[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 39 (Thursday, March 22, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2690-S2700]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001--Continued


                     Amendment No. 137, As Modified

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, after consultation with the managers of 
the bill and their staffs, we have agreed to a modified amendment 
providing additional disclosure provisions to the bill. I ask unanimous 
consent to modify my amendment and send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 38, after line 3, add the following:

               TITLE V--ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. INTERNET ACCESS TO RECORDS.

       Section 304(a)(11)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434(a)(11)(B)) is amended to read as 
     follows:
       ``(B) The Commission shall make a designation, statement, 
     report, or notification that is filed with the Commission 
     under this Act available for inspection by the public in the 
     offices of the Commission and accessible to the public on the 
     Internet not later than 48 hours (24 hours in the case of a 
     designation, statement, report, or notification filed 
     electronically) after receipt by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 502. MAINTENANCE OF WEBSITE OF ELECTION REPORTS.

       (a) In General.--The Federal Election Commission shall 
     maintain a central site on the Internet to make accessible to 
     the public all publicly available election-related reports 
     and information.
       (b) Election-related report.--In this section, the term 
     ``election-related report'' means any report, designation, or 
     statement required to be filed under the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971.
       (c) Coordination With Other Agencies.--Any federal 
     executive agency receiving election-related information which 
     that agency is required by law to publicly disclose shall 
     cooperate and coordinate with the Federal Election Commission 
     to make such report available through, or for posting on, the 
     site of the Federal Election Commission in a timely manner.

  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, this simply clarifies the amendment with 
appropriate legal language. I hate to use that reference because these 
are lawyers writing these provisions and experienced staff members 
maybe who aren't lawyers who help them. It does improve the clarity of 
the language, and it does ensure that election-related reports, those 
provided for in the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and 
amendments thereto, be provided as quickly and as completely on an 
Internet site as they can by the FEC.
  We think this will improve the disclosure of important information to 
the public about who is financing election campaigns, how they are 
being financed, where the money is coming from that the candidates are 
spending, that are required to be filed under current reports and the 
additional requirements that will be in effect after this legislation 
is agreed to.
  We believe this is an improvement. It supplements and complements the 
Snowe-Jeffords amendment which has

[[Page S2691]]

already been adopted by the Senate. We are hopeful the Senate will be 
able to accept this amendment as modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my friend and colleague from 
Mississippi. This is a good amendment. I appreciate the efforts of the 
staff who worked on this over the last half an hour or so.
  What I thought we might do, for those who want to understand this 
better, the Senator from Mississippi and I, along with my colleague 
from Kentucky, will have a colloquy that we will write up providing 
more specificity on exactly what changes we made here and the 
rationale. Basically, this is a coordinating effort. We are saying that 
under existing law, where there are requirements of public disclosure, 
there ought to be a way to coordinate that information so that it is 
more transparent, more readily available for those who seek that 
information. It does not expand the requirements in law beyond those 
that already exist for public disclosure.
  I thank my colleague from Mississippi and my colleague from Kentucky. 
I know of no reason that we need a recorded vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I, too, commend the Senator from 
Mississippi for his amendment and thank the various staffs who have 
been working on the clarifications. I am in support of the amendment 
and see no particular reason we should have a rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cochran. He has worked 
long and hard. It is a chance for us to take advantage of new 
technology so that literally 100 million Americans will be able to 
receive this information in a timely and informative fashion. This is 
in keeping with what all of us are attempting to do with campaign 
finance reform; that is, increase disclosure. We are working on an 
additional amendment to help on the disclosure issue. I thank Senator 
Cochran for his involvement. I thank Senator Dodd and Senator McConnell 
as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If all time is yielded back, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment, as modified.
  Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 137), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I believe the next amendment will come 
from the other side.
  Mr. DODD. Senator Wyden and Senator Collins have an amendment. I 
suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, today I rise in support of S. 27, the 
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001. I would like to take 
this opportunity to congratulate both Senators McCain and Feingold on 
developing such an excellent bipartisan bill and also to Senators Dodd 
and McConnell for bringing this bill to the Senate floor. I hope we can 
consider it expeditiously and pass it.
  I absolutely support this legislation. Even if it is a disadvantage 
for incumbents, I believe, we, the Senate, should be more worried about 
protecting democracy than protecting ourselves. I want a Congress that 
is unbought and unbossed. Our current campaign finance system 
contributes now to a culture of cynicism. It hurts our institutions, it 
hurts our government, and it is an attack on the integrity of our 
political process.
  When big business blocks agencies such as the Department of Labor 
from issuing important regulations on ergonomics, it adds to the 
culture of cynicism. I am not saying there is a quid pro quo, but what 
are the American people to think when some of the biggest campaign 
contributors were able to stop legislation that they oppose? Is it any 
wonder Americans don't trust their elected officials to act in the 
public interest; instead, they believe Congress is preoccupied with 
pandering to the special interest.
  That's why I support the following principles for campaign finance 
reform, regardless of what bill is before the Senate: I want to stop 
the flood of unregulated and unreported money in campaigns. I want to 
eliminate the undue influence of special interests in elections. I want 
to encourage strong grassroots participation. I would like to return 
power to where it belongs --with the people. This is why I support the 
McCain-Feingold bill.
  My support for this legislation is nothing new. During my entire 
political career, both in the House and the Senate, I have always 
supported campaign finance reform and other measures to open up our 
democratic process.
  The McCain-Feingold bill does several things. It bans soft money 
raised by national parties and by candidates for Federal office. It 
ends issue ads, which are really attack ads under the guise of 
``issues.'' I want to close the loophole which allows groups to skirt 
the current election laws - and this bill does just that. Finally, it 
clarifies what election activities non-profits can do on behalf of our 
candidates for Federal office.
  Why should we ban soft money? We hear ``soft'' money. Is it like a 
soft pretzel? What does ``soft'' mean? Is it soft currency? Really, it 
is a backdoor way to avoid the contribution limits that are now placed 
on candidates. Right now soft money is influencing our process almost 
as much as direct contributions to candidates do. Republicans and 
Democrats raised over $460 million in last year's soft money race or, 
soft money chase. Right now, Federal candidates spend so much time and 
so much attention raising money that we sometimes wonder if we have the 
time to do the work of our constituents. Candidates must constantly 
work to raise money.
  Special interest groups that contribute large sums have an influence 
on the political process. Let's face it, those people with the golden 
Rolodex who can approach a candidate and say, ``I'll be able to get 100 
people in the room and raise $1,000 for you,'' have influence. Those 
who then say, ``I'll get 10 people in the room and have 10,000 people 
give soft money,'' which is the unregulated but legal way of giving 
money to parties, funding the issue ads that are really attack ads, are 
also in high demand.

