[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 28, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3005-S3019]
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.
       Thompson amendment No. 149, to modify and index 
     contribution limits.


                           Amendment No. 149

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the Thompson amendment No. 149 
on which there shall be 30 minutes for closing remarks.
  Who yields time? The Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Thompson.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as was stated, we are here to consider 
our amendment to modestly raise the hard money limits that can be 
contributed to candidates. We should keep our focus on what this whole 
reform debate is about; that is, the concern over large amounts of 
money going to one individual and the appearances that come about from 
that.

[[Page S3006]]

  What we are doing today is a part of helping that. It is not enough 
just to get rid of soft money and leave the hard money unrealistically 
low limitations where they are. Everything will go to the independent 
groups. We see how powerful they are now, and they are getting more and 
more so.
  Under the first amendment, they have the right to do that. It will be 
even more in the future when and if we do away with soft money. 
Therefore, we should not keep squeezing down the most legitimate, on 
top of the table, limited, full disclosed parts of our campaign system, 
which is the hard money system which is now at $1,000.
  It has not been indexed for inflation since 1974. All we are asking 
is that we come up to limits, not even bringing it up to inflation, 
which would turn the $1,000 limitation into about a $3,550 limitation. 
We are not suggesting that. We are saying let's go to $2,500, 
substantially below inflation and the other numbers commensurate with 
that.
  If those limits did not have corruption significance and appearance 
problems in 1974, they do not today because we are actually giving the 
candidate less purchasing power than we gave him in 1974, and the 
reason we are having to bump it up in the increments that we are is 
because we have not done anything for all of that time.
  I think the most salutary benefit of raising the hard money limits 
just a little bit and to the parties just a little--let the parties 
have some money to do the things they are supposed to do--no corporate 
money, no union money, no soft money, but hard money to the parties. 
Let them be raised, too, again below inflation. The effect of that 
would be to benefit challengers.
  I engaged in a little colloquy with my friend from New York as to how 
in the world somebody in New York, who wants to run as a challenger in 
New York, under the $1,000 limitation, or how in the world would a 
challenger in the State of California or the State of Texas or any 
other big State--or small State for that matter, but especially large 
States--get enough money to run as a challenger under these present-day 
limitations?
  They will not even try anymore, and we will continue to have a system 
made up of nothing but multimillionaires and professional politicians 
who have Rolodexes big enough to barely fit in the trunk of an 
automobile.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Did the Senator see the full-page ad yesterday in the 
Washington Post?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I did not.
  Mr. McCONNELL. A full-page ad paid for by an individual named Jerome 
Kohlberg, a billionaire, who is financing a lot of the effort on behalf 
of the underlying legislation, which I know the Senator from Tennessee 
supports.
  I bring it up only to underscore the point the Senator is making. To 
the extent you weaken the parties, these people are going to control 
the game. This particular individual put a half a million dollars in 
against Senator Jim Bunning in his campaign in 1998.
  The point, I gather, I heard the Senator from Tennessee making, to 
the extent you totally weaken the parties--they already lost money. We 
know that 40 percent of the RNC and DNC budget is gone. What the 
Senator from Tennessee is doing, as I understand it, is giving the 
parties a chance to compete against the billionaires.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Exactly, and the candidates a chance. Continue on with 
those full-page ads. Spend millions of dollars on those full-page ads 
slamming the candidate. That is free speech, that is America, but let 
the candidate have a fighting chance. Let him have some control over 
his own campaign.
  I am most disturbed to read in the newspaper that the leadership on 
the other side, with whom I have worked on these reform measures, is 
saying now that we can increase it this much, but if you go one 
centimeter over that, they are going to be against the whole McCain-
Feingold bill.
  I ask how that considers those of us who have stood with McCain-
Feingold, against those who say it will hurt their own party, through 
thick and thin over the years, to hear the other side now saying that 
if you go one centimeter over this level, which is still substantially 
below inflation, we are going to blow up the whole bill because it 
disadvantages our party.
  Are we back to trying to figure out which party is going to get a 
little advantage on the other party? Is that what this is all about? 
That is what we have been fighting against. That is not reform.
  The fact of the matter is, in all of these areas, we are in as much 
equilibrium from a party's standpoint as we are ever going to be. 
Raising these limits to a point that is far below what the writers in 
1974 wanted certainly does not tinge on corruption. It does nothing to 
weaken McCain-Feingold. It strengthens McCain-Feingold.
  If you want a bill the Senate will pass, if you want a bill the House 
will pass, if you want a bill the President will sign, then you will 
assist in raising these hard money limits up to a decent point.
  We talk about a couple and treating a man and a wife as the same; the 
wife going to do exactly what the husband says, presumably. Raise those 
money limits. We are talking about $100,000. This is $100,000. Why not 
extend it over 4 years and say $200,000? You can get the theoretical 
limits up as high as you wish as long as no large amounts are going to 
individual candidates, as long as amounts are going to parties that 
under the law and under all of the learned speculation about what the 
law will be in terms of these cases that are pending, you are still not 
going to be able to coordinate between the donor and the candidate. You 
give to the party and the party can give to the candidate, but you 
cannot have that kind of coordination that was suggested on the floor. 
That is just not the law.
  Let us remember the purpose of this effort. This will strengthen this 
effort if we will raise these hard money limits. Give the candidates a 
fighting chance, give challengers a fighting chance, and not engage in 
some class warfare: Because not everybody can contribute $2,500 then 
nobody ought to be allowed to contribute $2,500, even though it skews 
our system and it will ultimately result in these independent groups 
totally taking over.
  We will be back in here with a strong effort to get rid of all 
limitations and total deregulation. That will be the result.

