[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 40 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2795-S2801]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order the Senate 
will now resume consideration of S. 27, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 27) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform.

  Pending:

       Specter amendment No. 140, to provide findings regarding 
     the current state of campaign finance laws and to clarify the 
     definition of electioneering communication.
       Helms amendment No. 141, to require labor organizations to 
     provide notice to members concerning their rights with 
     respect to the expenditure of funds for activities unrelated 
     to collective bargaining.


                     Amendment No. 141, As Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Helms desires to modify his 
amendment. I send that modification to the desk.

[[Page S2796]]

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 141), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.  . DISCLOSURE OF EXPENDITURES BY LABOR ORGANIZATIONS.

       Section 8 of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 
     158) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(i) Notice to Members and Employees.--A labor 
     organization shall, on an annual basis, provide (by mail) to 
     each employee who, during the year involved, pays dues, 
     initiation fees, assessments, or other payments as a 
     condition of membership in the labor organization or as a 
     condition of employment (as provided for in subsection 
     (a)(3)), a notice that includes the following statement: `The 
     United States Supreme Court has ruled that labor 
     organizations cannot force fees-paying non-members to pay for 
     activities that are unrelated to collective bargaining 
     contract administration and grievance adjustment. You have 
     the right to resign from the labor organization and, after 
     such resignation, to pay reduced dues or fees in accordance 
     with the decision of the Supreme Court.' ''.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will begin consideration of the Helms amendment, and there are 
16 minutes of debate to be equally divided in the usual form.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Helms is not able to be here at 
this moment.
  With regard to labor unions in America, let me say, on behalf of his 
amendment, we have had amendments that would guarantee that union 
members had an opportunity to consent to their money being used on 
causes to which they might object. That was voted down. We have had 
amendments on disclosure so that union members and the public could 
learn how union money is being spent. That has been voted down.
  Senator Helms is now offering a very basic right to members, and that 
is notification. He hopes that if consent is a poison pill, and 
disclosure is a poison pill, maybe notification will not be. That is at 
the heart of the Helms amendment.
  I certainly would urge all Members to support this very important 
amendment that provides basic fairness to members of organized labor.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, will the Chair notify me when I have used 3 
minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I obviously did not object to the Member's 
desire to modify the amendment. That is the courtesy we extend to each 
other in the Senate. I point out that this amendment was poorly 
drafted. There were actual misstatements of current law included in the 
amendment.
  The modified amendment requires there be written notice. With all due 
respect to my friend from North Carolina, to begin with, this is an 
unnecessary amendment. Secondly, it is a type of union bashing again. 
This is the same process we have been through. Yesterday we voted 99-0 
on Senator Nickles' amendment to strike the Beck language from this 
bill. We believed that the Senate should not be legislating like this 
on a decision the Supreme Court has left to the NLRB to interpret and 
decide.
  Under the Beck holding, there is a requirement of notice. This 
amendment attempts to specify the content of the notice, the means on a 
portion of the notice required under that decision. The courts have 
said that it is the purview of the National Labor Relations Board, 
through case law, to spell out what constitutes that notice.
  With the amendment we adopted yesterday 99-0, we said: Look, even 
though we have different opinions about what Beck holds, we should not 
try to include Beck in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill 
itself. Congress should defer to the NLRB with respect to Beck. Now, 
here we go again. We are going right back, almost with the next 
amendment, saying we are going to take portions of the Beck decision 
and tell you what Beck means. That, it seems to me, contradicts the 
exact vote we cast yesterday. I am somewhat surprised about this 
because I thought maybe we were going to put these amendments aside, 
particularly after having gone through any number of amendments that 
were designed to attack organized labor and unions and their 
involvement.
  But with that said, I must note that there are other political rights 
that union members have. I do not hear my colleagues suggesting that 
those rights ought to be enumerated and notice given about them. For 
example, you have a right to join with other union members to register 
members, their families, or other employees. Why not send written 
notice of that right to union members?
  You have the right to join with other union members and encourage and 
assist other members to vote. That is a right. Why not include written 
notice of that?
  There is a long list of rights that union members have that could be 
included. You have a right, on your own nonworking time, to volunteer 
to assist other candidates. I could go down a long list of union 
member's political rights that we do not require under law that there 
be a written notice. As a result, this amendment is targeted and 
pointed in a way that is unfair.
  Under Federal law, you have the right to organize a union in your 
workplace, to join a union. Under Federal law, you cannot be 
disciplined, discharged, or suffer any adverse action by an employer to 
join or assist a union.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has used 3 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask for 1 additional minute.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Under Federal law, you have the right to join or assist a 
union. Under Federal law, you have a protected right, together with any 
other employees, to present any views, requests, or demands to your 
employer about wages, benefits, and the like. Why not require that 
these be given written notice?