  This is why we need to pass McCain-Feingold because I think it deals 
with these issues and deals with them in a constructive way.
  Thirty years ago I decided to run for political office. I was a 
social worker who was strongly considering a doctorate in public 
health. I joined a wonderful group of people in Baltimore to fight a 
highway. The more we knocked on doors, the more we saw that the doors 
were closed to us. At that time, Baltimore was dominated by political 
machines. It was dominated by political bosses. Grassroots, nonprofit 
organizations couldn't break into that process. I was so tired of 
banging on doors I decided to open doors, and that's when I announced I 
was going to run for the Baltimore city council. The smart money was 
against me. How could a woman run in an ethnic blue-collar 
neighborhood, someone who had a strong record in civil rights and also 
had no personal money? While they were so busy laughing at me, I got to 
work. Because I had no money, I had no choice, I organized a group of 
volunteers and we went door-to-door, one hot summer in Baltimore, and I 
knocked on over 10,000 doors. By knocking on those doors with my 
volunteers, I rolled over the political machine and I beat those two 
political bosses.
  That is how I got into politics. And because of how I started, I want 
the voices and votes of strong grassroots volunteers still to count. I 
want the small contributor to still count. I found ways to bring people 
into the process. Using not only door-to-door but techno door-to-door, 
using the Internet, chatrooms for discussions on issues, new forms of 
town halls. But we can't do that if every single day our

[[Page S2692]]

focus is on raising big money, soft money, or any kind of money that we 
can get our hands on.
  Does McCain-Feingold solve all the problems of this situation? No. Is 
it more than a downpayment on reform? You bet. What McCain-Feingold 
does is dry up the soft money and focus on getting real contributors. I 
hope we can even do more reform and innovative thinking, such as 
broadcast vouchers, for the small contributors. The more people we can 
bring in, the more people are participating in the process. The best 
cure for democracy is more democracy and more participation. That is 
why I am so strong about McCain-Feingold. We need to stop worrying 
about protecting incumbents and start worrying about protecting 
democracy.
  Last year we spent $3 billion on election activities. The average 
Senate race now costs $6 million. That is compared to $1 million over 
20 years ago. It seems like the cost of campaigns is going up more than 
health care costs. Just look at my own State of Maryland where 
advertising is big business. For me to go on TV in the Baltimore-
Washington corridor, it is about $300,000 or $350,000 a week.
  Let's look at what it takes to raise $6 million--the average cost of 
a Senate campaign. When you think about a 6-year term, that means you 
have to raise $1 million a year. You take 2 weeks off for religious 
holidays or vacation; that is $20,000 a week. That means a Senator has 
to think about raising $20,000 a week.
  Can you really believe we can focus all the time we need to on our 
national security interests, raising 20 grand a week? Can you really 
devote all of your time to thinking about how we can solve the health 
care crisis? Can we really think about how we could end the trafficking 
in drugs when we are in the trafficking of fundraisers? It weakens our 
institution.
  Let's look at it among ourselves. Why romanticize the old days of the 
Senate or talk about the club?
  The club has a new look. There are 13 women in the Senate, people 
coming from a variety of backgrounds, some very wealthy and some who 
got here because of strong grassroots support, all bringing their 
passion to engage in public debate and fashion public policy. That is 
what we want to do. But where are we now? When we used to engage in 
conversation, the things that promote civility and creative thinking, 
now we are all dashing to either our own fundraisers or someone else's.
  This is why I hope we pass McCain-Feingold. For all of you who do not 
like campaign finance reform, be worried, as I am, that the largest 
voting block in America now is the no-shows. The way we can deal with 
the cynicism is to be able to clean up our own act, do some of the 
election reforms on which Senators Dodd and McConnell are working. They 
are very able Senators. Let's continue to open up the process but don't 
think about opening up the process where we have to pursue open 
wallets. I would rather pursue open minds and keep knocking on those 
doors.
  I urge my colleagues in the strongest way I can to pass McCain-
Feingold. It will be one of the best things we can do for democracy.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased I was on the floor to 
hear the remarks of the Senator from Maryland. She has been incredibly 
helpful on this issue of campaign finance reform.
  I had the honor last Friday, with Senator McCain, to go to her State 
and visit Annapolis. The mere mention of her name in general produced a 
tremendous response, but in particular, when I shared with the audience 
how she has been with us every minute of the way for all these years on 
this issue, with such enthusiasm, there was a great response. I thank 
my colleague and appreciate so much the fact that she is helping us get 
the bill through.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I thank the Senator and I salute him and Senator 
McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.


                           Amendment No. 138

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I have an amendment at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Wyden] for himself, Ms. 
     Collins, and Mr. Bingaman, proposes an amendment numbered 
     138.

  Mr. WYDEN. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be 
dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide that the lowest unit rate for campaign advertising 
shall not be available for communications in which a candidate directly 
references an opponent of the candidate unless the candidate does so in 
                                person)

       On page 37, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF LOWEST UNIT CHARGE FOR 
                   FEDERAL CANDIDATES ATTACKING OPPOSITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(b) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Content of broadcasts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for Federal 
     office, such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the 
     rate under paragraph (1)(A) for the use of any broadcasting 
     station unless the candidate provides written certification 
     to the broadcast station that the candidate (and any 
     authorized committee of the candidate) shall not make any 
     direct reference to another candidate for the same office, in 
     any broadcast using the rights and conditions of access under 
     this Act, unless such reference meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C) or (D).
       ``(B) Limitation on charges.--If a candidate for Federal 
     office (or any authorized committee of such candidate) makes 
     a reference described in subparagraph (A) in any broadcast 
     that does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (C) or 
     (D), such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for such broadcast or any other 
     broadcast during any portion of the 45-day and 60-day periods 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), that occur on or after the 
     date of such broadcast, for election to such office.
       ``(C) Television broadcasts.--A candidate meets the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if, in the case of a 
     television broadcast, at the end of such broadcast there 
     appears simultaneously, for a period no less than 4 seconds--
       ``(i) a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image 
     of the candidate; and
       ``(ii) a clearly readable printed statement, identifying 
     the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the 
     broadcast.
       ``(D) Radio broadcasts.--A candidate meets the requirements 
     of this subparagraph if, in the case of a radio broadcast, 
     the broadcast includes a personal audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate, the office the 
     candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate has 
     approved the broadcast.
       ``(E) Certification.--Certifications under this section 
     shall be provided and certified as accurate by the candidate 
     (or any authorized committee of the candidate) at the time of 
     purchase.
       ``(F) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `authorized committee' and `Federal office' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (3),'' before ``during the forty-five days''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to broadcasts made after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor this morning with 
Senator Collins of Maine to offer a bipartisan amendment that we 
believe will help slow the explosive growth of negative political 
commercials that are corroding the faith of individuals in the 
political process. I also thank my colleague from New Mexico, Senator 
Bingaman, and Congressman Greg Walden of Oregon on the House side, who 
has also been extremely interested in this issue over the years.
  Negative commercials are clearly fueling citizens' cynicism about 
politics. Those negative commercials are depressing voter participation 
and, in my view, they are demeaning all who are involved in the 
political process.
  The amendment I have prepared with Senator Collins is a 
straightforward one. In order to qualify for the advertising discounts 
that Federal law requires candidates for Federal office receive, those 
candidates would have to personally stand by any mention of an opponent 
in a radio or television advertisement.
  We have asked the Congressional Research Service to do an analysis of 
our proposal. In their view, they believe it would be upheld as 
constitutional. I am of the view that they came to that conclusion 
because the fact is there is no