  We often say do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If that 
phrase ever applied, it applies today.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Dodd.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I gather the opponents of this measure have 
15 minutes; is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. That is correct; the opponents have 
15 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Will the Chair advise me when I have consumed 4 minutes?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Tennessee, as I said 
last evening, I have great respect and admiration for him as a 
colleague and as a Member of this body. I remind my good friend from 
Tennessee that the McCain-Feingold bill, of which my friend from 
Tennessee is a supporter and of which I am and a majority of us are, 
has a $1,000 per capita limitation on hard money contributions.
  That is what McCain-Feingold says. McCain-Feingold does not raise the 
hard dollar contributions at all. It limits PAC contributions to 
$5,000; contributions to parties to $10,000; $20,000 to national 
parties; and raises the aggregate limits from $25,000 to $30,000. There 
are increases in hard dollar contributions in McCain-Feingold. But our 
colleague from Tennessee is suggesting we increase the hard dollar 
contribution by 150 percent, from $1,000 to $2,500. The practical 
realities are, it is $2,500 for the primary and $2,500 for the general, 
so we are talking a $5,000 base in that contribution; and as we solicit 
the contributions from families, a husband and wife, that is really 
$10,000. We are going from $4,000 to $10,000. That is a significant 
increase.

  I realize costs have gone up in the last 24 years, but this jump from 
$1,000 to $2,500, the net effect of going from $4,000 to $10,000, is a 
rather large increase. When we take the aggregate limits from $25,000 
to $50,000, that is a

[[Page S3007]]

