[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 40 (Friday, March 23, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2801-S2807]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 111

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to discuss this amendment which I 
am sorry to oppose.
  I appreciate the involvement of the Senator from Texas in this issue 
and on this particular aspect of it because it was the first major 
breakthrough we were able to make in the area of campaign finance 
reform requiring full disclosure of 527 activities.
  Now that full disclosure has been obtained, we find some fascinating 
things have gone on in the name of campaign activities, such as buying 
trucks, giving people very generous salaries, renting office space--
very interesting things.
  Basically, as I read this amendment, it does not require the State 
and local political committees to notify and report the requirements 
imposed in 527.
  As I understand the comments of the Senator from Texas, I guess 
somehow it gives them burdensome paperwork that would be difficult for 
them to achieve in the case of 527s.
  They are making these reports, and all they have to do is make a copy 
and send it to Washington. So for a 527, it seems to me, it would not 
be that hard to use a copying machine. In fact, you might want to even 
go down to Kinko's and get one there.

  But more importantly, this is a reversal of full disclosure. 
Everybody, no matter which side they are on in this debate, says an 
integral and vital part of the problem is full disclosure. This is 
obviously a reversal thereof.
  Also, staff informs me that this entire bill would be blue-slipped if 
this amendment were made part of it because it touches the Tax Code. 
Changes in the Tax Code originate in the House of Representatives and 
it would have to come out of the Ways and Means Committee.
  So I will be opposing this amendment. I appreciate the involvement of 
the Senator from Texas. But to exempt people from making a copy of 
their financial disbursements in their campaign activities and sending 
it on to Washington, where, if Senator Cochran's amendment is going to 
be agreed to as part of this bill, it would be posted on the Internet 
and all would be able to see it, is obviously not something that I 
would really very much favor. I would want Americans to know all this 
information.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respond to the Senator from Arizona 
by saying, first of all, I hope he will work with me to try to have the 
purpose of my amendment added to this bill. If there is a specific 
problem, I would like to work with the Senator because I do not think 
the amendment we had last year, that affected the 527

[[Page S2802]]

organizations, was intended to affect State and local candidates who do 
not participate, in any way, in Federal elections.
  I think it is very clear from the amendment. If it isn't clear, I 
will certainly try to make it clear in the amendment that it would only 
apply to a State and local candidate who had reporting requirements and 
whose reporting requirements were covered under State law. Copying the 
report and sending it to the IRS is, unfortunately, not what happens 
when you pass a Federal law that affects State and local candidates.
  What happens is, you have a form that the IRS approves, which may not 
be the same as is required in some States. So it is a burdensome, added 
requirement. Furthermore, it isn't necessary because nothing that they 
do is participating in the Federal campaigns.
  The second issue is an important one. It is not my purpose to blue-
slip the bill or kill the bill. In fact, if the bill were to be blue-
slipped, I would withdraw the amendment. I do not think it is subject 
to being blue-slipped.
  In fact, the original amendment last year was offered to the Defense 
authorization bill. It was brought up at the time that this was a 
revenue measure and, therefore, was unconstitutional to be put on the 
Defense bill. In fact, we voted on that point of order, and it was 
determined that this is not a revenue measure.
  Senator McCain, along with many of the other cosponsors of the bill 
today--Senator McCain and Senator Feingold--agreed that this was not a 
revenue measure. In fact, Mr. McCain argued on the floor at the time:

       This amendment in no way raises any revenue, nor does it 
     change in any way the amount of revenue collected by 
     the Treasury pursuant to the Tax Code. It is simply a 
     clarification in what information must be disclosed by 
     entities seeking to claim status under section 527 of the 
     Tax Code.