[[Page S2693]]

constitutional right to a subsidized dirty political campaign. 
Everybody in this body knows and knows full well that when candidates 
mention their opponent in an advertisement, they are not spending those 
campaign funds to state that their opponent is the greatest thing since 
night baseball. They are going to be spending, in so many instances, 
advertising money where, in effect, the candidate would hide behind 
grainy photographs of the opponent, pictures that make that opponent 
look pretty much like a criminal, and often there is this bloodcurdling 
music that portrays the whole thing in such an ominous way that the 
children sort of run for another room.
  What Senator Collins and I are seeking to do in this amendment is to 
make it tough for candidates to disown their negative political 
commercials. We say that candidates can say anything they want. We are 
not trampling on the first amendment. A candidate is free, totally 
free, completely unfettered, under our bipartisan proposal, to say 
anything about their opponent.
  But what we say, however, is if you are going to mention your 
opponent, you have to own up to it. You cannot hide any longer.
  The fact is, negative campaigning is done to obscure ownership. It is 
done to obscure who is actually going to be held personally 
accountable.
  A number of analysts have looked at negative commercials over the 
years and the fact is, as they have noted, it is almost always done by 
advertising. It is almost impossible to do a negative exchange if you 
are in a debate because the candidate on the other side has an 
opportunity to answer. The sneak punches, the low blows, are easily 
delivered through TV and radio, especially radio.
  As our colleagues know, a lot of the newspapers at home will do these 
ad watches. So very often it is possible to blow the whistle on a 
television commercial. But with respect to radio, that so often is 
completely under the radar so there is absolutely no accountability.
  What Senator Collins and I seek to do is to make it clear that it is 
not going to be so easy to skulk around, to sneak around and engage in 
these negative ads and pretend they are not yours.

  You can say anything you want about your opponent under our proposal, 
but there is not going to be a subsidized rate if you don't own up to 
it. It just doesn't seem right to me to say the car dealer or the local 
restaurant or the hardware store should have to pay a higher rate while 
you get a discounted rate for running a negative advertisement.
  A lot of our colleagues want to speak on this. I believe we have an 
hour and a half for this debate. I am very appreciative that Senator 
Collins is on the floor. She has a long history of being involved in 
reform efforts.
  I also thank Senator Bingaman who has had a great interest in this 
issue over the years. Senator Dodd, Senator Feingold, Senator McCain, 
Senator Levin--all of them have worked with us on this proposal in 
recent days.
  I see Senator Dodd on the floor, and I commend him for the superb way 
in which he handled this debate. Nobody ever said this topic was going 
to be a walk in the park. He has handled it superbly, in my view.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the Senator from 
Oregon in sponsoring this important legislation.
  The premise of our amendment is clear. Candidates who run negative 
television and radio ads against their opponents should have to stand 
by their ads. That is the premise of our amendment.
  The Wyden-Collins amendment would require the candidate to clearly 
identify himself or herself as the sponsor of the ad. No more stealth 
campaign negative ads.
  There are many legitimate policy disputes between candidates and 
certainly an ad airing these differences is perfectly legitimate and, 
indeed, contributes to the political debate.
  But when a candidate launches an ad that talks about his opponent--
whether it is a high-minded discussion of policy differences or a 
vicious attack on an opponent's character--a candidate should be 
required to own up to its sponsorship.
  The public should not have to guess or decipher as to who is the 
sponsor of the ad. The candidate's sponsorship should be absolutely 
clear. Our amendment would accomplish that goal by requiring a clearly 
identifiable picture of the candidate and statement of sponsorship for 
the TV ad. The statement would require the candidate to say that he or 
she has approved the broadcast.
  Similarly, for radio, the candidate would have to identify himself, 
the office he is seeking, and state that he has approved the radio 
broadcast.
  We recognize that our amendment tackles only part of the problem of 
the deluge of negative attack ads since so many of them are sponsored 
not just by candidates but by outside special interest groups. 
Nevertheless, the Wyden-Collins amendment is an important first step. 
It would help curb the abuse of self-negative ads sponsored by 
candidates, and it would strengthen the underlying McCain-Feingold 
bill.
  I hope it will be approved. I urge my colleagues to support the 
amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend both of my colleagues. Senator 
Byrd of West Virginia is also a cosponsor of this amendment.
  Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, if my colleague will yield, because we have 
gone through various versions, he has indicated that he is strongly in 
support of this effort and is still looking at some of the specifics.
  The Senator is absolutely right. I think the Senator from West 
Virginia has made a real contribution because he has seen from a 
historical standpoint how there has been such an explosion of these 
negative commercials.
  I want our colleagues to know that we are very appreciative of the 
input of the Senator from West Virginia in fighting these negative ads.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for that clarification.
  Let me emphasize again how much I appreciate his efforts and the 
efforts of the Senator from Maine and others who have been so involved 
in putting this amendment together.
  At first blush you might say this ad is designed to probably help an 
incumbent because it is the incumbent's record that can be attacked. It 
is not a question of people disagreeing with our existing voting 
records. It is the personal attacks that so often are the most 
disturbing, not to the candidates themselves but the voters.
  We have seen too often that the effect of negative ads isn't so much 
to do damage, although it does to the reputations of good people by 
distorting some minor difference and magnifying it beyond all sense of 
proportion, but the larger harm done is that it has a tendency to 
discourage people from voting.
  There is ample data in various races around the country where there 
has been a deluge of negative campaigning that voter participation 
declines. People get disgusted by it. They do not necessarily blame one 
candidate or another when they see negative ads. It has the effect of 
saying: Politics is such a dirty business that I don't want anything to 
do with it. I am not going to encourage it, but I am not even going to 
vote.
  That is my great concern and why I believe this amendment has such 
value. It is not to protect people who hold themselves out for public 
office from being criticized. We understand that occurs if you hold 
yourself up for public office. We have hundreds of votes, and there are 
many which divide us as to what is the proper course of action to take. 
Someone may stand up and say: I disagree with Senator Dodd on how he 
stands on child care, or education issues. It is a perfectly legitimate 
activity in a campaign.
  We need the debate so people can have a better clarification. The 
authors of this amendment, as I understand it, are in no way suggesting 
that healthy debate and criticism of candidates ought to be removed 
from politics. They are saying, if you are going to do that, those who 
are making the criticism need to let people know from where it is 
coming. They believe--and I think they are correct--that this will have 
the dual effect of people being less inclined to attack people on a 
personal level where their picture is going to be displayed; secondly, 
it will encourage