100-percent increase, $50,000 per individual per calendar year. That is 
a large amount of money.
  If you subscribe to the notion that there is too much money in 
politics, that we ought to try to get less or slow it down, so we don't 
have the chart my friend from Tennessee showed last evening where the 
costs have gone from $600,000 for a statewide race in 1976 to in excess 
of $7 million in the year 2000, 10 years from now, if you extrapolate 
the numbers, we are looking at $13 million for the average cost of a 
Senate race.
  When does this stop? When do we try to reverse this trend that I 
don't think is a part of natural law? This is not natural law. The cost 
of campaigns has to go up exponentially?
  There are those who believe there should be some increase--I accept 
that--in the hard dollar. I am not happy, but I understand there should 
be some increase.
  My plea is the one I made last evening to my friend from Tennessee, 
who I know is a strong supporter of McCain-Feingold and has been for 
several years; he is not a Johnny Come Lately to the reform effort. We 
ought to be able to find some common ground between his proposal and 
those who agree with McCain-Feingold, who believe and understand there 
should be some increase, and to find some number we can support.
  There are many people who support the amendment of the Senator from 
Tennessee who ultimately will vote against McCain-Feingold. I think 
they are hoping to get this number up so high that there will be people 
on this side who do support McCain-Feingold but can't in good 
conscience if the number is so high that it makes a mockery of reform. 
There is sort of a three-dimensional chess game going on here.
  My appeal to my colleague from Tennessee is, while we will vote on 
his amendment in 15 minutes, I suspect there will be a tabling motion, 
and I suspect there is a possibility the tabling motion may prevail. If 
it does, that may be a time in which we can begin to sit down and see 
if we cannot resolve some of this issue. I don't think the differences 
have to be that great; There can be some common ground.
  My plea would be for those who support McCain-Feingold, to try to 
seek that level of increase that is acceptable, although not something 
many of us would like to see but certainly a more moderate increase 
than what is proposed.
  I know we have several other colleagues who want to be heard on this 
amendment. I will yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Minnesota.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, putting more big money into politics is 
not reform; it is deform. Saying that an individual can contribute as 
much as $5,000 a year to a candidate, that an individual can contribute 
as much as $100,000 a year in an aggregate to different political 
efforts, means two things. It means, first of all, that those who run 
for office are going to be even more dependent on the top 1 percent of 
the population. Is that reform?
  It means the vast majority of the people in the country are now 
really going to believe if you pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you 
don't play. They will feel left out. And they should feel left out.
  It is hard for me to believe that Senators want to go back home to 
their States and say, we have voted for reform by making it possible 
for those people who are the heavy hitters and the well-connected and 
have the money to have even more domination over politics today in our 
country. How are you going to explain that? Do you think it will be the 
schoolteachers who are going to be making $100,000 contributions per 
year? Do you think it will be the hospital workers? Do you think it 
will be the child care workers? Do you think it will be middle-income 
people, working-income people, low- and moderate-income people, the 
majority of people? One-quarter of 1 percent of the population 
contributes over $200. One-ninth of 1 percent of the population 
contributes over $1,000. Now you will take the lid off and make the 
people with the big money even more important, with more influence over 
politics? And you dare to call that reform?
  This is one of the most frustrating and disappointing times for being 
a Senator if we pass this amendment. My colleague from Tennessee talks 
about class warfare. Let me put it a different way. This is fine for 
incumbents; I guess they get the money. I don't see myself getting 
these big bucks. What about whoever wants to run for office as a 
challenger but he or she is not connected to all these interests; they 
are not connected to people who are so well heeled; they represent 
different people? There is not one Fannie Lou Hamer in the United 
States. There is not one Fannie Lou Hamer. The truth of the matter is, 
there will not be one Senator who will be able to represent a Fannie 
Lou Hamer, a civil rights leader, a poor person, people without any 
power, and people without any money.
  You are not going to get people elected any longer if you raise these 
limits because no one is going to have a chance unless they have a 
politics that appeals to people who have all of the economic clout. 
What kind of reform is this?
  I think this amendment, if it passes, is a potential ``deal 
breaker.'' And my colleague from Tennessee says we cannot let the 
perfect be the enemy of the good. I say to my colleague from Tennessee, 
the question is whether or not we have the good any longer. The 
question is whether or not we have the good any longer. We take the 
caps off; we bring more big money into politics; we now make hard money 
contributions essentially soft money.
  One hundred thousand dollars per year? How many couples in the State 
of Minnesota can contribute $200,000 a year? How many people in 
Minnesota can contribute that? And we call this reform?
  This amendment has that made-for-Congress look. This amendment has 
that pro-incumbent look. This amendment has that pro-money, big money 
look.
  I ask, where are the reformers? Why aren't we making an all-out 
fight? Why aren't people saying this is the deal breaker? We are 
getting to the point where it is a very real question, if this kind of 
amendment passes, whether we even have the good any longer. I hope this 
amendment will be defeated.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Does the Senator from New Jersey wish to speak?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. If the Senator will yield time.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I am informed we have 7\1/2\ minutes. I yield the 
remaining time to the Senator from New Jersey.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
yielding. I compliment him on his leadership on this issue.
  This is a regrettable debate in the McCain-Feingold reform question 
because it is in some measure a distinction without a difference. This 
is a matter that should have been and should still be settled.
  The Senator from Tennessee is offering an amendment that allows a 
$2,500 individual contribution per election. I believe it is the right 
level. Some of my colleagues have been apoplectic, that this is an 
extraordinary change in the system; it would destroy the campaign 
finance system. The only right and proper thing for the Republic is to 
have a $2,000 individual campaign limit.