  So I believe it certainly would not be considered a revenue measure 
and therefore would not be subject to a blue slip that would kill the 
bill.
  It is not my intention, with this amendment, to harm the bill itself. 
It is, though, my intention to try to alleviate this burdensome 
requirement for State and local candidates who would have to have 
another layer of reporting.
  I hope the Senator will work with me to make this acceptable to him 
because I do not think it will in any way damage the bill and certainly 
will not damage the reporting that is open to the public because State 
law would cover all of these candidates in their vote disbursements and 
contribution reporting requirements.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Texas, I thank her for this 
effort. We do want to work with her. I would like to put my staff to 
work with hers. And there are several other Senators' staffs who have 
also been working on this issue. I think we might be able to get 
something done.
  I will make a couple points. One, these organizations do get a 
Federal tax benefit even though they are only involved in State and 
local races. That is something we have to address. The other point is, 
as the Senator from Texas did point out, I argued strenuously that our 
legislation, which was put on the Defense bill, would not be blue-
slipped by the House and should not have been. And I still believe 
that. I agree with the Senator from Texas that this should not be blue-
slipped either.
  But after we passed the bill, and they went to conference, the House 
was insistent upon their position that it would be blue-slipped. So it 
was withdrawn from the Defense bill because of that adamant position 
the other body assumed.
  I have been discussing this matter with our staffs, and I think there 
is a way to work it out. I agree with the Senator from Texas, we should 
not put additional burdens on especially a majority of these relatively 
small organizations that are engaging in State and local campaigns. So 
I rather believe we can probably get something worked out and get it 
modified so it is acceptable to both the Senator from Texas as well as 
all Senators.
  I thank the Senator from Texas. We are going to work on it. I thank 
her for her engagement on this very important issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I respond by saying, I do appreciate 
that Senator McCain will work with us. Even though certainly a State 
and local candidate does not pay taxes on the contributions he or she 
receives, nevertheless, this should not be a report to the IRS when the 
reporting is covered--a point with which I think the Senator from 
Arizona agrees.
  Secondly, I will say right now that I would like to work with the key 
people in the House and the key people in the Senate to assure--before 
we put this amendment on the bill, or the amendment as we can work it 
out--that it will not be blue-slipped because if this is going to be a 
game that will be played by someone who is not for the bill, I will not 
be a part of it.
  My views on the bill might differ--and do differ--with the Senator 
from Arizona, and I will vote my conscience on the bill. But I am not 
playing a game here to try to kill the bill with a blue slip on an 
amendment. So I will have it cleared before we make a final 
determination because that is not my purpose.
  My purpose is to give the relief that I think we probably all agree 
should be given. I think the House and Senate will unanimously want to 
do it.
  We will clear the blue slip issue to everyone's satisfaction before 
that would go on the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Arizona has described the 
hesitations that those of us have about this amendment. They are mere 
hesitations, not opposition. It is a desire to ensure that what the 
Senator from Texas is trying to achieve, will in effect, be 
accomplished by the result and nothing more.
  Certainly my colleague from Texas can appreciate that unintended 
consequences of our good intentions sometimes can have effects beyond 
our imagination.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I think that is what happened with the original 527 
act. That does happen.
  Mr. DODD. Hopefully, we can narrow that.
  My colleague from Kentucky may want to be heard on this, but I 
recommend the Senator withdraw the amendment. Obviously, as soon as she 
is ready to bring it back up for debate, we will accommodate her. If 
she wants to bring back the amendment as crafted or whatever her 
version will be, that will certainly be allowable. It would be a good 
way for us to proceed. I recommend that, if she is so inclined, and we 
can all work together to try to achieve the result she desires.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I am happy to withdraw the amendment. 
I did want to propose it and have the debate. I thought it would 
actually be acceptable. I think it will be in the end. I am happy to 
work with the House to assure that there will be no blue slip problem. 
I think, on the merits, this is not a blue slip issue.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I missed part of the debate. Is the Senator saying she 
is going to withdraw the amendment?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I was requested to withdraw the amendment so that we 
might move forward.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest, if it is going to be continued to be 
considered in the course of this debate, it might be better to simply 
lay it aside. That keeps it in order. If it is certain that it will not 
be dealt with in the context of this debate, then withdrawal will be 
appropriate. I missed the earlier discussion.
  Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague, the problem is that if you lay an 
amendment aside, it takes unanimous consent to continue to lay it aside 
for other matters to be brought up. Someone could object to that and 
provoke a delay in the consideration of the bill. We should probably go 
with withdrawal, with the commitment to the Senator that we will bring 
it back up.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, we have had a great deal of comity 
during

[[Page S2803]]

the course of this debate. The biggest problem Senator Dodd and I are 
going to have is accommodating amendments that Members haven't come 
over to offer. My concern is, the amendment of the Senator from Texas, 
having done what we asked her to do, which is come over and lay down 
her amendment, by withdrawing it, goes back into the herd that may or 
may not get dealt with at the end. By simply setting it aside, she is 
in line. It gives an opportunity for discussions to continue with the 
Senator from Arizona and others who, I gather, think there might be 
some way to work this out. She is still in line rather than sort of 
getting sent back to the back of the bus. That is my advice to the 
Senator from Texas.
  Mr. DODD. I appreciate that. The problem is, we can't control what 98 
other Senators want to do.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas has the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, with the staff of the Senator from Texas 
and our staff, if we work it out, which I am 90 percent sure we will, 
then there is going to be no debate. We will bring it up and accept it. 
I don't think it will be too big a problem getting back in the queue on 
an amendment that is going to be basically accepted. If not, then it is 
going to be brought up, and we will have the full 3 hours of debate. I 
suggest the Senator from Texas go ahead and withdraw it. Then we can 
bring it up after we have an agreement. We can have it done in 30 
seconds, since we have already debated the underlying issue.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. If I could make a parliamentary inquiry, if I 
withdraw the amendment--I don't know if there has been a unanimous 
consent that has limited amendments--I just want to make sure I don't 
lose any ability to consider the amendment. I don't want to be in line 
and cause one person to hold the bill up. Again, I am not in the game. 
I am just trying to have this amendment be agreed to. I think it will 
be.
  Mr. McCONNELL. If the Senator will yield, we are in the process of 
working on a list of amendments which will probably be completed by 
sometime Monday. Your amendment will certainly be on the list. What we 
don't know, given the limited amount of time remaining between now and 
Thursday night, is whether that guarantees its consideration.
  The Senator from Arizona is correct; if Senators work it out, there 
will be no problem. If they don't work it out, I don't want the Senator 
from Texas to think it is a certainty that we are going to be able to 
handle all these amendments before we get to final passage.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield, I wish to make it clear, if we 
are not done by Thursday night, it will be done on Friday; if it is not 
done on Friday, we will be on it Saturday; if we are not done on 
Saturday, Sunday; if not Sunday, Monday. We will make time for the 
amendment of the Senator from Texas. We will not leave this legislation 
as long as I have the ability to keep us on it. If I don't, then all 
amendments will go, and so it won't matter whether the amendment came 
up or not.