  My point is this--this amendment is adversely selective in its 
approach. It is picking out one part of the Beck decision, and saying 
to the NLRB: You have no right to decide in this area. Congress is 
going to specifically tell the NLRB how to do it. As I said, yesterday 
we voted 99-0 to strike the Beck language from this bill. We are coming 
right back in again today and asking this body to re-inject itself into 
the Beck decision.
  The Beck decision requires notice. The NLRB already has rich case law 
on what constitutes notice and how to make sure members receive legally 
sufficient notice. For us to specify, as the Helms amendment does, 
would be a return to exactly what we are trying to avoid by the vote we 
cast yesterday.
  For those reasons, I urge rejection of this amendment.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Obviously, unions have every incentive to inform 
workers of their right to organize and their rights to get them to join 
unions. That is to their advantage. They do not have an incentive to 
notify members of their opportunity to get their own money back. That 
is precisely what the Helms amendment is about: to require notification 
to individual union members of their rights to receive a refund.
  It seems to me it is quite simple. It looks to me as if the opponents 
of this amendment think it is perfectly all right for unions to notify 
employees about the opportunities to organize but not the opportunities 
to receive any refunds they are due under Federal law.
  So it is quite simple. I certainly urge adoption of the Helms 
amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from 
Wisconsin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against this amendment. I, 
too, thought we had finished with the antilabor amendments yesterday 
when we agreed to remove the codification of the Beck provision from 
the bill. The debate on this campaign finance reform bill is not the 
proper forum to address labor law issues.
  I think these kinds of amendments have, at this point, become 
distractions. Sooner or later, those who oppose this bill are going to 
have to quit trying to change the subject and face up to the real 
issue, the corrupt soft

[[Page S2797]]