  Our Republic must be weak, indeed, if that $500 is the difference 
between reform and destruction for the whole national campaign finance 
system.
  I believe Senator Thompson has struck an appropriate level. Indeed, 
the $2,500 level that he has established is less, accounting for 
inflation, than the reforms of 1974. Indeed, in adjusted dollars, the 
$1,000 limit of 1974 is now worth $300. That $1,000, if adjusted for 
inflation today, would be $3,400.
  Let me explain to my colleagues why I feel so strongly about raising 
this limit. My hope and wish is we could have reached a compromise on 
this level. Real campaign finance reform means creating a balanced 
system. We cannot reform just one part of the campaign finance system. 
Different aspects must be adjusted for a balanced, workable system.
  Can I have order, Mr. President?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will come to order. 
Senators will please take their conversations off the floor so the 
Senator from New Jersey can be heard and other Senators can hear the 
Senator from New Jersey as well.

[[Page S3008]]

  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, a balanced system must include a 
reduction of costs to end this spiraling cost of campaigns that adds so 
much pressure on Senate and House candidates. We did that by reducing 
the cost of television time.
  We must eliminate soft money to increase confidence on accountability 
of these funds, and limits so every American believes they have an 
appreciably equal influence on their government.
  We must ensure that not only the wealthy can get access to 
fundraising and their own ability to dominate the system is limited.
  But there is another component that perhaps only Members of Congress 
themselves understand, another element of reform. It is the question of 
time. How much time are Senators taking, raising funds rather than 
legislating? How much time with their constituents rather than at 
fundraisers? How many times do they meet ordinary Americans rather than 
simply being with the wealthy and privileged few.
  That last element is part of what Senator Thompson is trying to 
accomplish today. Because the $1,000 limit forces people to go to 
hundreds and hundreds of fundraisers, putting together these 
contributions to fund these massive campaigns is part of the problem. 
Indeed, I demonstrated to the Senate a few days ago what it would take 
to run a $15 million campaign today at $1,000. You would raise $20,000 
every day, 7 days a week for 2 years; 1,500 fundraising events at 
$10,000 per event. This is part of what we are addressing. If a person, 
indeed, contributes $2,500 per election, $5,000 a year, no one in this 
institution can possibly believe that either by perception or reality 
the integrity of a Senator is compromised.
  Indeed, if our country has come to the point where the American 
people have their confidence in their government undermined because of 
a $2,500 contribution, there is no saving this Republic. Certainly, we 
have better people in the Senate.
  Mr. THOMPSON. If the Senator will yield, I understand the Senator has 
about 2 minutes left. Will the Senator yield about 30 seconds of that 
to me?
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I will yield 1 minute and I will conclude.
  I believe with the Thompson amendment we will have this balanced 
system reducing the amount of time candidates must campaign, and 
sufficient hard money can be raised to be able to communicate a 
message. It is a workable and a balanced system. Mostly I regret we 
have to divide ourselves on this issue, a $500 difference between the 
Senator from California and the Senator from Tennessee. Even at this 
late moment, I wish we could bridge this gap. But I hope we can avoid 
coming to the conclusion that because this amendment is agreed to, 
somehow we have a less viable reform. This is still fundamental and 
comprehensive reform. It still reduces the amount of campaign 
expenditures and the reliance on large contributions. It is a better 
system under McCain-Feingold, and it is a system that now includes the 
support of more Members of the Senate on both sides of the aisle.
  I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will save what little remaining time I have and defer 
to my colleagues on the other side who oppose the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Five minutes for the opposition.
  Mr. DODD. I don't know if I have any other people who wish to be 
heard on this amendment, so I will take a couple of minutes and close.
  Let me say to my friend from New Jersey that my hope is that also we 