[[Page S2694]]

more constructive criticism, which is perfectly legitimate and which we 
ought to invite in a good campaign.
  The effect of that goes to the very heart of what this amendment is 
likely to do; that is, to encourage people to vote and participate.
  I applaud both of my colleagues for this amendment because I think it 
will encourage more people in the final analysis to engage in the 
political life of our country.
  I mentioned yesterday how we were applauding, in a sense, that we had 
done better than anticipated when 50 percent of the eligible voters in 
this country voted in the last Presidential election. We thought that 
was good news because it was better than what we had anticipated. What 
a sad commentary it is that 50 percent of the eligible Americans who 
have a right to choose who will be the President of the United States 
do not participate despite all of the ads and activities. I suspect 
that a significant percentage of that 50 percent stayed away not 
because they forgot, not because they were not interested in the 
decisions that the next President might make, but I think they didn't 
participate because they were so disgusted by what they saw on 
television, what they heard on radio, and what they saw being spent, 
which goes to the heart of what Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are 
talking about and why we are debating campaign finance reform. To have 
that discussion and not include this element would be a mistake.
  I, again, applaud my colleagues for adding this. Again, I can't say 
for certainty this will increase participation. But I think the 
American public will applaud this effort and politics will be the 
better for it, in my view. Maybe we will see more people voting in the 
next election because candidates will be more reluctant about saying 
some of these things they wouldn't dare say otherwise about themselves, 
and articulate it in a sense by requiring that a photograph be included 
in that ad. I think they will be a little more cautious about the 
things that have been said in campaigns in the past.
  I applaud my colleagues' efforts. I am happy to yield to my colleague 
from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I commend and thank our friends from Oregon 
and Maine for their amendment.
  The bill before us is aimed at trying to close a soft money loophole, 
which has fueled the kind of negative TV ads which do not do justice to 
our democracy.
  The unlimited contributions which have come into campaigns, directly 
and indirectly, have been one of the major sources for the horrendous 
amount of negative attack ads which are inflicted upon our constituents 
in most of these elections.
  The McCain-Feingold bill is trying to do something about closing that 
soft money loophole. If we are going to restore credibility to the 
electoral process, it is vitally important we close that soft money 
loophole. Hopefully, we will. Part of the answer, ultimately, is that 
we require candidates for office who take out ads, if they want the 
lowest unit rate which is provided for in this McCain-Feingold 
legislation, if they want to take advantage of that benefit which is 
conferred, that guarantee that is in the McCain-Feingold bill--they at 
least put their name and their face at the end of the ad they are 
funding.
  To ask a candidate to do so is pretty fundamental for a benefit which 
is being conferred.
  This is a very modest amendment. It is a very carefully crafted 
amendment. It is not aimed at intruding on the message that is in that 
commercial. It doesn't create a problem in terms of the message. It 
doesn't seek to control that message. It says, if you want that lowest 
rate provided for in this law that we are guaranteeing to you, then you 
must put your name and your face at the end of this ad for a few 
seconds so the people know who is paying for this ad; so that you can't 
have some name of some citizens group put at the end of the ad which 
masks or disguises who is paying for this ad. It is a very reasonable 
kind of requirement in exchange for that lowest unit rate.
  I commend the sponsors of this amendment for the amendment. I want to 
say one other thing.
  I only wish it were possible to extend this to the ads that are put 
on by outside groups--it is not possible constitutionally. I don't 
think we are able to do that. I wish we could because so many of the 
ads that are on television these days are not paid for by candidates 
but are paid for with soft money, and are paid for by outside groups in 
the form of so-called issue ads, which more often than not, about 98 
percent of the time, indeed, are not issue ads at all but are ads that 
are clearly aimed at electing candidates and giving advantages to 
candidates or attacking candidates.
  This will do some significant good, in my judgment, because it at 
least gets to the ads that are paid for by a candidate, or a 
candidate's committee.
  My only regret is--and I can't figure out a constitutional way yet--
we do not apply this same logic to the ads which are funded by outside 
groups that are intended to help candidates get elected or to defeat 
other candidates. But, again, we should be grateful for the good that 
can be accomplished while we seek to find ways to accomplish the same 
result relative to the so-called issue ads of the outside groups.
  So I commend my good friends from Oregon and Maine and the other 
cosponsors.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as a 
cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield whatever time he may need to the 
Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. Feingold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. And I especially 
thank the Senators from Oregon and Maine for offering this amendment. 
It is a pleasure to see this back because this is one of the original 
provisions and ideas we tried to put forth in the original McCain-
Feingold bill many years ago. In the process of negotiating and trying 
to get votes, it was one of the casualties that came off the bill as we 
tried to simplify it. But that was not because it was not a good idea. 
It was always a good idea.
  The Senator from Oregon has been diligent in mentioning this and 
arguing for this over the years. I am extremely pleased that we finally 
got the process where Senators, such as the Senator from Oregon, can 
offer his amendment. Finally--and it took us 5 years--here we are 
talking about one of the three things that I find constituents complain 
about in relation to campaigns.
  First of all, they obviously say they are too expensive. We all know 
that is one of the reasons we are doing this bill. Secondly, they say 
the campaigns go on too long; you have to have ads all year, all the 
time. But the third thing they say to me--and I assume the Senator from 
Maine and the Senator from Oregon have had the same experience--is they 
are so negative.
  Of course, I believe fundamentally in the free speech right of people 
to say something negative anytime they want. But what this amendment 
does is make sure there is some accountability for that. So I welcome 
it. It is bipartisan. It is offered by two of the strongest reformers 
in the entire Senate. The voters deserve the chance to see the 
candidates and know that the candidates sponsoring the ads support 
the content and the tone of the ad. So it is an excellent bipartisan 
amendment.

  Just as we predicted, Senator McCain and I offered a bill that not 
only is not a perfect bill, but it is a bill we hope will be improved 
and made better, more important, and more valuable by the amending 
process. This amendment does exactly that.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. For a question.
  Mr. WYDEN. I appreciate the Senator yielding. I will be very brief.
  I say to the Senator, I thank him for all the years he has toiled in 
the vineyards on this issue. He and Senator McCain have been out week 
after week for years. I was sworn in as Oregon's first new Senator in 
more than 30 years on February 6, 1996, around noon. The first official 
action I took, as Oregon's first new Senator in more than 30 years, was 
to be a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold legislation.
  I just want the record to note that this Senator knows we do not get 
to this kind of opportunity by osmosis. It does not happen by accident. 
It happens because we get two Senators such

[[Page S2695]]

