certain Senator stood up and said it was OK for you not to vote against the tobacco bill because the tobacco companies will run ads in our favor. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Does the Senator yield the floor?

Mr. McCAIN

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

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Defense authorization bill for the fiscal year that began earlier this month. I would have liked to have been able to similarly support the Defense appropriations bill. Unfortunately, the unconscionable and noncredible budgeting procedures that are used in this bill are too pervasive, the level of wasteful spending of taxpayer dollars is too irresponsible for me to acquiesce in passage of this legislation. I look at this bill that is larded with earmarks and set-asides for powerful defense contractors, influential local groups and officials, and with other parochial interests. One can understand the distrust with which the average citizen views the Federal government. The use of gimmicks and budgetary subterfuge simply deepens the gulf that exists between those of us who toil within the confines of the Beltway, and Americans across the Nation who see large portions of their paychecks diverted by Congress for purposes they often do not support. What kind of message are we sending American business men and women, especially the small businesses most affected by telling the Department of Defense to purposely delay paying its bills? When the Department of Defense fails to pay contractors on time, those contractors often have to tell their suppliers, subcontractors, and employees that they will have to wait for their check. The trickle-down effect is felt most by the employees and their families whose budgets often can't absorb a delay of a week in getting a paycheck, much less the 29-day delay mandated by this bill. This provision simply pushes off until the next fiscal year the bills that come due in the last month of this fiscal year. Does anyone in this body believe that it will be any easier next year to live within the budget caps? It will be more difficult because, by approving this gimmick, we are spending $2 billion of next year's available funding. In fact, we already pushed another $6 billion into the next fiscal year by ``forward funding'' programs in the Labor-HHS Appropriations bill. In total, we will have already spent $8 billion out of next year's budget cap before taking up a single fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill. And how can we explain the categorization of $2.7 billion for normal, predictable operations, training, and maintenance funding as ``emergency'' spending? Obviously, ongoing operations around the world cost money, as does necessary training as well as maintaining the admittedly bloated infrastructure of the Department of Defense. None of this should come as a surprise to the appropriators, and thus, in my view, cannot be justified as ``emergency'' spending, other than as a clear manifestation of an effort to evade budget caps. This $7.2 billion will come straight out of the budget surplus that the Congress promised just a few months ago to return to the American taxpayers. Together with the ever-increasing $8.7 billion in ``emergency'' farm aid--some of which is admittedly justifiable--we will have already spent the entire non-Social Security surplus, and even a few billion of the Social Security Trust Fund. How can we vote-- not once but four times--to put a ``lockbox'' on the Social Security surplus and then turn right around and spend it without blinking an eye? At the same time, we are funding ships and aircraft and research programs that were not requested by the military, and in fact do not even appear on the ever-expanding Unfunded Requirements Lists, the integrity of which have been thoroughly undermined by pressures from this body. Mr. President, this bill includes $6.4 billion in low-priority, wasteful spending not subject to the kind of deliberative, competitive process that we should demand of all items in spending bills. Six billion dollars--more than ever before in any defense bill in the 13 years I have been in this body. Argue all you want about the merits of individual programs that were added at the request of interested Members. At the end of the day, there is over $6 billion worth of pork in a defense spending bill at the same time we are struggling with myriad readiness and modernization problems. No credible budget process can withstand such abuse indefinitely and still retain the level of legitimacy needed to properly represent the interests of the Nation as a whole. The ingenuity of the appropriators never ceases to amaze me. In this defense bill, we are spending money on unrequested research and development projects like the $3 million for advanced food service technology and on activities totally unrelated to national defense, such as the $8 million in the budget for Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Resource Preservation. These items are representative of the bulk of the pork-barrel spending that is inserted into spending bills for parochial reasons: hundreds of small items or activities totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Combine them with the big-ticket items in the bill--like the 11 Blackhawk helicopters at a cost of over $100 million; the $375 million in long-lead funding for another amphibious assault ship; and the $275 million for F-15 aircraft above the $263 million in the budget request--and you have a major investment in special interest goodwill at the expense of broader national security considerations. Two of these programs, the amphibious assault ship and the Blackhawk helicopters, are specifically mentioned in the Secretary of Defense's letter to the chairmen of the Senate and House Appropriations Committees as diverting funds from ``Much higher priority needs * * *'' How long are we going to continue to acquiesce in the forced acquisition of security locks just because they are manufactured in the state that was represented by a very powerful former member of this body? Making a bad situation worse, we have extended the requirement that one particular company's product be purchased for government-owned facilities to also include the contractors that serve them, and earmarked another $10 million for that purpose. What's next? Are we going to mandate that these locks be used for the bicycles of children of defense