money system that they have defended by standing in the way of reform.
  Sooner or later, we are going to get to the point where people 
realize a majority of this body wants to pass this reform, a majority 
of the House wants this reform, and most importantly, the American 
people want this reform.
  This amendment requires a notice to be posted in every workplace 
telling union members that they have a right to quit their union. That 
is not balanced and is not evenhanded. So what is next? I guess we 
should require all companies to send a notice to their shareholders 
letting each and every one of them know they have a right to sell their 
shares if they do not like the political spending of the corporations. 
That is the logical implication of this.
  I think it is fitting that our last vote of this week will be to 
table this amendment. If we learned nothing else this week--actually, I 
think we have learned a lot, but if we learned nothing else, we now 
know for sure the Senate is not going to add antiunion amendments to 
this bill. And it is not going to do that not because it wants to 
protect labor but because it wants to protect reform.
  I thank my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle 
where the pressure to take a shot at labor is intense, for standing 
firm against these distracting and irrelevant amendments and moving us 
ever closer to passing the McCain-Feingold bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, here is an example of the need to 
ensure union members know of their rights. In 1959, Congress enacted 
the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, LMRDA, to ``protect 
the rights and interests of union members against abuses by unions and 
their officials.'' The act gave union members various substantive 
rights that were considered so crucial to ensuring that unions were 
``democratically governed and responsive to the will of their 
membership'' that they were labeled the ``Bill of Rights of Members of 
Labor Organizations.''
  Of course, Congress realized that the protections provided in the 
Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations were meaningless if 
union members did not know of their existence. Therefore, in section 
105 of the LMRDA, Congress mandated that ``[e]very labor organization 
shall inform its members concerning the provisions of this chapter.''
  Unfortunately, as demonstrated by the United States Fourth Circuit 
Court of Appeals' recent decision in Thomas versus The Grand Lodge of 
the International Association of Machinists, No. 99-1621 (January 27, 
2000), labor unions have frustrated the will of Congress for over 40 
years and sought to prevent their members from learning of the rights 
Congress gave them. Unions have done this by simply disregarding 
Congress' direct command to notify ``[e]very labor organization shall 
inform its members concerning the Bill of Rights of Members of Labor 
Organizations in the LMRDA.
  Unions take the meritless position, the Machinists Union asserted in 
the Thomas, that their one-time publication of the Bill of Rights of 
Members of Labor Organizations in the LMRDA to their membership in 1959 
satisfied their obligation under section 105.
  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, as any sane person 
would, because it ran ``counter to the clear text of [section 105]'', 
which, according to the Court clearly states Congress' intent ``that 
each individual [union member] soon after obtaining membership be 
informed about the provisions of the [Bill of Rights of Members of 
Labor Organizations.]'' Unions have been flouting the law in this 
manner since 1959, so there is a need to not only ensure that workers 
know their rights, but real need to make unions obey laws that have 
been on the books since 1959 that require them to provide certain 
notices to workers. Does my colleague support unions disregarding their 
obligations under the LMRDA?
  Mr. President, I repeat, if this amendment is voted down, it is 
further evidence during this debate that no amendments will be adopted 
that in any way adversely impact organized labor. All of those 
amendments have been described as a poison pill. It is pretty clear, as 
we move along, that anything that provides any kind of discomfort for 
the largest special interest in America will not be included in this 
bill.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Michigan.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my friend from Connecticut.
  Mr. President, yesterday we decided we were going to leave the Beck 
interpretation and implementation to the courts. That is exactly where 
that is right now. This whole issue of what is related to collective 
bargaining is being litigated now in the courts. This amendment goes in 
the opposite direction.
  In the Nickles amendment yesterday, we said, let's be silent on the 
definitions that are involved in Beck. This now puts in a partial 