                      Amendment No. 111, Withdrawn

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, based on the assertions of the Senator 
from Arizona, the Senator from Connecticut and what the Senator from 
Kentucky has said, that we will be a drawing up a list of amendments 
early next week, I will withdraw the amendment and rely on the good 
faith of everyone to work on this amendment to try to relieve the 
inequity without getting into the bill itself or damaging the bill 
itself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the Senator's request to 
withdraw the amendment? Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from Texas. I hope she and the 
Senator from Arizona can work this out to their mutual satisfaction so 
we can accommodate what I think is a very good idea.
  Mr. DODD. May I make a parliamentary inquiry. Is not the pending 
business the Specter amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Specter amendment 
was set aside by unanimous consent.
  Mr. DODD. Any motion to bring up an amendment requires unanimous 
consent to lay that amendment aside, is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe the Senator from Illinois is here, and he 
would like to offer an amendment. Building on the conversation Senator 
Dodd just had with the Chair, I say to the Senator from Illinois, the 
Specter amendment is the pending amendment. I ask unanimous consent 
that the Specter amendment be temporarily set aside in order to give 
the Senator from Illinois an opportunity to send his amendment to the 
desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 144

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


       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Fitzgerald] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 144.

  Mr. FITZGERALD. 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 provide that limits on contributions to candidates be 
        applied on an election cycle rather than election basis)

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

     SEC. ____. CONTRIBUTION LIMITS APPLIED ON ELECTION CYCLE 
                   BASIS.

       (a) Individual Limits.--Section 315(a)(1)(A) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(1)(A)) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) to any candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     political committee during the election cycle with respect to 
     any Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceeds 
     $2,000;''.
       (b) Multicandidate Political Committees.--Section 
     315(a)(2)(A) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(2)(A)) is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(A) to any candidate and the candidate's authorized 
     political committees during the election cycle with respect 
     to any Federal office which, in the aggregate, exceed 
     $10,000;''.
       (c) Election Cycle Defined.--Section 301 of such Act (2 
     U.S.C. 431), as amended by section 101, is amended by adding 
     at the end the following:
       ``(25) Election Cycle.--The term `election cycle' means, 
     with respect to a candidate, the period beginning on the day 
     after the date of the previous general election for the 
     specific office or seat that the candidate is seeking and 
     ending on the date of the general election for that office or 
     seat.''
       (d) Special Rules.--Section 315(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(9) For purposes of this subsection--
       ``(A) if there are more than 2 elections in an election 
     cycle for a specific Federal office, the limitations under 
     paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) shall be increased by $1,000 and 
     $5,000, respectively, for the number of elections in excess 
     of 2; and
       ``(B) if a candidate for President or Vice President is 
     prohibited from receiving contribution with respect to the 
     general election by reason of receiving funds under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the limitations under 
     paragraphs (1)(A) and (2)(A) shall be decreased by $1,000 and 
     $5,000.''
       (e) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) The second sentence of 315(a)(3) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(3)) is amended to read as follows: ``For purposes of 
     this paragraph, if any contribution is made to a candidate 
     for Federal office during a calendar year in the election 
     cycle for the office and no election is held during that 
     calendar year, the contribution shall be treated as made in 
     the first succeeding calendar year in the cycle in which an 
     election for the office is held.''
       (2) Paragraph (6) of section 315(a) of such Act (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(a)(6)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6) For purposes of paragraph (9), all elections held in 
     any calendar year for the office of President of the United 
     States (except a general election for such office) shall be 
     considered to be one election.''
       (f) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

  Mr. FITZGERALD. Mr. President, I have an amendment to S. 27 that was 
actually proposed by my own campaign treasurer and, after I started to 
look into it, I found out that the FEC had, in fact, made this very 
same recommendation to President Clinton last year and this year to 
President Bush.
  This is an amendment that will simplify the existing Federal election 
code