as the Senator from Wisconsin and the Senator from Arizona who, week 
after week, year after year, do so much to make this action possible.
  I want the Senator to know how much I appreciate all his leadership.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I thank the Senator 
from Oregon.
  As I look at these two Senators--Senator Collins from Maine and 
Senator Wyden from Oregon--there was a time when people were saying: 
You only have two Republicans on the bill. It was a critical moment in 
the history of this legislation when the Senator from Maine came on the 
bill. I remember when the Senator from Oregon came, and he made this 
his first piece of legislation he would cosponsor. It actually gave me 
a chance, for the first time in my life campaigning for this bill, to 
go to Portland, OR, a beautiful city.
  If I could somehow get myself to Maine for the first time, I could go 
to the other Portland and we could have this be the Portland-to-
Portland amendment which, of course, reflects the tremendous reform 
tradition of both States, Maine and Oregon, in which Wisconsin joins as 
well.
  So, again, my thanks to both Senators.
  I yield the floor.
  Ms. COLLINS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Wisconsin for 
his very gracious comments. We would not be where we are today without 
his tenacity in pushing for true campaign finance reform.
  I want to respond, also, to the comments made by the Senator from 
Connecticut and the Senator from Michigan and thank them for their 
support of the Wyden-Collins proposal. Senator Dodd and Senator 
Feingold also raised a very important point, and that is, the deluge of 
negative attack ads discourages people from voting and really turns off 
the American public. This is exacerbated by the fact that a lot of 
times it is not evident who is sponsoring these ads, who is behind 
these charges and allegations that are hurled particularly in the final 
days of the campaign.
  I believe the Snowe-Jeffords amendment will help in that regard and 
that the amendment Senator Wyden and I are sponsoring today will make 
very clear that when a candidate launches a negative ad attacking his 
opponent, that candidate will have to take responsibility for that ad.
  It is important to note, however, that there is nothing wrong with a 
candidate running an ad that discusses policy differences. Indeed, that 
is valuable to the political discourse and debate. And, indeed, as 
Senator Levin pointed out, there is nothing in our amendment that 
prevents a candidate from running an irresponsible attack ad that 
perhaps is a vicious attack on an opponent's character. But if that is 
done--in either case--the candidate has to take responsibility for the 
ad.
  Under our proposal, the candidate's picture would appear at the end 
of the ad and the candidate would have to have a statement saying he or 
she approved the ad in order to get the lowest broadcast rate. So we 
are not, in any way, attempting to regulate speech or attempting to 
impose our ideas of what constitutes an appropriate ad. Rather, all we 
are doing is saying that if a candidate runs an ad that talks about his 
opponent, he has to own up to that ad. He has to clearly state that he 
paid for the ad, that he is responsible for its content.
  I think that would have the very beneficial effect of making 
candidates think twice before hurling accusations that perhaps are 
exaggerated or unfounded against an opponent. I believe it would help 
elevate the political debate and it would help curb some of the 
egregious negative ads that offend all of us.
  So I thank the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Connecticut, 
and the Senator from Wisconsin for their support of this proposal. In 
particular, I thank my colleague from Oregon for the opportunity to 
work with him to craft what I think is a reasonable proposal, a modest 
but important first step that will help improve the quality of our 
campaigns.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent the time be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, are we under controlled time at this 
point?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from 
Oregon control the time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself 10 minutes on our side of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have had a good debate on a number of 
amendments this week. It has been very pleasant to cover a lot of 
ground. We have made good progress on the bill. I hope we can finish 
work on this bill next week, as our agreement in February contemplated, 
and as the majority leader has said he wanted. Getting a final up-or-
down vote on this legislation is what we set out to do, and it is what 
we will do once Senators have had a chance to offer amendments and 
improve the bill.
  Sometimes when we spend a few hours on an amendment, we can get 
bogged down in the minutia. When I say ``minutia,'' I don't mean any 
disrespect. This is very important. This is how the laws actually work. 
This is how campaigns will be conducted. So we have to go through this 
action. But I think sometimes when people observe us from afar, or on 
television, they wonder, what are we talking about? What is the big 
picture?
  I want to take us back to why we are here in the first place. Why are 
we spending 2 weeks on this issue? What is this bill all about? We are 
here because we have a crisis of confidence in this country and in this 
Congress. We labor long and hard on legislation, and I am afraid the 
public doesn't trust us to do the right thing. For example, here is a 
headline in Business Week's February 26 issue: ``Tougher Bankruptcy 
Laws--Compliments of MBNA?''
  The article says:

       MBNA is about to hit pay dirt. New bankruptcy legislation 
     is on a fast track. Judiciary panels in the House and Senate 
     held perfunctory hearings, and a bill could be on the House 
     and Senate floors as early as late February.

  The implication is clear that it is widely assumed the credit card 
issuers called the shots on the substance of the bankruptcy bill we 
passed right before we started this debate on campaign finance reform.
  Isn't it troubling that people are so quick to assume the worst about 
the work we do on this floor? That is why we are taking up this bill; 
we have to repair some of that public trust. Our reputation is on the 
line. We aren't going to get a pass from the American people on this 
one and, frankly, we don't deserve one. The appearance of corruption is 
rampant in our system and it touches virtually every issue that comes 
before us.
  I know my friend from Oregon is familiar with this because we have 
talked about it. That is why I have called the bankroll on the floor 30 
times in less than 2 years. I do it because I think it is important 
when we debate a bill to acknowledge that millions and millions of 
dollars are given in an attempt to influence what we do. That is why 
people give soft money. I don't think anyone would seriously try to 
dispute that.
  I won't detail every bankroll here. It would actually take me all 
day. But let me review some of the issues they address to show how far 
reaching the problem really is. I have called the bankroll on mining on 
public lands, the gun show loophole, the defense industry's support of 
the Super Hornet and the F-22, the Y2K Liability Act, Passengers' Bill 
of Rights, MFN for China, PNTR for China, and, of course, the tobacco 
industry. I have talked about agricultural interests, lobbying on an 
Agriculture appropriations bill, railroad interests, and lobbying on a 
Transportation appropriations bill. I have talked about contributions 
surrounding the Financial Services Modernization Act, nuclear waste 
policy,

[[Page S2696]]

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the ergonomics issue. I have 
also had the chance to call the bankroll on the Patients' Bill of 
Rights twice, the Africa trade bill twice, and the oil royalties 
amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill twice. I 
have called the bankroll on three tax bills, four separate times, and 
on our most recent legislation, the bankruptcy reform legislation.

  People give soft money to influence the outcome of these issues. That 
is plain and simple. As long as we allow soft money to exist, we risk 
damaging our credibility when we make decisions about the issues the 
people elected us to make. They sent us here to wrestle with some very 
tough issues. They have vested us with the power to make decisions and 
to have a truly profound impact on their lives. That is a 
responsibility that every one of us takes seriously.
  But, today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation, many 
people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we get from 
interests on both sides of the issue. When those contributions can be a 
million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people that we 
will too often reward our biggest donors.
  That is the assumption people make, and we let them make it. Every 
time we have had the chance to close the soft money loophole, this body 
has faltered. If we can't pass this bill, history will remember that 
this Senate faced a great test and we failed; that the people had 
accused us of corruption and, in our failure to pass a real reform 
bill, we actually confirmed their worst fear.
  Fortunately, the bill before us today offers a different path. If we 
can support the modest reforms in this bill, we can show the public we 
understand that the current system does not do our democracy justice. 
This is just a modest bill. It is not sweeping. It is not comprehensive 
reform. It only seeks to address the biggest loopholes in our system.
  The soft money ban is the centerpiece of this bill. Our legislation 
shuts down the soft money system, prohibiting all soft money 
contributions to the national political parties from corporations, 
labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted 
under State law to accept these unregulated contributions would be 
prohibited from spending them on activities relating to federal 
elections, and federal candidates and officeholders fortunately and 
finally, would be prohibited from raising soft money under our bill. 
That is a very significant provision because the fact that we in the 
Congress, those who are elected to Congress, are doing the asking is 
what I believe and many people believe gives this system an air of 
extortion, as well as bribery.
  McCain-Feingold-Cochran also addresses the issue ad loophole, which 
corporations and unions use to skirt the federal election law. This 
provision, originally crafted by Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords, 
treats corporations and unions fairly and equally. I want to be clear. 
Snowe-Jeffords does not prohibit any election ad, nor does it place 
limits on spending by outside organizations, but it will give the 
public crucial information about the election activities of independent 
groups, and it will prevent corporate and union treasury money from 
being spent to influence elections.
  Senators Snowe and Jeffords described this provision of their bill 
earlier in the week. As this debate proceeds, we may debate whether it 
should be strengthened or even removed from the bill altogether. I 
believe the Snowe-Jeffords provision is a fair compromise and the right 
balance. It fairly balances legitimate first amendment concerns with 
the goal of enforcing the law that prohibits unions and corporations 
from spending money in connection with Federal elections.
  I am sure most of my colleagues are aware of the serious political 
crisis underway as we speak in the nation of India. Journalists posing 
as arms dealers shot videos with hidden cameras on which politicians 
and defense officials were seen accepting cash and favors in return for 
defense contracts. Those pictures have caused a huge scandal. The 
Indian defense minister has resigned, and we do not know yet how great 
the repercussions will be.
  One thing that struck me as I read the news reports of these events 
was two of the people caught on tape were party leaders, including the 
leader of the ruling party, the BJP, Mr. Bangaru Laxman. Let me read 
from an AP story of March 16:

       Laxman denied that the journalists identified themselves to 
     him as defense contractors or discussed weapons sales. He 
     said they were presented as businessmen and that accepting 
     money for the party is not illegal in India.