definition, as the Senator from Connecticut pointed out, in only parts 
which are aimed at reducing participation and free association. That is 
not what we should be doing. We should keep our eye on eliminating the 
soft money.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 30 seconds to the Senator from Arizona.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I point out, I did have a meeting with the 
leader of the AFL-CIO in which he expressed his dissatisfaction with 
several portions of this legislation.
  I believe it should also be reiterated that taking out the Beck 
language was something that was agreed to on both sides.
  Mr. President, I am going to make a motion to table this amendment at 
the appropriate time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  The Senator from Connecticut has 30 seconds. The Senator from 
Kentucky has 5 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back our time.
  Mr. DODD. I yield back our time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment and ask for 
the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Helms 
amendment No. 141, as modified.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer), 
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. Carper), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. 
Durbin), the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy), the Senator from 
Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu), the Senator from Georgia (Mr. Miller), and 
the Senator from Washington (Mrs. Murray) are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California (Mrs. Boxer) would vote ``aye.''
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 53, nays 40, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 46 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Boxer
     Carper
     Durbin
     Kennedy
     Landrieu
     Miller
     Murray
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page S2798]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have agreed that this was the last vote 
of the day. If I may have the attention of the managers, I believe 
there is an understanding that we will do a couple more amendments 
today.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe on this side we have an amendment from 
Senator Hutchison of Texas and Senator Fitzgerald of Illinois to be 
laid down this morning and dealt with Monday, and I believe one on the 
Democratic side as well.
  Mr. DODD. If the Senator will yield, we are hopeful Senator Wellstone 
will have an amendment. I do not think he will offer it today but maybe 
first thing on Monday about noon. It should not take much time. We can 
have that and then go to the Hollings proposal at 2 o'clock, I believe, 
on which we will have 4 hours; is that correct?
  Mr. LOTT. Under the agreement, I believe it is actually five, but we 
have worked out that we will shorten that time and it will only be 4 
hours.
  Mr. DODD. With the debates ahead of time and some votes ready, we 
should have business to do when Members come back on Monday.
  Mr. LOTT. I remind all the Senators that we can expect one or two, 
maybe even more votes, as many as four around 6 o'clock on Monday. As 
always, Senator Daschle and I will try to accommodate as many Senators 
as is possible, but we have to make some progress on this legislation. 
We are trying to accommodate everybody by having debate and then 
stacking those votes on Monday. As my colleagues know, we have not been 
stacking votes, but we need to do that in order to make progress and 
have those votes late Monday afternoon.
  Also, while we have had a free-flowing debate and vote on amendments 
and some people like the way this is progressing, at some point we need 
to identify how many amendments are out there, how many are pending. I 
understand Senators are now coming up with some new ideas for 
amendments they may want to offer.
  The whole idea has been from the beginning that while we will have 
full debate and amendments offered, at some point next week--hopefully 
by Thursday night--we will get to a conclusion of this consideration. 
We cannot do that if we do not know what amendments are out there and 
if we do not begin to make more progress in terms of the amount of time 
we spend on amendments. We do not have to spend the full 3 hours or 4 
hours on amendments. If my colleagues need to, fine, but I hope the 
managers of the legislation and those who have been working on it--
Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Senator McConnell, and Senator Dodd--
will receive the cooperation of Senators so we will know what we can 
expect next week. If you look at the stacked votes on Monday and look 
at the next 3 days--we have been doing two or three amendments a day, 
perhaps as many as three now--that would mean we could only do nine or 
ten more amendments. I hope Members will think in those terms to get to 
a point where we get a fair conclusion.

  Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the majority leader. I understand the necessity, 
because of the weekend, that there may be two or three stacked votes on 
Monday. But the original agreement was we wouldn't stack any votes. So 
it will be my intention to object for the rest of the week after these 
stacked votes. These are too critical to wait over the weekend and let 
them sit out there to then have everybody come running in to vote on 
them.
  I thank Senators Dodd and McConnell. We have had an excellent debate 
and a ventilation of this issue which has been educational not only to 
Members but to the country.
  I also emphasize we need to get this done. I understand the urgency 
of moving to the budget the week after next, but we need to get this 
issue completed. I hope all Members understand that. We are committed 
to staying on this until we get a final vote either up or down on the 
bill.
  I thank the majority leader for all his help. This has been a debate 
that I can personally say I have enjoyed and I think other Members have 
as well.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, it is obvious we are probably going to have 
to go late Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday night to get this 
accomplished. We have difficulty when we have Senators say: I have an 
amendment, but I don't want to offer it Thursday night or Friday or 
Monday, but I am available Tuesday--as is everybody else. I hope 
Senators, if they are serious, will take advantage of prime time on 
Friday morning or Monday night at 8 o'clock, which is, I believe, about 
5 o'clock in California. It would be a very good time to offer a 
serious amendment.
  I yield to Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. At times in the past when we have had debates of this 
kind--and this has been a very productive and good debate this week--we 
have sought unanimous consent for a finite list, and it would be 
something we might want to contemplate doing maybe no later than Monday 
evening so we can work down a list and try to find ways in which to 
manage the remaining amendments.
  Most Members on this side would be prepared to work with the 
leadership to find a way to do that. That may be something we want to 
contemplate over the weekend.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know the managers are trying to identify 
those amendments. I talked to Senator McCain and Senator McConnell 
about getting that list identified clearly by Tuesday; certainly to get 
that done it would have to be in on Monday.
  We do have pending before the country the need for action on our 
budget for the year, on tax relief that could be beneficial to all 
Americans and the economy. We have the education legislation reported 
out of the Health Committee ready to go as soon as we come back from 
the Easter recess, and we have an energy problem in this country that 
needs some attention, too. We have a lot of very serious work we need 
to do on behalf of the American people.
  I hope we can complete this bill by the end of next week, and 
I expect that to be the case.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to the Senator.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the distinguished majority leader, it 
shouldn't be a problem coming up with a list of amendments by sometime 
Monday.
  I think it was George Orwell in the novel ``Animal Farm,'' who said 
all pigs were equal but some pigs were more equal than others. All 
amendments are equal, but I think we have a sense of the really 
important amendments and those will be dealt with in the early part of 
the week. I think we will have a clearer sense of where we are.
  I also want to agree with Senator McCain. This has been a superb 
debate, enlightening for all the Members. A lot of Members, and 
hopefully members of the press, have learned a little bit more about a 
very complex issue which we have had out here in a freewheeling fashion 
for the last week. We understand the need to get to a conclusion and 
will work toward that on Monday.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I yield.
  Mr. DODD. I think there has literally only been half an hour or an 
hour of quorum calls all week. The Members have engaged in the debate. 
This is like the preparation of bacon and eggs. The Members are deeply 
committed to this issue in some ways, and we are spending the time on 
it.
  I hope next week we can complete this. We have had wonderful debate 
and good amendments, by the way. We have improved this bill. I think 
both Senator McCain and Senator Feingold would agree there have been 
improvements to the legislation as a result of the amendment process.
  I know the other issues are tremendously important and all of us care 
about them. This issue goes to the heart of all of those questions, as 
well. This will be an important debate.
  I thank my colleague from Kentucky and the Members who have been on 
the floor during the week. They have contributed to the debate 
substantially.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Presiding Officer. I wanted to ask the 
distinguished