will find some level that we can support. I said that last evening; I 
said it again this morning; I say it again this moment. There is a 
difference. For those of us who have long supported McCain-Feingold and 
variations of that and other such suggestions over the years, it would 
be a great tragedy, in our view, to finally close the door on soft 
money and then open up the barn doors on the other side for a flood of 
hard money.
  To paraphrase Shakespeare, a rose by any other name is just as sweet. 
A dollar coming through one door or another door still poses the same 
problem.
  What I reject is the idea that there is too little money in politics 
or there must be some inevitable, unstoppable increase in the cost of 
campaigns. Unsettled as I am about that, what really troubles and 
bothers me is who we are excluding. I said it last evening, and I will 
repeat it.
  As we go and seek out these larger contributors, which is what we do 
every time we increase those amounts, we get further and further and 
further away from what most, the overwhelming majority of Americans, 
can participate in.
  I think that is unhealthy in America. If we end up saying $50,000 per 
individual per year--$2,500--Mr. President, there are only a handful of 
people in this country--last year there were 1,200 people out of 280 
million who made contributions of $125,000 to politicians; 1,200. And 
we are saying it is not enough; we have to raise those amounts even 
further.
  As we do that, we get further away from the average citizen of 
Virginia, Connecticut, Tennessee, and New Jersey. As we get further 
away from that individual who can write the $25, $50, $100 check 
because we are not interested in them any longer, it is no longer 
valuable for our time to seek that level of support. That is dangerous 
when we start excluding people from the process.

  My concern about this amendment is not just that it puts us on a 
track that we are going after bigger contributors, giving more access, 
but it is also whom we exclude--de facto, whom we exclude, and that is 
people who cannot even begin to think about this kind of level of 
contribution.
  That is dangerous for the body politic. It is dangerous for 
democracy, in my view, when we or those who challenge us will only be 
going after those who can write these huge checks. And they are huge. 
Only here could we be talking about $2,000 as a modest increase.
  Who are we talking about? How many Americans could sit down and write 
a check for that amount--for anything, for that matter, let alone for a 
politician? I am supposed to somehow believe this is reasonable, when 
we ought to be doing everything we can to engage more people in the 
process.
  I accept the reality there is going to be some increase. My plea 
would be to the author of this amendment and to those who also seek 
increases, to see if we cannot find some agreement that will be 
acceptable, but please don't try to convince me there is just an 
inevitable path we have to go down that continues to ratchet up the 
cost of these campaigns, shrinks the pool of those who can seek public 
office, and further excludes the overwhelming majority of Americans 
from financially participating in the political life of this country.
  That is a dangerous path. That is a very dangerous path. I suggest we 
will come to rue the day in the not too distant future of having 
traveled this road, closing the soft money door and swinging wide open 
the hard money door and suggesting somehow we have achieved a great 
accomplishment.
  We have an opportunity this morning to do both, to have a modest 
increase in hard money and to close down that soft money door. And then 
we can truly say we have reformed this process after 25 years of 
bickering about it. And I believe the President would sign it.
  With all due respect to my colleague from Tennessee, I will oppose 
this amendment and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
  Mr. President, how much time remains?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. One minute on each side remains.
  Mr. DODD. I think there is going to be a tabling motion. Maybe my 
colleague would like to complete his argument and then have Senator 
Feingold make his and move to table. Do you want to yield back?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will yield back part of my time.
  Mr. DODD. I yield a half minute to my colleague from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have worked real hard to close the soft 
money loophole with one hand. We are hopefully going to do that after a 
huge amount of work. We cannot and should not with the other hand 
undermine