  I am not going to say that what is happening in India is the same as 
the system we have in the United States, and I am certainly not going 
to comment on the guilt or innocence of any party leader or political 
official in that sovereign country. But the Government of India is 
hanging by a thread based on possibly corrupt payments of a few 
thousand dollars by people posing as defense contractors.
  In our country, we have literally hundreds of millions of dollars 
flowing to our political parties from business and labor interests of 
all kinds. And our defense, like Mr. Laxman's is, ``it's legal.'' We 
have a system of legalized bribery, a system of legalized extortion, in 
this country. But legal or not, like the videotaped payments in India, 
this system look awful. It may be legal, but it looks awful.
  Our debate this week has shown time and time again that we have a 
strong majority in this body that wants to pass reform. We are ready to 
do it. I am eager to continue our work, and get the job done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Dodd is not here. How much time does 
the Senator request, 5 minutes?
  Ms. COLLINS. I request not more than 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.


                     Amendment No. 138, As Modified

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
pointing out to the Senator from Oregon and myself that in drafting 
this amendment we erred.
  I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment to correct the 
mistake, and I send the modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, reads as follows:

       On page 37, between lines 14 and 15, insert the following:

     SEC. __. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF LOWEST UNIT CHARGE FOR 
                   FEDERAL CANDIDATES ATTACKING OPPOSITION.

       (a) In General.--Section 315(b) of the Communications Act 
     of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)), as amended by this Act, is 
     amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(3) Content of broadcasts.--
       ``(A) In general.--In the case of a candidate for Federal 
     office, such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the 
     rate under paragraph (1)(A) for the use of any broadcasting 
     station unless the candidate provides written certification 
     to the broadcast station that the candidate (and any 
     authorized committee of the candidate) shall not make any 
     direct reference to another candidate for the same office, in 
     any broadcast using the rights and conditions of access under 
     this Act, unless such reference meets the requirements of 
     subparagraph (C) or (D).
       ``(B) Limitation on charges.--If a candidate for Federal 
     office (or any authorized committee of such candidate) makes 
     a reference described in subparagraph (A) in any broadcast 
     that does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (C) or 
     (D), such candidate shall not be entitled to receive the rate 
     under paragraph (1)(A) for such broadcast or any other 
     broadcast during any portion of the 45-day and 60-day periods 
     described in paragraph (1)(A), that occur on or after the 
     date of such broadcast, for election to such office.
       ``(C) Television broadcasts.--A candidate meets the 
     requirements of this subparagraph if, in the case of a 
     television broadcast, at the end of such broadcast there 
     appears simultaneously, for a period no less than 4 seconds--
       ``(i) a clearly identifiable photographic or similar image 
     of the candidate; and
       ``(ii) a clearly readable printed statement, identifying 
     the candidate and stating that the candidate has approved the 
     broadcast and that the candidate's authorized committee paid 
     for the broadcast.
       ``(D) Radio broadcasts.--A candidate meets the requirements 
     of this subparagraph if, in the case of a radio broadcast, 
     the broadcast includes a personal audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate, the office the 
     candidate is seeking, and indicates that the candidate has 
     approved the broadcast.
       ``(E) Certification.--Certifications under this section 
     shall be provided and certified as

[[Page S2697]]

     accurate by the candidate (or any authorized committee of the 
     candidate) at the time of purchase.
       ``(F) Definitions.--For purposes of this paragraph, the 
     terms `authorized committee' and `Federal office' have the 
     meanings given such terms by section 301 of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 431).''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 315(b)(1)(A) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 315(b)(1)(A)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended by inserting ``subject to 
     paragraph (3),'' before ``during the forty-five days''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to broadcasts made after the date of enactment of 
     this Act.

  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I will briefly explain. The Senator from 
Kentucky pointed out that in drafting the amendment, we inadvertently 
deleted the requirement that there be a disclaimer that the ad is paid 
for by the candidate's authorized committee. We did not in any way 
intend to remove that disclaimer requirement.
  The legislation I sent to the desk makes it clear that the 
candidate's ad has to include the statement that the ad was paid for by 
the candidate's authorized committee.
  I thank the Senator from Kentucky for pointing out that error and 
allowing us to correct it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Maine and the 
Senator from Oregon, we have had an opportunity to review the amendment 
and discuss it on the floor. As everyone knows, current law already 
requires certain things of the candidates, but this amendment is a 
useful addition that codifies and clarifies the law.
  Consequently, I am happy to support it and see no particular need for 
a rollcall vote unless there is a desire to do so on the other side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Oregon 5 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I will be brief. It has been interesting that on the 
floor of the Senate today no one has spoken in defense of negative ads. 
The very ads that the media consultants believe are most successful or 
most likely to win elections have not won a defense. I guess the media 
consultants in this country are going to have to go back to school if 
this proposal, as it makes its way down the gauntlet, becomes law, as 
the Senator from Maine and I hope to make possible.
  The fact is that this is a stand-by-your-ad requirement. This is a 
proposal that makes it clear that to get that lowest unit rate, you 
have to be held personally accountable.
  What the Senator from Maine did is useful. We believed we had made it 
clear in terms of linking it to the appropriate Federal election 
statute. What we just did makes it even more so.
  I, too, thank the Senator from Kentucky. This is an area in which I 
have had a special interest since what I think was the harshest 
campaign in Oregon history in 1995 and 1996. My friend and colleague, 
Senator Smith, and I believe that race was just completely out of hand. 
Neither of us could recognize the kinds of commercials that were being 
run by the end.
  This is an opportunity to draw a line in the sand and to say the 
Senate wants to make it clear that we are not going to let candidates 
disown these corrosive, negative commercials. They are not going to be 
able to hide any longer if this becomes law.
  I express my thanks again to the Senator from Maine.
  There are a number of staff who have put in a huge number of hours: 
Jeff Gagne and Carole Grunberg of my staff, Michael Bopp with Senator 
Collins, Linda Gustitas with Senator Levin, Bob Schiff with Senator 
Feingold, and Andrea LaRue with Senator Daschle. All of them 
contributed to this effort to make sure that in this country we are no 
longer subsidizing dirty campaigning. That is what happens today. We 
are subsidizing the local hardware store owner and the local restaurant 
owner is subsidizing dirty campaigns, and we are taking a step away 
from that.
  With thanks to my colleague from Maine, with a pledge to the Senator 
from Kentucky to continue to work with him in this area, I express my 
thanks to him for taking this by voice vote.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment 
of the Senator from Oregon, Mr. Wyden, and the Senator from Maine, Ms. 
Collins, numbered 138, as modified.
  The amendment (No. 138), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment 
was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Connecticut 
have graciously consented to allow the Senator from New Mexico until 1 
o'clock for morning business for the introduction of legislation.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Let me say to all Members of the Senate, the next 
amendment will be on this side, offered by the assistant majority 
leader, Senator Nickles. It will be laid down around 1 o'clock.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from New Mexico be 
recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico will be recognized 
for 20 minutes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator Reid, from 
Nevada, and my friend and colleague from Kentucky, also, for their 
courtesy in allowing me to speak as in morning business.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Bingaman pertaining to the introduction of S. 596 
and S. 597 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on 
Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Before the Senator leaves the floor, I extend my 
congratulations to him for the work that he has put into this 
legislation. I have been involved with just a little tiny bit of it. He 
has spent as much time with me as he has with other Members making sure 
that everyone who had questions about this legislation had their 
questions answered.
  I feel very comfortable with Senator Bingaman being the ranking 
member of this most important committee. We in Nevada believe that 
problems in California are just a little ways behind us. We are hopeful 
and confident this much needed legislation will move quickly out of his 
committee on to the floor so we have an opportunity to debate it.
  So, again, I appreciate very much the work of my friend from New 
Mexico.
  Mr. President, there is no one on the floor in relation to the bill. 
If Senator Nickles comes to offer his amendment, Senator Stabenow has 
indicated she would be most happy to give up the floor. She needs 5 
minutes to speak as in morning business. I certainly do not want to 
take advantage of anyone. I do not think I am. I ask unanimous consent 
that she be allowed to speak for 5 minutes, or until the assistant 
majority leader comes to the floor to offer his amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Ms. STABENOW. I thank the Chair and Senator Reid. I echo Senator 
Reid's comments of congratulations to Senator Bingaman for his 
excellent work in forging ahead a very visionary energy proposal 
covering so many important aspects for American families and 
businesses.
  (The remarks of Ms. Stabenow are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Ms. STABENOW. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S2698]]