[[Page S2799]]

majority leader if I might make some comments, few in number, with 
respect to the subject of the forthcoming action on the budget that had 
been mentioned. My leader on the Budget Committee is not here at the 
moment but I simply want to say on behalf of myself and other Members 
of the Budget Committee, particularly those on my side, we do really 
need to have a good debate on the budget.
  I will probably have a few additional comments later today, but for 
now let me just remind the Senate that according to reports, the Budget 
Committee will not report out a budget resolution. This will be the 
first time, I am told, in the history of this Budget Act that the 
Senate will not have the benefit of a markup in the Budget Committee. I 
am not saying at this point to criticize anybody, but this is something 
new. I am a new member of the Budget Committee so I am learning some 
things as we go along.
  I do have to make that point. The people of this country are going to 
be denied, as Senators will be denied, the opportunity to listen to and 
to engage in debate in the Budget Committee, with amendments being 
offered and acted upon in that committee before a budget resolution is 
sent to the floor. It probably won't be reported from committee, a 
resolution, but according to the law, it is due to be reported by April 
1, April 1 being a Sunday, and we understand it is due to be reported, 
due to be put on the calendar without debate, without amendments in the 
committee, by April 2.

  Now, the second wrinkle in this horn is the Senate has not yet 
received the budget from the administration. We have received kind of a 
blue outline which, like the apostle Paul said, enables us to see 
through a glass darkly. We don't have a budget. That is not something 
that is unheard of, as I will say later today, and which was also 
emphasized yesterday by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Mr. 
Domenici, the very able chairman of the Budget Committee.
  I do have a few things, after I read the Record, that I want to say 
in that regard. I only want to say, Mr. Leader, whatever we can do to 
help the Senate to be able to examine this budget resolution when it is 
called up, have ample time to do it, and I want us to be able to act 
with some idea of what the administration is going to have in its 
budget.
  We had earlier understood that the budget would be up here on April 
3. Now we are told it will be up here on April 9 which is, I believe, 
the first Monday or Tuesday in the recess. So we will get the budget in 
the recess. But by then, according to the schedule that we understand 
will be followed, the budget resolution will be called up in the Senate 
and acted upon.
  I will make a few additional remarks on this subject after I read the 
Record because my distinguished and beloved friend, Pete Domenici, 
chairman of the Budget Committee, made some comments yesterday, and I 
have no fault with that at all, but I do want to read those comments.
  Please understand we are being confronted very soon with a matter 
which is going to be very controversial, thorny, and heatedly debated 
at times, which is all right. But the Senate needs to be put on notice. 
The people need to be put on notice that this is coming. Coming events 
cast their shadows before them.
  This is an event that is casting its shadow. Unfortunately, we are 
not going to have an opportunity in the Budget Committee to make our 
wishes known.
  The distinguished Senator from Michigan is on the floor. She is on 
that committee--a very able new member. I am a new member--not so able, 
but a new member. But she is a very able new member and she will join 
with me in calling attention to this. Not much is being said about this 
right now, but it is out there, it is coming, and it is probably the 
most important subject that this Senate will discuss this year. It 
involves a huge tax cut.
  I was glad to see in the newspaper this morning that the 
distinguished chairman of the Budget Committee, Mr. Domenici, is 
thinking of having--I don't know how accurate this is, how accurate the 
story is, but he is thinking in terms of having a rebate, which I think 
might be a very good approach. But he is also thinking of still having 
a 10-year approach. I haven't heard him say that. We will certainly be 
listening with great interest to what he has to say on this point.
  I thank both leaders for allowing me to take these few minutes 
because I don't think the time has been ill spent by my calling to the 
attention what lies ahead.
  In closing, let me thank Mr. McCain for his objections to stacked 
votes. That may be a thing we ought to do, not just with reference to 
this particular bill that is before the Senate, but we perhaps ought to 
object to stacked votes. I know how it would inconvenience Senators, 
but the people did not send me to this Senate for my convenience. I am 
here to serve them. And it is not in the best interests of the people 
that we stack votes, and for the very reasons that Mr. McCain said.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. STABENOW. Mr. President, if I might just comment for a moment to 
support the distinguished Senator's comments. Senator Byrd may be in 
fact a new member of the Budget Committee. He is certainly a person we 
look to for wise counsel on important subjects such as the budget. I 
have learned a tremendous amount from him as a member of the Budget 
Committee. I would add to his comments. I am, in fact, a new Member of 
the Senate as well as to the Budget Committee, but I have sat through 
our 16 hearings, had the opportunity to listen to each Secretary, each 
area of the budget, listening to the views on the President's budget, 
and at the end of this process when I assumed as a new member I would 
have the opportunity to put forward the wishes of the people of 
Michigan--our values, our priorities in the form of a budget--we were 
told yesterday we, in fact, would not even debate a budget resolution 
for the first time since 1974 when the Budget Act was put together.
  I share Senator Byrd's tremendous concerns. I cannot imagine anything 
more fundamental than this body debating the future of the country 
through the budget. I strongly support and urge that the leadership on 
the other side decide to allow us to do our job on the Budget Committee 
and come forward with, hopefully, what would be a bipartisan document 
that would allow us to proceed and work together to do the country's 
business.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator will yield?
  Ms. STABENOW. I am happy to yield to the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. I just want to compliment the Senator from Michigan for the 
exemplary service she has rendered on the Budget Committee, and I thank 
her for her comments today.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the quorum call 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator from Texas has an amendment to offer, and 
I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 111

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask that amendment No. 111 be 
reported.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 111.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment 
be dispensed with.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

 (Purpose: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to exempt State 
   and local political committees from duplicative notification and 
 reporting requirements made applicable to political organizations by 
                          Public Law 106-230)

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

[[Page S2800]]

     SEC. 305. EXEMPTION FOR STATE AND LOCAL POLITICAL COMMITTEES 
                   FROM NOTIFICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 
                   IMPOSED BY PUBLIC LAW 106-230.