[[Page S3009]]

public confidence by raising the hard money limits from $25,000 per 
year to $50,000 per year for an individual. That is too much money. It 
is corruptive in its appearance, and it undermines public confidence.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is out of time.
  Mr. DODD. I apologize to the Senator.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, should we achieve our dream of passing 
this bill, there are just four or five Senators who are said to be 
responsible for it. One of them is Senator Fred Thompson. So I regret 
that this amendment is too high and I have to oppose it. His attitude 
and his spirit on this bill has been stalwart, and I am grateful to 
him. It is necessary, though, that I have to move to table the 
amendment at the appropriate time. I will do that after his remarks.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I simply remind my colleagues that we 
are here about $100,000 contributions, $200,000 contributions, and 
$500,000 contributions. That is what this debate is all about. There is 
a difference from that and raising the hard money limit from $1,000 and 
$2,000 or $500--whichever commentator says it--which is just and 
reasonable and substantially below inflation. This will help McCain-
Feingold, not hurt it.
  I yield the rest of my time. I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I move to table the Thompson amendment 
and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion to table the Thompson 
amendment. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 53 Leg.]

                                Yeas--46

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Allard
     Allen
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lott
     Lugar
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that 
motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of New Hampshire). The majority 
leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we are very close to a unanimous consent 
request that will allow us to proceed to a conclusion on this issue of 
the so-called hard money. I emphasize that I think what we should do at 
this point is go to a straight vote on the Thompson amendment. The 
motion to table was defeated by a considerable margin, and normally 
what we do, in an abundance of fairness, is go to a vote at that point 
on the amendment that was not tabled.
  Of course, there is continuing interest in this area, and Senator 
Feinstein has an amendment she wants to offer that will have a 
different level for hard money and will affect not only individual 
contributions but what individuals could give up and down the line, 
including to the parties.
  The fair thing to do is have the two Senators have a chance to have a 
direct vote side by side and not go through procedural hoops of second 
degrees and motions to table. At some point, we should get to a vote, 
get a result, and move to either raise these limits or not.
  I believe very strongly these limits need to be raised. They have not 
been modified in over 25 years. A lot has happened in 25 years. It is 
part of the fundraising chase with which Senators and Congressmen have 
to wrestle.
  I am concerned what this is trying to do is set up a marathon or 
negotiating process that drags the responsible Thompson amendment down 
further.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this is the first time, as the leader 
pointed out, during the long 8 days of this debate that the will of the 
Senate has not prevailed on an amendment. What is happening, of course, 
is those who were not successful on the Thompson amendment do not want 
to allow the Senate to adopt the amendment.
  The negotiation that the majority leader is discussing presumably 
will occur now over the next couple of hours, but it is important to 
note that 54 Members of the Senate were prepared to adopt the Thompson 
amendment and that apparently is going to be prevented for the first 
time during the course of this debate.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I simply note that a motion to table 
does not mean one is prepared to vote for the underlying amendment. It 
means one is not prepared to table the amendment. I know, in fact, 
there are some Members interested in the negotiating process and 
looking for alternatives.
  Mr. LOTT. I understand that, but I hope we do not negotiate it into a 
meaningless number or right of people to participate further. Having 
said that, we have an agreement that I think we can accept at this 
point that will get us to some straight up-or-down votes and 
conclusion.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feinstein now be recognized to 
offer a second-degree amendment; that there be 90 minutes equally 
divided in the usual form, to be followed by a vote in relation to the 
Feinstein amendment. If the amendment is tabled, a vote will 
immediately occur on the Thompson amendment without any intervening 
action or debate. If the amendment is not tabled, there will be up to 
90 minutes for debate on both amendments running concurrently to be 
equally divided, and following that time, the Senate proceed to a vote 
on the Thompson amendment to be followed by a vote on the Feinstein 
amendment which will be modified to be a first-degree amendment. I 
further ask unanimous consent that Senator Thompson have the right to 
modify his amendment, with the concurrence of Senator Feinstein and 
Senator McConnell, if the motion to table the Feinstein amendment 
fails, and the modification must be offered prior to the vote on the 
Thompson and the Feinstein amendments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, I ask that following Senator 
McConnell, we insert the name of our manager, Senator Dodd, in that 
unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to modify it to that extent, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have to have the 
concurrence of the two managers of this bill before Senator Feinstein 
and I can set forth a modification or a perfection.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield to Senator Reid for comment.
  Mr. REID. We would be happy to eliminate Senator Dodd if Senator 
McConnell were taken out so the two proponents of the two measures 
would be the determining individuals as to whether or not there would 
be a modification.