                           Amendment No. 139

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Nickles' amendment is next and 
he will be over in a while. In his absence, I send his amendment, on 
behalf of himself and Senator Gregg, to the desk and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell], for Mr. Nickles, 
     for himself and Mr. Gregg, proposes an amendment numbered 
     139.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

                    (Purpose: To strike section 304)

       Beginning on page 35, strike line 8 and all that follows 
     through page 37, line 14.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the debate on this amendment will begin 
shortly. In the meantime, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to reserve time on this 
amendment because I don't know whether Senator Nickles will want to use 
all of the time or not. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
unanimous consent that the time not be charged to either side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, after having 
checked with my friend from Kentucky, that the Senator from Washington 
be recognized for up to 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington is recognized.


                     amendment no. 138, as modified

  Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I thank Senator Wyden and Senator 
Collins for offering this amendment that I think truly improves the 
McCain-Feingold bill.
  In the 2000 election, Seattle and Tacoma were the second and third 
largest markets for political advertising.
  The Seattle Post Intelligencer noted earlier this week that campaign 
ads ``rained down on--or bludgeoned, according to some--viewers 
throughout the late summer and fall. And this wasn't an intermittent, 
drip torture kind of rain that Seattle residents know so well. It was a 
deluge, a constant unavoidable torrent, stretching across three solid 
months.''
  With this constant torrent of negative advertising, it is no wonder 
that voting among 18 to 24 year olds has dropped from 50% to only 32%--
a much steeper decline than overall turnout.
  Part of the reason for this disaffection with voting and with 
politics is undoubtedly due to negative attack advertising.
  This amendment makes candidates accountable for those ads.
  By requiring a picture and a readable statement that the candidate 
approved the ad, it would certainly make candidates think twice before 
running negative ads.
  By requiring candidates to take responsibility, the amendment also 
helps the viewer.
  It lets the viewer know who is paying for those ads, not just text 
that they have to run up close to the screen to see.
  It gives the viewer some of the information that they need as a voter 
to make a fully informed decision about the candidates.
  Studies by the Annenberg Center for Communications have found that 
advertising that includes a personal appearance by the candidate is 
more accurate, less negative, and is received more positively by 
voters.
  This amendment also only deals with ads paid for by candidates.
  It does not address the problem of out of control issue ads.
  But one of the things that will happen as a result of this amendment 
is that there will be a clear contrast created between ads sponsored by 
candidates and issue ads that are outside the candidates own control
  This amendment is a step in the right direction. I am pleased to 
support it and I thank my colleagues for offering it today.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 139

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, in the underlying bill it is suggested 
that there is a codification of the Beck decision. In fact, it is just 
the opposite. McCain-Feingold does not codify Beck; it eviscerates 
Beck. The so-called Beck codification in McCain-Feingold is a big win 
for big labor. It does two things the unions love: No. 1, it will let 
unions keep more of the fees nonunion members pay to unions, and, No. 
2, it will make it much harder for those seeking a refund to get one 
because it takes away their existing right to pursue relief in Federal 
court and forces them into a burdensome, time-consuming, and hostile 
administrative process.
  The Nickles amendment, of course, will simply take out the so-called 
Beck codification in the underlying McCain-Feingold bill and go back to 
the Supreme Court. In the Beck decision, the Supreme Court affirmed a 
fourth circuit opinion that objecting nonunion members required to pay 
agency fees as a condition of employment were entitled under section 8 
of the National Labor Relations Act to receive a refund of the pro rata 
share of their fees expended on activities unrelated to the union's 
role as ``exclusive bargaining representative,'' which consisted of 
``collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance 
adjustment.''
  The Supreme Court affirmed the fourth circuit ruling that, as a 
matter of law, the fees unrelated to ``collective bargaining, contract 
administration, and grievance adjustment'' that the unions had to 
refund to objecting nonunion members, along with any accrued interest, 
included not only fees for political and lobbying activities but also 
union community service projects, union charitable donations, union 
organizing, supporting strikes by other unions, and administrative 
costs related to the above activities. All of those items were entitled 
to be refunded to agency shop nonunion members who requested such a 
refund.
  In the original Beck case, the court found that 79 percent of the 
objecting nonunion member's fees had to be refunded because only 21 
percent was used for activities related to collective bargaining, 
contract administration, and grievance adjustment.
  The Beck provision in McCain-Feingold limits objecting nonunion 
members to getting their fees reduced only by the pro rata share of 
such fees spent on political and lobbying activities that the union 
deems ``unrelated to collective bargaining.''
  According to the unions, all of their activities related to 
legislation at the State and Federal level, including health care, 
judicial and executive appointments, as well as most State ballot 
initiatives, are ``related to collective bargaining.'' Thus, unions 
could continue to use nonmember dues for such activities under McCain-
Feingold, which is great for them because they cannot use nonunion 
member fees for most of those things under existing law.
  McCain-Feingold will also allow unions to keep and use the portion of 
an objecting nonmember's agency fees spent on other activities that the 
Beck court affirmed were unrelated to ``collective bargaining, contract 
administration, and grievance adjustment,'' such as a union's 
charitable contributions and a union's support of a strike by another 
union.
  Thus, McCain-Feingold's Beck provision is really bogus. Instead of 
codifying Beck, it eviscerates Beck by diminishing the scope of the 
refund the