[[Page S2804]]

limits and simplify the bookkeeping and recordkeeping requirements of 
the act without changing any of its substance.
  Right now there is a contribution limit of $1,000 per primary and per 
general election. Any individual can give up to $1,000 for the primary 
that a candidate is in and another $1,000 for the general election. It 
is permissible under current law for candidates to actually ask their 
contributors to give them $2,000 right now, as long as they designate 
that $1,000 is for the primary and $1,000 is for the general election. 
And this system has been in place since the act first came into 
existence in the early 1970s. The problem with the way the act is 
written is that if a contributor fails to designate which election 
their contribution is for, and that contributor has already given 
$1,000, and they give another $1,000, if they do not designate that 
that contribution is for the succeeding election--say he already gave 
$1,000 for the primary, and he fails to designate that his additional 
$1,000 contribution is for the general election, then the candidate 
must refund that $1,000, unless he gets the contributor to fill out a 
form saying for which election he or she designates the contribution.
  This causes a lot of bookkeeping headaches for your treasurer. I am 
sure if you check with your own treasurer, Mr. President, he or she 
would love this amendment. In fact, the treasurers of all 100 Senators 
would immediately see the wisdom in my amendment.
  My amendment would change that per election limit of $1,000 to a per 
cycle limit of $2,000. So, in other words, you would collect $2,000 
from a contributor and not worry about whether the contributor has 
designated $1,000 for the primary and $1,000 for the general election.
  Mr. President, the FEC, in their recommendation to the President--I 
am going to read what they said about this. They recommended that we 
change this. It simply would save them a lot of time and staff 
resources, and it would also save our own campaigns a lot of time and 
bookkeeping headaches that are simply necessitated by the way the act 
is phrased. Instead of having a per cycle contribution limit, we have a 
per election limit, and we have to keep sending these redesignation 
forms to our contributors.
  The FEC, in their letter to the President in March of this year, this 
month, wrote:

       The Commission recommends that limits on contributions to 
     candidates be placed on an election cycle basis, rather than 
     current per election basis.

  Their explanation for their recommendation was as follows:

       The contribution limitations affecting contributions to 
     candidates are structured on a ``per election'' basis, thus 
     necessitating dual bookkeeping or the adoption of some other 
     method to distinguish between primary or general election 
     contributions. The Commission has had to adopt several rules 
     to clarify which contributions are attributable to which 
     election and to assure that contributions are reported for 
     the proper election. Many enforcement cases have been 
     generated where contributors' donations are excessive vis-a-
     vis a particular election, but not vis-a-vis the $2,000 total 
     that could have been contributed for the cycle. Often, this 
     is due to donors' failure to fully document which election 
     was intended. Sometimes the apparent ``excessives'' for a 
     particular election turn out to be simple reporting errors 
     where the wrong box was checked on the reporting form. Yet, 
     substantial resources must be devoted to examination of each 
     transaction to determine which election is applicable. 
     Further, several enforcement cases have been generated based 
     on the use of general election contributions for primary 
     election expenses or vice versa.
       Most of these complications would be eliminated with 
     adoption of a ``per cycle'' contribution limit. Thus, 
     multicandidate committees could give up to $10,000 and all 
     other persons could give up to $2,000 to an authorized 
     committee at any point during the election cycle. The 
     Commission and committees could get out of the business of 
     determining whether contributions are properly attributable 
     to a particular election, and the difficulty of assuring that 
     particular contributions are used for a particular election 
     could be eliminated.
       Moreover, public law number 106-58 (the fiscal year 2000 
     appropriations bill) amended the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act to require authorized candidate committees to report on a 
     campaign-to-date basis, rather than on a calendar year basis, 
     as of the reporting period beginning January 1, 2001. Placing 
     the limits on contributions to candidates on an election 
     cycle basis would complement this change and streamline 
     candidate reporting.
       It would be advisable to clarify that if a candidate 
     participates in more than two elections (e.g., in a post-
     primary runoff as well as a primary in a general), the 
     campaign cycle limit would be $3,000. In addition, because 
     Presidential candidates might opt to take public funding for 
     the general election, but not the primary, and thereby be 
     precluded from accepting general election contributions, 
     $1,000/$5,000 ``per election'' contribution limits should be 
     retained for Presidential candidates.
       A campaign cycle contribution limit would allow 
     contributors to give more than $1,000 toward a particular 
     primary or general election, but this would be balanced by 
     the tendency of campaigns to plan their fundraising and 
     manage their resources so as not to be left without 
     fundraising capability at a crucial time. Moreover, adoption 
     of this recommendation would eliminate the current 
     requirement that candidates who lose the primary election 
     refund or redesignate any contributions made for the general 
     election after the primary is over.