[[Page S3010]]

  Mr. LOTT. I believe Senator Thompson has a further comment.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I certainly want Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd to 
be a part of this process and a part of the discussions and 
negotiations, but I did not understand that we would necessarily have 
to have their concurrence in order for us to agree on a motion.
  I don't think it would be appropriate, frankly.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, this is a process that allows time to debate 
further the provisions of the Thompson proposal and to debate the 
Feinstein proposal and for those that are trying to find some third way 
to negotiate, too.
  I think in order to keep everybody calm and everybody comfortable in 
going forward, everybody ought to have a part and be aware of what 
change might be entered into in terms of the modification. I think this 
is the way to guarantee that.
  Senator Dodd, Senator McConnell, Senator Feinstein, Senator Reid, 
everybody has been, so far, dealing with this in a fair way, protecting 
each other's rights. We started off by a Senator not being allowed to 
modify his amendment. It caused a pretty good uproar and everybody said 
we don't want to do that.
  I think we are swatting at ghosts when it is really not necessary.
  Mr. McCAIN. Basically, what we are asking for is the concurrence of 
Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd. I hope that would be forthcoming to 
have a vote on something that had been agreed to by all parties.
  If not, the Senator from Tennessee has the right to pull down his 
amendment and we would propose another amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. I say to Senator McCain, he is absolutely right. I could 
seek recognition and offer a modification, too. I am going to try to 
make sure nobody gets cut out. Senator McCain was one of the ones who 
made sure when we started this whole debate that the Senator was 
allowed to modify his own amendment. If there is an agreement reached, 
we are going to find a way to get that done.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Under the consent agreement, it requires unanimous 
consent to modify, anyway. I don't think anybody will unreasonably deny 
that. But I don't think it is inappropriate for the managers of the 
bill to be a part of the negotiation.
  Mr. REID. Everyone doesn't have to agree if this unanimous consent 
agreement goes forward. It is my understanding that the modification 
would be under the direction of the two proponents of these two 
amendments. The rest of us would not have to agree.
  Mr. THOMPSON. My understanding is that under ordinary rules, absent 
overall agreement, if the Feinstein motion to table does not carry, it 
would leave the Thompson amendment not tabled and the Feinstein 
amendment not tabled. Ordinarily, I would have the right to come in at 
that point with a motion or perfecting amendment. I am told because we 
are operating within the confines of an overall agreement, that right 
is no longer there. So we are operating on the basis of what is fair 
and what is expeditious.
  I don't want to complicate the issue in having more players, more and 
more players--as we are trying to refine this process and get a 
resolution, having more and more players involved. Obviously, everybody 
needs to be involved and would have to be in order for us to get a good 
resolution, but I don't want to bog it down more than necessary.

  Mr. LOTT. I urge we go ahead and get this consent, get started, and 
start talking and continue to try to find a way to move forward in good 
faith, as we have done so far.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
majority leader? Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.