       (a) Exemption From Notification Requirements.--Paragraph 
     (5) of section 527(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 
     (relating to organizations must notify Secretary that they 
     are section 527 organizations) is amended by striking ``or'' 
     at the end of subparagraph (A), by striking the period at the 
     end of subparagraph (B) and inserting ``, or'', and by adding 
     at the end the following new subparagraph:
       ``(C) which--
       ``(i) engages in exempt function activity solely in the 
     attempt to influence the selection, nomination, election, or 
     appointment of any individual to any State or local public 
     office or office in a State or local political organization, 
     and
       ``(ii) is subject to State or local contribution and 
     expenditure reporting requirements relating to selections, 
     nominations, elections, and appointments to such offices, and 
     reports under such requirements are publicly available.''.
       (b) Exemption From Reporting Requirements.--Paragraph (5) 
     of section 527(j) of such Code (relating to required 
     disclosures of expenditures and contributions) is amended by 
     striking ``or'' at the end of subparagraph (D), by striking 
     the period at the end of subparagraph (E) and inserting ``, 
     or'', and by adding at the end the following new 
     subparagraph:
       ``(F) to any organization which--
       ``(i) engages in exempt function activity solely in the 
     attempt to influence the selection, nomination, election, or 
     appointment of any individual to any State or local public 
     office or office in a State or local political organization, 
     and
       ``(ii) is subject to State or local contribution and 
     expenditure reporting requirements relating to selections, 
     nominations, elections, and appointments to such offices, and 
     reports under such requirements are publicly available.''.
       (c) Exemption From Requirements for Annual Return Based on 
     Gross Receipts.--Paragraph (6) of section 6012(a) of such 
     Code is amended by striking ``section)'' and inserting 
     ``section and an organization described in section 
     527(i)(5)(C)''.
       (d) Effective Date.--Notwithstanding section 402, the 
     amendments made by this section shall take effect as if 
     included in the amendments made by Public Law 106-230.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, this is a technical amendment to a 
bill that was passed last year by the Senate to correct a problem, and 
it has corrected part of a problem, but it has caused a problem for our 
State and local candidates all over the country.
  By way of background, this was a bill that was passed in an effort to 
close a loophole where some stealth PAC organizations that were making 
contributions and doing advertising did not have to disclose to whom 
they were contributing or who was contributing to them. In fact, it is 
called a 527 organization. Almost all political organizations--party 
committees, candidate committees--are section 527 organizations.
  As a 527, they enjoy Federal tax-exempt status and thus do not pay 
taxes on contributions. While most 527 organizations also file with the 
Federal Election Commission because they are engaged in express 
advocacy activities, there are a few organizations, so-called stealth 
PACs, that did not have to file with the FEC because they are engaged 
solely in issue advocacy and not in candidate advocacy. These groups 
generally have been sham organizations.
  So in an attempt to close the loophole so that the groups' donors 
would have to be disclosed, we passed a law last summer requiring all 
527 organizations to file notification of their status with the IRS and 
to disclose certain expenditures and contributions.
  The reason these groups must file with the IRS as opposed to the FEC 
is the new disclosure requirements are imposed as a condition of their 
tax-exempt status. Thus, those groups that choose not to file with the 
IRS could lose their tax-exempt status.
  While this law was intended to target stealth PACs, it has had the 
unintended consequence of imposing burdensome and duplicative reporting 
requirements on State and local campaign committees that are not 
involved in Federal election activities. State legislators across the 
country have been furious about these new requirements because, of 
course, they are taking in contributions, as a candidate would, and 
they do not want to have to file with the IRS as well as the FEC and 
their State and local requirements.
  So the amendment I have introduced is an attempt to fix this, what I 
think is an inequity that was not intended, by simply saying that if a 
candidate committee, or any committee, is subject to State or local 
contribution and expenditure reporting requirements relating to 
selections, nominations, elections, and appointments to such office, 
and they report under those requirements, and those reports are public, 
they would not also have to file with the IRS.
  It is a simple amendment. It is a technical correction. I think it 
will help all of our State and local candidates not to have this 
burdensome duplication. All of their contributions are reported. Their 
expenditures are reported. There are State laws governing it.
  I know this wasn't intended by Congress when we passed this amendment 
to section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code.
  I hope we can fix this so these State and local candidates will not 
be subject to losing their ability to run their campaign--hopefully 
without the burdensome overregulation. Many of them don't even have the 
capability to hire people to make these kinds of extra disclosures, 
which are not necessary because they are already public.
  The bottom line is if someone already publicly discloses their 
contributions and their expenditures under a law of the State, they 
should not be required to also file with the IRS.
  That is the summation of the amendment. I wouldn't think there would 
be an objection to it by either side. I think there wouldn't be an 
objection by either House of Congress.
  I submit for the Record a letter from the National Conference of 
State Legislators, which is a bipartisan organization, asking that this 
be fixed and stating that it has become an unreasonable burden, one 
that certainly does not in any way help public disclosure but, in fact, 
is just a duplication of public disclosure that is already required.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                            National Conference of