  Mr. President, we have drafted an amendment to implement this 
recommendation of the Federal Election Commission. The FEC general 
counsel's office, I have been told, is OK with the amendment as 
drafted. I will continue to be in touch with them over the weekend and 
over the next few days to see if we need to make any technical 
modifications at all to implement their intentions.
  The bottom line is that this amendment does not change at all the 
substance of the Federal election laws. It simply makes life a whole 
lot easier for candidates, especially for their financial departments, 
and in particular their campaign treasurers. This whole business of 
sending people letters and asking them to designate whether their 
contribution is for the primary or the general and if they don't return 
that designation, you have to refund their contribution--all of that, 
which is necessitated by the inadequate wording of the current law as 
it stands--is something we could avoid. It serves no public policy 
purpose that I can identify or that the FEC can identify.
  This would simplify things for candidates, their campaigns, and for 
the FEC. Presumably, it would free up some of the FEC's staff to focus 
on more serious matters that could violate the spirit of the election 
laws.
  Mr. President, on that basis, I thank you for this opportunity to 
introduce my amendment. I have shared it with both the Republican and 
Democratic sides. I would like to have unanimous support for this 
amendment. I can assure any Senator who votes against this amendment 
that their campaign treasurers will not be happy with them. This will 
make their lives easier. With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I have 5 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Fitzgerald. I wonder if 
the title of this is the ``Fitzgerald Campaign Treasurers Protection 
Act.''
  Mr. FITZGERALD. That should be the name of this amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. Or ``The Treasurers Relief Act.''
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes. The treasurers will love this amendment, and it 
would cut down on postage expenses and a whole lot of headaches. I urge 
its unanimous adoption.

  Mr. McCAIN. First, I thank Senator Fitzgerald because I also have 
heard from people who have to keep track of this paperwork. It is 
voluminous. It is difficult. It is not only an expenditure of money to 
make sure that all of these reports are correct, but it is an enormous 
expenditure of time as well.
  It seems to me Senator Fitzgerald has an excellent idea. If I 
understood Senator Fitzgerald, there may be some technical corrections 
that could be added to the amendment as a result of recommendations by 
the FEC in order to make sure this is in keeping with the intent of the 
amendment, I ask my friend.
  Mr. FITZGERALD. Yes, we have been in contact with the general 
counsel's office of the FEC. They just had the last few minutes for 
review. They have told me they are OK with the amendment, but I want to 
give them more time and have them scrub it over the weekend to make 
sure.
  In my own mind, I do have a couple questions on which I want to be 
satisfied. In particular, I have questions about how our amendment 
affects the requirement that you have to segregate money you have taken 
in the

[[Page S2805]]