[[Page S2699]]

Supreme Court directed for objecting nonmembers required to pay agency 
fees as a condition of employment.
  This is not the only way in which McCain-Feingold's bogus Beck 
provision is a big gift to big labor. Unions would also love it if we 
passed this bogus Beck provision because it would close the courthouse 
doors for nonunion members seeking relief from confiscation of their 
dues for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining, contract 
negotiation, and grievance adjustment.
  It does this by stating that a union's failure to adhere to the bogus 
Beck provision ``shall be an unfair labor practice'' under the National 
Labor Relations Act. Unfair labor practice claims fall within the 
exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.
  A recent piece in Roll Call noted that:

       The National Labor Relations Board [has] for 13 years, 
     under both Republican and Democratic administrations, 
     displayed an intense bias against workers who assert their 
     Beck Rights.

  Make no mistake. Saying that nonunion members seeking to enforce 
their Beck rights can only pursue an unfair labor practices claim 
alters existing law. Under existing law, nonunion members can pursue an 
unfair labor practices claim or they can avoid the NLRB's time-
consuming, hostile and burdensome administrative process by going 
directly to Federal court against a labor union.
  If we enact the bogus Beck provision in McCain-Feingold nonunion 
workers will no longer be able to go directly to court and seek 
judicial enforcement of their rights as the plaintiff in the original 
Beck case did.
  Instead, their only recourse would be to navigate a tedious, complex 
and hostile administrative process that, according to documents from 
the NLRB itself, regularly takes years.
  Unions would love this because they know that giving nonunion members 
no alternative to this administrative process will greatly deter 
people's ability and willingness to seek refunds pursuant to Beck.
  If we adopt McCain-Feingold's bogus-Beck provision, the other 
portions of Beck will not remain.
  Advocates of McCain-Feingold are using a completely untrue and 
baseless argument to assuage people concerned about their big gift to 
big labor in the form of a bogus-Beck codification.
  The argument is: Well, we just wanted to focus on the political part 
of Beck and, if we pass this, the rest of Beck will remain.
  This is, of course, untrue because Beck was a decision in which the 
Supreme Court was interpreting a Federal statute, specifically section 
8 of the National Labor Relations Act.
  At the beginning of the Supreme Court's decision in Beck, Justice 
Brennan, the author of the decision, made clear it was statutory 
interpretation case, not a case about a constitutional right.
  Quoting the decision:

       The statutory question presented in this case, then, is 
     whether this financial core includes the obligation to 
     support union activities beyond those germane to collective 
     bargaining, contract administration, and grievance 
     adjustment. We think it does not.

  And at the end of the case, in stating the Court's holding, Justice 
Brennan again made clear that Beck was a statutory interpretation case. 
Again, quoting from the decision.

       We conclude that [section] 8(a)(3) [of the National Labor 
     Relations Act] . . . authorizes the exaction of only those 
     fees and dues necessary to performing the duties of an 
     exclusive bargaining representative.

  The significance of the indisputable fact that Beck was a case in 
which the Supreme Court interpreted a statute enacted by Congress 
rather than a portion of the Constitution is that any subsequent 
codification by Congress in light of the Court's interpretation will 
completely override the court interpretation.
  Every lawyer knows that when a court interprets a statute and the 
legislature subsequently enacts a law clarifying what that statute 
means, as the bogus-Beck provision does, the court's interpretation is 
completely displaced by that statutory action.
  Therefore, no serious person can give any weight to the assertion 
that somehow any part of the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 
8 of the National Labor Relations Act in Beck will remain once we pass 
McCain-Feingold's big gift to big labor--the evisceration of Beck.
  Senator Nickles, as I indicated, will be over shortly to speak on 
this amendment. Even though he may demand a rollcall vote, we 
understand that the proponents of the underlying bill are prepared to 
accept or vote for this provision, and we are glad to hear that. We 
think restoring the Beck case to its original language is certainly 
appropriate.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the manager of this bill, Senator Dodd, is 
off the floor doing other Senate business. He told me before he left 
that he would not accept this amendment until there were negotiations. 
He has a statement he wishes to make, and there are others who wish to 
speak on this amendment.
  In light of the fact that no one is here, I suggest the absence of a 
quorum and ask that the time be equally charged against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I will speak briefly on the pending 
amendment. I thank my friend and colleague, Senator McConnell, for 
sending this amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and Senator 
Gregg.
  The purpose of this amendment is to strike the language that is in 
the bill on page 35, section 304. Under the bill, it says 
``codification of the Beck decision.'' When I initially heard that Beck 
would be codified, I thought that was good. I support the Beck decision 
and would like to see it codified. When I read the language, I found 
out it did not codify the Beck decision. In fact, it rewrote the Beck 
decision, undermined it in many ways, and led me to the conclusion that 
we would be better off having no language rather than this language.
  I very much appreciate the cooperation I have received from Senator 
McCain and Senator Feingold, who have agreed to drop this language, and 
as I also mentioned, Senator Gregg from New Hampshire, who has been 
working on this. Actually, we were both going to fight a big battle to 
strike this language. We thought that once people reviewed this 
language and contrasted it to the Beck decision, they would find out 
they are not the same and this wasn't actually a codification of the 
Beck decision in many different respects.
  I am pleased. I think everybody will be on board for striking this 
language. I could go into the details regarding the difference in 
notification in Beck, because we think all employees, union and agency 
fee employees, should be notified. Under the pending language, it would 
only be those who are agency fee members who would be notified.
  The Beck decision was very clear. The only instances in which a 
person would be compelled to contribute would be when they directly 
germane to collective bargaining, contract administration, and 
grievance adjustment. In other words, in those instances that are 
directly involved in negotiating contracts, solving enforcement of the 
contracts, and solving grievances, then a person would be compelled to 
contribute.
  Under the language we had in the pending bill, it was much, much 
broader than that. Individuals could be compelled to pay in many 
instances determined by the union, and what might be regarded as 
unrelated to collective bargaining, they might define everything as 
related to collective bargaining and there would be no reimbursements 
for employees who went through the refund process.
  Again, I think we are better off having no language in it than to 
have the language that is in section 304. The purpose of this amendment 
is to strike section 304, and I am pleased that our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle have come to that conclusion.
  I look forward to this section being removed from the bill, making, 
in my opinion, a significant improvement in the underlying legislation.

[[Page S2700]]

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
time be charged equally against both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the senior 
Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, be recognized to speak as if in 
morning business for up to 30 minutes, and that the time be equally 
charged to both sides on the underlying amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  The Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Democratic whip, 
Mr. Reid, for his courtesy. He is always very courteous and attentive 
to the needs and wishes of his colleagues. I also thank the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell, for his 
characteristic courtesy as well.
  May I say I merely sought the floor because the Senate was in a 
quorum and had been in a quorum for quite a while; otherwise, I would 
not have come at this time.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order, if the 
time is being charged to both sides on the campaign finance 
legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Byrd are located in Today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')

                          ____________________