                                           State Legislatures,

                                                   March 21, 2001.
     Ms. Melissa Meuller,
     Ways and Means Counsel, Office of Representative Lloyd 
         Doggett, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Melissa: I wanted to respond to our phone conversation 
     of several weeks ago wherein you asked me to provide you with 
     more information as to how the new Section 527 law (P.L. 106-
     230) adversely impacts state legislators, paying specific 
     attention to the new tax code requirements.
       P.L. 106-230 requires political organizations to provide 
     notice of status to the IRS by July 31, 2000, unless an 
     exception applies. The only exception available to a state 
     legislative campaign is Sec. 527(i)(5)(B) (``reasonably 
     anticipates that it will not have gross receipts of $25,000 
     or more for any taxable year''). Given the size of Texas 
     House districts, the cost of running a campaign will almost 
     always be more than $25,000. Failure to file the notice of 
     status results in a penalty in the form of a tax liability. 
     If the political organization fails to file the notice of 
     status by the due date, the organization must include 
     contributions received after June 30, 2000, in taxable 
     income.
       The following represents an example of how the new law 
     plays out in Texas:
       A Texas House member heard about P.L. 106-230 in July 2000, 
     but did not file the notice of status because he didn't think 
     it applied to his campaign. In his opinion, he doesn't have 
     an ``organization,'' just family and friends who help out. 
     Political contributions to his campaign are deposited in a 
     non-interest-bearing checking account. He was not able to 
     reach anyone at the IRS who could tell him with certainty 
     whether he was required to obtain an EIN and file the notice 
     of status.
       He held a fundraiser in November 2000 and raised $42,000 in 
     political contributions. In January 2001, he learned that 
     P.L. 106-230 did apply to his situation. He filed the 1120-
     POL tax return on March 15, 2001. Following the form's 
     instructions, he included $42,000 in total income and 
     deducted a total of $2,000. The ``penalty'' for his failure 
     to file the notice of status is $14,000! If he had filed the 
     notice of status before the due date, his tax liability would 
     be $0.
       Beginning March 2002, he must filed Form 1120-POL if his 
     campaign receives $25,000 in contributions, even though his 
     campaign has no taxable income. In other words, he is 
     required to file Form 1120-POL with all zeros. He must also 
     file Form 990-EZ, the annual information return. According to 
     the IRS, the estimated average time needed to complete Form 
     990-EZ is more than 51 hours! That includes recordkeeping, 
     learning about the law and the form, and preparing the form.
       Under Ch. 254, Tex. Elec. Code, candidates and 
     officeholders are required to file reports at least 
     semiannually with the Texas Ethics Commission, itemizing 
     contributions, pledges, loans, expenditures, and providing

[[Page S2801]]

     certain other information. The threshold for itemization is 
     $50. See 254.031, Tex. Elec. Code. Most candidates and 
     officeholders are also required to file these reports 
     electronically.
       The purpose of P.L. 106-230 is to ensure full disclosure of 
     political contributions and expenditures. Form 1120-POL does 
     not provide the public with any additional information on 
     contributions and expenditures. Moreover, Form 990-EZ 
     provides only aggregated information. If the public wants 
     detailed information on a Texas House member's contributions 
     and expenditures, the public must still go to the Texas 
     Ethics Commission reports.
       I hope you find this information helpful. As I had stated 
     to you in our conversation, the draft legislation proposed by 
     Representative Doggett does not address the concerns of state 
     legislators with P.L. 106-230. I urge you to suggest 
     reworking Representative Doggett's proposed legislation to 
     exempt state legislators from the burdensome and duplicative 
     requirements of P.L. 106-230. Please do not hesitate to 
     contact me if you have any further questions. I may be 
     reached at 202-624-3566, or by e-mail at 
     Susan.F[email protected].
           Sincerely,

                                       Susan Parnas Frederick,

                                               Committee Director,
                                             NCSL Law and Justice.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I made the argument. I hope the 
amendment will be accepted. I understand we will need to clear it 
through the Finance Committee and make sure they are also not opposed 
to it.
  But I believe if anyone looks at the technical nature of this 
amendment, they will support it. It would take a terrible burden away 
from our State legislators and local candidates for mayor or city 
council.
  I certainly hope we can do that in an expedited way.
  I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________