primary and general. I want to talk to the FEC about that and see 
whether my amendment fully comports with their intentions. I want an 
opportunity to make a technical correction later if it is required.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reclaiming my time, with the agreement of the managers, I 
want to approve of this legislation pending technical corrections that 
could be made which would not, obviously, change it but would be merely 
technical in nature to make sure the intent of the legislation is in 
keeping with the fact the FEC is the expert on this matter.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois. I strongly support this amendment.
  I point out, it may be helpful as we conduct this debate over ``hard 
money'' because some people say you can contribute $1,000 a year; well, 
that really means $2,000 a cycle and the aggregates which are $20,000--
what are they?
  What we are talking about is how much can you contribute to an 
election, which is every 2 years. It is valuable for us to have this 
information. I wish we were talking in those terms now. It would be 
clearer to people as to exactly how much hard money could be given in 
the proposals I am sure inevitably we are going to engage in as to 
raising of hard money.
  We would have a clear indication what that means to a candidate in an 
election. I mention to my friend from Kentucky, we also ought to take 
into consideration as we debate this issue of hard money--and I see my 
friend from New York on the floor, too--how much it costs when we are 
spending this money; how much it costs for a minute of prime time on 
New York City television on ``Monday Night Football,'' how much it 
costs for a 30-second commercial on ``Friends.'' We all know in order 
to legitimize a candidacy, you need to be on television.
  I am going to try to inject this in this debate as we go forward, as 
to how much money candidates are able to spend. It is an important 
part; that we not only consider how much they can raise but how much it 
costs to run a campaign nowadays.
  I thank my friend from Illinois. I strongly support the amendment. I 
yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I, too, commend our colleague from Illinois. 
Last evening, a very diligent member of his staff caught me about 9 
o'clock with this proposal. I read it going back to my office. It 
looked to me like a good idea then and it sounds like a good idea this 
morning. The suggestion that the Senator from Arizona has made and that 
the Senator from Illinois, in fact, has endorsed--that we take a day or 
so to run the trap, so to speak, on this to make sure there are not any 
unintended problems with this--is a wise suggestion. I endorse that.
  My colleague from Kentucky can clarify this, but this may be the last 
amendment we consider so it could actually be the pending business when 
we come back in session.
  This is a very sound idea. I know of a case that is related to this 
kind of circumstances. This goes back now more than 10 or 15 years ago, 
where a candidate held a series of fundraising events. The events were 
$100 events or $200 events. An individual actually contributed through 
these five or six events, without keeping a good track of how much he 
had actually contributed to the particular candidate. He exceeded the 
dollar amount by, I think, $50 or $75.
  At any rate, the candidate then refunded the excessive portion of the 
contributions over $1,000 limit. It might have been the individual had 
contributed $1,200 or $1,050. Whatever the number was, it was 
relatively minor. The candidate was then fined by the FEC because he 
accepted excessive contributions. Notwithstanding the fact that the 
excessive portion had been timely refunded, the fact that the candidate 
accepted the contributions in excess of the ``per election'' $1,000 
limit triggered a fine.
  The candidate was informed by the FEC that if he had gotten a hold of 
the contributor and said, Didn't you mean the extra $50 was supposed to 
go to the primary election, or, Didn't you intend for your wife to 
contribute the $50, there would have been no fine in connection with 
the overage. The affirmative act of refunding the excessive portion of 
the contribution had no relevancy in terms of the allegation.
  This amendment goes to part of that situation, and it is in 
everyone's interest, including the FEC, candidate and the contributor, 
to allow for a more efficient and effective method of streamlining this 
process than lending oneself to the possibility of an added bookkeeping 
problem.
  It seems to me like a very sound and commonsense amendment. I am 
hopeful the FEC will agree with that. We will take a look at that over 
the weekend and keep the Senator and his staff informed as we ask these 
questions. Maybe we can do it together, with the staffs, so they can be 
fully informed as to the FEC's response to this.
  I am very confident this amendment, or some technical modification of 
it, can be unanimously adopted. I hope it can be unanimously adopted by 
the Chamber.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Illinois for 
his excellent amendment. We look forward to its adoption on Monday. I 
am unaware of any additional amendments to be laid down on our side. 
Does the Senator from Connecticut have any on his side?
  Mr. DODD. I have no additional amendments. My friend and colleague 
from New York has requested 5 minutes to speak, not on an amendment but 
on the bill.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I suggest I put us into morning business.
  I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of 
morning business----
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield? I ask I be given 5 minutes at 
the beginning of morning business because I have to catch a plane. 
Otherwise, I will speak on this bill and ask for 5 minutes now, if that 
is OK with my colleague from West Virginia as well. He has been 
patiently waiting. Whichever way you want to do it is OK with me.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding.
  I wish to alert my colleagues to another potential problem we face 
with this legislation as it evolves. I think the debate has been 
excellent. I compliment both the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator 
from Connecticut for a great job in handling this well, as well as 
Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for the job they have done in 
moving this forward. Those of us who advocate reform are very heartened 
by what has happened this week. It seems that no killer amendments have 
been adopted. Lots of changes have been made--good changes but no 
killer amendments.
  Next week, of course, we know we face two known challenges and now 
there is a third one to which I want to alert my colleagues. The first, 
of course, is severability. We know that is coming. The second is the 
Hagel amendment. We know that is coming. The third relates to where 
this debate has evolved.
  Right now it seems the consensus around eliminating soft money is 
congealing, but, in exchange, people say we should raise the hard money 
limits, raise the limits an individual can give from $1,000 per 
election, per cycle, to $2,000 or $3,000--there were proposals from the 
Senator from California and the Senator from Tennessee respectively on 
that--but also to raise the aggregate limits, the $20,000 that somebody 
can give to a party, the $25,000 of hard money that can be given.
  I alert my colleagues to a potential problem, particularly if we 
raise these limits and do nothing else; and that is, what is the so-
called 441(a)(d) money. That is money, of course, that the Federal 
parties are allowed to give to different candidates.
  Right now it is limited. It is limited based on the population and 
the voting population of the State. For instance, in my State of New 
York, I think the limit is about $1.7 million and the party can give 
$1.7 million. It is probably considerably less in Connecticut or West 
Virginia or Arizona. It is larger in California.

  The exact number is 2 cents multiplied by the voting agency 
population of the State.
  What has happened, my colleagues, is this: There is a case that has 
already

[[Page S2806]]

been argued before the United States Supreme Court. It is called FEC v. 
the Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee. I happen to be an 
amicus on this case, as are many of my colleagues, including Senator 
Feingold, among others. In the case, it has been argued that the limits 
on the 441(a)(d) money should be entirely lifted, that a party can give 
unlimited money to a Senate or a House candidate.
  That, in my judgment, in itself, could obliterate the whole intent of 
McCain-Feingold, and it would be exacerbated dramatically if we raised 
the limits--not so much the $1,000 going to $2,000 but the aggregate 
limits: Take the proposal of my friend from Tennessee, that would 
triple the limits, I believe. That means every year if a person gives 
$60,000 to a party, that party, if it so wishes, can give the $60,000 
back to that person's State directly to the Senate campaign.
  We may call that hard money, but that money is as soft a hard money 
as there ever was because the difference between hard money and soft 
money, particularly now with recent Supreme Court decisions that have 
eliminated limits on party soft money, are now gone. So $60,000, to me, 
is as soft as money gets. You can call it hard because under the old 
law it is hard, but it is soft.
  If we don't do something to reinstitute in whatever way possible the 
441(a)(d) limits, and particularly, if we raise the aggregate hard 
money limits--not the $1,000 but the aggregate limits--we will have 
tremendous trouble and we may find that the whole reform we have sought 
today is for naught. If you can't give the money directly to a 
candidate or you can give the money not to the party in one way, and 
can give it this other way under 441(a)(d) with no limit, we have real 
trouble.
  I say to my colleagues, with the help of Senators McCain and Feingold 
we are working on a proposal to see if we can deal with this issue.
  Mr. DODD. I would like to engage in this discussion. My colleague is 
making a very good point.
  Only here could we be sitting around saying that a total contribution 
amount of $25,000 per person annually is too low. If you take a husband 
and wife jointly that total amount becomes $50,000 annually, with the 
potential of each individual to cap his or her annual limit at $25,000 
each. The most modest suggestion in other proposals, other than what is 
in S. 27, is to virtually double that annual amount. We are now talking 
about a family giving $100,000 in contributions. People are now 
suggesting that amount is too low. I find that stunning. What 
percentage of the American public are in a position to donate $100,000 
to candidates a year? Or even under the current law at $25,000 annually 
for individuals--not that many individuals can afford to participate at 
that financial level. That amount exceeds the average income of a 
family of this country.
  We start talking about campaigns and moaning as politicians that we 
can't live in a situation where people are limited to giving us $25,000 
a year. I find it stunning this is even a part of this debate. We 
should be focused on eliminating soft money, and yet here we are about 
to drive a Mack truck through the hard money, as if people understand 
the distinction between soft and hard money. Money is money. I want to 
underscore the point my colleague is making.