contractors? Another distasteful budget sleight of hand was the addition of 15 military construction projects totaling $92 million that were neither requested nor authorized. The Appropriations Conference took care of that, however. These projects are both authorized and fully funded in the Conference Report, calling into question the relevance of the defense authorizing committees in the House of Representatives and the Senate. As someone who is concerned that the Navy, by design, will lack the means of supporting ground forces ashore with high-volume, high-impact naval gunfire for at least another 10 years, I am more than a little taken aback that the California delegation has placed a higher priority on accumulating tourist dollars than on preserving one of the last two battleships in the fleet. The $3 million earmarked for relocating the U.S.S. Iowa represents a particularly pernicious episode of giving higher priority to bringing home the bacon than to national security interests. Simplistic platitudes regarding the age of these ships aside, no one can deny that they continue to represent one of the most capable non-nuclear platforms in the arsenal. But, yes, they do make fine museums. Also discouraging is the growing use of domestic source restrictions on the acquisition of defense items. The Defense Appropriations Conference Report is replete with so-called ``Buy American'' restrictions, every one of which serves solely to protect businesses from competition. The use of protectionist legislation to insulate domestic industry from competition not only deprives the American consumer of the best product at the lowest price, it deprives the American taxpayer of the best value for his or her tax dollar. It undermines alliance relations while we are encouraging friendly countries to ``buy American.'' As Secretary Cohen stated, such restrictions ``undermine DoD's ability to procure the best systems at the least cost and to advance highly beneficial armaments cooperation with our allies.'' Mr. President, our military personnel will not fail to notice that, while we are spending inordinate amounts of money on programs and activities not requested by the armed forces, we rejected a proposal to get 12,000 military families off food stamps. That is not a message with which I wish to be associated. This bill appropriates $2.5 million, at the insistence of the opposition of the House, not one penny to get the children of military personnel currently on food stamps off of them. The cost of the provision I sponsored in the defense authorization bill was $6 million per year to permanently remove 10,000 military families from the food stamp rolls. Yet those who fought hard to defeat that measure have no problem finding hundreds of millions of dollars to take care of businesses important to their districts and campaigns. This conference report represents everything those of us in the majority were supposed to be against. We weren't supposed to be the party that, when it came to power, would abuse the Congressional power of the purse because we couldn't restrain ourselves from bowing to the special interests that ask us to spend billions of dollars on projects that benefit them, not the nation as a whole. We were supposed to be the pro-defense party, the party that gave highest priority to ensuring our national security and the readiness of our Armed Forces. We weren't supposed to be the party that wastes $6.4 billion on low-priority, wasteful, and unnecessary spending of scarce defense resources. Our Armed Forces are the best in the world, but there is much that must be done to complete their restructuring, retraining, and re- equipping to meet the challenges of the future. I support a larger defense budget but I know that, if we eliminate pork-barrel spending from the defense budget, we can modernize our military without adding to the overall budget. Every year, Congress earmarks about $4 to 6 billion for wasteful, unnecessary, and low-priority projects that do little or nothing to support our military. Because Congress refuses to allow unneeded bases to be closed, the Pentagon wastes another $7 billion per year to maintain this excess infrastructure. If we privatized or consolidated support and depot maintenance activities, we could save $2 billion every year. And if we eliminated the anti- competitive ``Buy America'' provisions from law, we could save another $5.5 billion every year on defense contracts. Altogether, these common- sense proposals would free up over $20 billion every year in the defense budget that could be used to provide adequate pay and ensure appropriate quality of life for our military personnel and their families; pay for needed training and modern equipment for our forces; and pay for other high-priority defense needs, like an effective national missile defense system. Instead, the Congress continues to squander scarce defense dollars, while nearly 12,000 of the men and women who protect our nation's security, and their families, must subsist on food stamps. It is a national disgrace. Moral indignation serves little practical purpose in the Halls of Congress. In the end, we are what we are: politicians more concerned with parochial matters than with broader considerations of national security and fiscal responsibility. I do not like voting against the bill that funds the Department of Defense, not while we have pilots patrolling the skies over Iraq and troops enforcing the peace on the Korean peninsula and in such places as Bosnia, Kosovo and even East Timor. However, I cannot support this defense bill. It is so full of wasteful spending and smoke and mirrors gimmickry that what good lies within is overwhelmed by the bad. It wastes billions of dollars on unnecessary programs, while revitalizing discredited budgeting practices. Those of us in the majority correctly rejected the Administration's ill-considered attempt to incrementally fund military construction projects--but now we are proceeding to institutionalize budgeting practices that warrant even greater contempt. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. Mr. President, the list of add-ons, increases, and earmarks that total $6.4 billion, can be found on my web site. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. McCAIN. I understand under the unanimous-consent agreement I have 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator repeat the unanimous consent request?

Mr. McCAIN. I don't object.