  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend from Connecticut who made the point 
extremely well.
  You can call this hard if you want, but it is as soft as soft money 
can be. Even in this Colorado case, most of the people who have watched 
the case have said the Supreme Court, given the past, will get rid of 
these limits, and then money just cascades in. There are no limits 
whatever.
  I think if the 441(a)(d) limits are eliminated and we raise the hard 
money aggregate limits, there are a lot of candidates who will not 
bother to raise the $1,000 and $2,000 because they can do it in these 
big chunks. We ought to be very careful about this.
  As I mentioned, I am trying to craft language that deals with this 
problem, but the Senator from Connecticut makes an excellent point. 
Until we have that kind of language in place, to even think of raising 
hard money aggregate limits would be a serious mistake.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. SCHUMER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DODD. I made a miscalculation, I apologize. I underestimated 
their generosity. I said $100,000, if you again combined a husband and 
wife, each with a $100,000 annual contribution cap. The new joint 
annual limit becomes $200,000. I forgot the limit is per calendar year 
here, but an election cycle means two years, so we are talking $200,000 
per election cycle for a couple. I apologize to the Americans who want 
to contribute $200,000. I was depriving them of an initial $100,000. An 
election cycle is a 2-year time period.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I guess that would mean for us that could be $600,000--
yes, $600,000 because we run every 6 years. To get behind a 
Presidential candidate early on, it could be $400,000.
  This is absurdity. This is a mockery of what we are trying to do. I 
hope we will be able, together, to fix this.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my friend from New York. For purposes of 
edification, I know many of my colleagues and staffs are familiar with 
this, but perhaps other people may be interested in this discussion. 
Today, of course, we have limitations. Under current law, a candidate 
can receive $1,000 per election, or $1,000 for the election and $1,000 
for the primary, so $2,000 is what most people do. That is per 
election, per individual. You then can contribute to PACs if you so 
desire, $5,000 per calendar year, and if you do it as a couple, of 
course, it is $5,000 for the individual, and $10,000 to the PAC. You 
can give $5,000 per calendar year to the State and local parties, you 
can give $20,000 a calendar year to the national parties with aggregate 
limits per calendar year of $25,000.
  That is what current law is. Every suggestion, including the 
underlying bill, raises that. S. 27 raises the aggregate amount. 
Senator Hagel, our friend from Nebraska, raises it to $75,000 per 
calendar year. Senator Thompson of Tennessee raised it to $75,000 and 
Senator Feinstein has it to $50,000 per calendar year.
  It is important for people to know it is per calendar year per 
individual. Normally, in the real world in politics, with a husband and 
wife, they each write checks, so take each of those numbers and double 
them. All Members know this. I am not stating something that is bizarre 
to my colleagues. That is how you do this. You ask the husband and 
wife, so you get double those amounts.
  So we are talking, in one of the more modest proposals, Senator 
Feinstein, that is $100,000 per calendar year, over 2 years it is 
doubling.
  As I said a moment ago, only in this world could we be talking about 
the hardships being imposed on us as candidates by limiting people to 
$100,000 to $200,000 in hard money contributions to our election or 
reelection efforts.
  The underlying purpose of McCain-Feingold is to try and reduce the 
amount of money in politics. Their focus is on soft money. I applaud 
that. I support that.
  What Senator Feingold said the other day is worth repeating: We need 
to stop assuming that there is a guarantee, almost by natural law, an 
assumption of exponential growth in the cost of campaigns; that that is 
nothing we can do anything about.
  I reject that idea. I realize there will be increases in costs, but 
as I mentioned the other day, a statewide campaign from a few hundred 
thousand dollars to multimillion dollars average cost of Senator races 
in this country, does not have to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
  What Senator McCain and Senator Feingold are attempting to do, as are 
those of us who support what they are trying to do, is see if we can't 
slow this down, put some brakes on before this just becomes an 
absurdity where only a tiny fraction of Americans could only hope to 
seek a seat in the Senate or the House of Representatives.
  Back in the founding days of this country, we had limitations on 
those who could hold public office. Only white males who owned property 
in the 13 original colonies could hold public office. We have 
eliminated all of those conditions, thank God, years ago. De jure, 
there are no limitations on who can sit in this body except by age and 
citizenship, and some other problems you can't have had--you can't be a 
felon and run. But aside from that, we don't put on limitations. But 
what has

[[Page S2807]]

happened de facto, if not de jure, is we have created a barrier for 
most Americans to ever think about having a seat in the House or Senate 
because, de facto, the cost of getting here is prohibitive. Either you 
have to have the money yourself, or you have to have access to the kind 
of dollars that would allow you to be a candidate in a statewide Senate 
race in the year 2001.
  What Senator McCain and Senator Feingold and those of us who are 
supporting them are trying to do is see if we can't change this 
assumption, this assumption that there is nothing or very little we can 
do about this, and we are just going to continue to raise the amount of 
money we can raise from individuals and groups and go to political 
action committees, to national parties, and State parties. Instead, we 
say: Enough is enough; 25 years of this exponential growth--we ought to 
be able to do something to slow this down. And that is what we are 
trying to do.
  S. 27 allows for increases. McCain-Feingold allows for doubling 
contributions, if a few instances, one being a calendar year from 
$5,000 to $10,000. We have the same amount as currently permitted going 
to national parties, and we have an aggregate limit increasing from 
$25,000 to $30,000 per year.
  How many people in this country can write a check for $30,000 for 
Federal officeholders? And I am told that is too low. Too low? Too 
low?--$30,000 a calendar year, to write checks for politicians, is too 
low?
  You would be laughed out of my State, the most affluent State on a 
per capita basis, if you stood and said this is too little. And that 
is, in effect, what we are saying. I don't think it is too little. We 
would do ourselves, this institution, and the political process a world 
of good by adopting the McCain-Feingold approach and living with it and 
learning how to live with the spirit, as well as the law, of S. 27.
  The adoption of the Torricelli amendment the other day, which I think 
could save millions of dollars for candidates by insisting that these 
television stations not charge in excess of the lowest unit rate 
charge, will contribute significantly to our slowing down the rising 
cost of campaigns. And some of the other provisions that have been 
introduced to allow for a more expeditious and efficient way of 
reporting will help as well.
  Before we close out the debate on this subject, I wanted to say after 
the first week of debate, this has been one of the more enlightening 
debates I have been a part of in the time I have been in the Senate. We 
have had very few quorum calls. We have had terrific participation by 
Members concerned about this issue in the form of offering their ideas 
and thoughts by amendment. It has been one of the better moments in the 
Senate in the last number of years, in my view. So I commend my 
colleagues for that.

  I hope next week will be as enlightening and as helpful as we move 
forward. The hope is the ultimate adoption of the McCain-Feingold 
legislation--as is, with some of the improvements I know my colleagues 
will be offering.
  I prefer we come along next week having made the positive changes we 
have made over this past week and ending up doing what some of these 
proposals suggest since the ideas are coming from both sides of the 
isle. But anybody who stands up and suggest to me that the reality--
don't try to play games by what you write--this $50,000 per person per 
calendar year--cannot expect to smuggle the $50,000 through as the 
reality. The reality is it generally is per individual and spouse, 
which means as a practical matter, it is usually $100,000 per family. 
As a result, in an election cycle of 2-years, it is $200,000. If 
someone thinks they are going to smuggle that past this Member as a 
modest request, they have another consideration to make.
  It is outrageous, excessive--there is nothing modest about it. It is 
what contributes to the feeling that so many Americans have about the 
political process in this country today. I look forward to the coming 
debate next week. It could get testy if we think these numbers are 
going to fly through without significant debate. Some of us Members 
think there are already ample limitations on contributions for 
individuals and ample room for people to make significant contributions 
in the political process.
  Senator Wellstone made the point last week that it is less than one-
half of 1 percent of the American public who make contributions of 
$1,000. Mr. President, 99 percent of the American public cannot even 
think about that level of contribution. I know for a fact most 
candidates will not bother with that 99 percent of the American public 
and ask for their financial help.
  If you can get the $1,000, $2,000 and $3,000 contributions, then that 
is the pond you are going to fish in. You are not going to go out and 
raise money in $50 and $20 and $100 contributions from average 
citizens.
  I think there is something terribly dangerous about excluding average 
people from financially participating in the political life of America. 
That is what we are doing. That is the reality of it. There is not a 
single candidate who will bother with these people except to create 
some political event but not as a fundraiser. You will not be raising 
money from average Americans. You will be going after the big-dollar 
givers, and there are only a handful in this country who can make those 
contributions. The idea that we have to double and triple the size of 
that contribution limit is shameful.
  I look forward to the debate next week. Hopefully the majority of my 
colleagues will reject those unnecessary increases in hard money 
individual contributions.
  With that, I yield the floor. I did not see my friend from West 
Virginia behind me. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

                          ____________________