                 Amendment No. 151 to Amendment No. 149

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the senior Mississippi 
Senator, Mr. Cochran, the senior Senator from New York, and myself, I 
send a second-degree perfecting amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], for herself, 
     Mr. Cochran, and Mr. Schumer, proposes an amendment numbered 
     151 to amendment No. 149.

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

(Purpose: To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify 
                         contribution limits).

       Strike all after the first word and insert the following:

     104. CLARITY IN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Contribution Limits Applied on Election Cycle Basis.--
     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 
     $4,000;''.
       (b) Individual Aggregate Contribution Limits Applied on 
     Election Cycle Basis.--Section 315(a)(3) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The aggregate contributions an individual may make--
       ``(A) to candidates or their authorized political 
     committees for any House election cycle shall not exceed 
     $30,000; or
       ``(B) to all political committees for any House election 
     cycle shall not exceed $35,000.

     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.''.
       (c) Indexing of Contribution Limits.--Section 315(c) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``At the beginning''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in any 
     calendar year after 2002--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsection (a)(1)(A), 
     (b), (d), or (h) shall be increased by the percent difference 
     determined under subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(C) In the case of limitations under subsections 
     (a)(1)(A) and (h), each amount increased under subparagraph 
     (B) shall remain in effect for the 2-year period beginning on 
     the first day following the date of the last general election 
     in the year preceding the year in which the amount is 
     increased and ending on the date of the next general 
     election.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsections (a) and (h), calendar 
     year 2001''.
       (d) 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 cycles.--
       ``(A) 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.
       ``(B) House election cycle.--The term `House election 
     cycle' means, the period of time determined under paragraph 
     (A) for a candidate seeking election to a seat in the House 
     of Representatives.''.
       (e) 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 limitation under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be increased by $2,000, for the number 
     of elections in excess of 2; and
       ``(B) if a candidate for President or Vice President is 
     prohibited from receiving contributions with respect to the 
     general election by reason of receiving funds under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the limitation under paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall be decreased by $2,000.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--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.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

[[Page S3011]]

     SEC. ____. TELEVISION MEDIA RATES FOR NATIONAL PARTIES 
                   CONDITIONED ON ADHERENCE TO EXISTING 
                   COORDINATED SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Availability of Television Media Rates.--Section 
     315(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315(b)(2)), as amended by this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Television.--The charges'' and inserting 
     ``Television.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the charges''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Limitations on availability for national committees 
     of political parties.--
       ``(i) Rate conditioned on voluntary adherence to 
     expenditure limits.--If the limits on expenditures under 
     section 315(d)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 are held to be invalid by the Supreme Court of the 
     United States, then no television broadcast station, or 
     provider of cable or satellite television service, shall be 
     required to charge a national committee of a political party 
     the lowest charge of the station described in paragraph (1) 
     after the date of the Supreme Court holding unless the 
     national committee of a political party certifies to the 
     Federal Election Commission that the committee, and each 
     State committee of that political party of each State in 
     which the advertisement is televised, will adhere to the 
     expenditure limits, for the calendar year in which the 
     general election to which the expenditure relates occurs, 
     that would apply under such section as in effect on January 
     1, 2001.
       ``(ii) Rate not available for independent expenditures.--If 
     the limits on expenditures under section 315(d)(3) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 are held to be invalid 
     by the Supreme Court of the United States, then no television 
     broadcast station, or provider of cable or satellite 
     television service, shall be required to charge a national or 
     State committee of a political party the lowest charge of the 
     station described in paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     independent expenditure (as defined in section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971).''.
       (b) Federal Election Commission Rulemaking.--Section 315(d) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) If the limits on expenditures under paragraph (3) are 
     held to be invalid by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
     the Commission shall prescribe rules to ensure that each 
     national committee of political party that submits a 
     certification under section 315(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, and each State committee of that 
     political party described in such section, adheres to the 
     expenditure limits described in such section, complies with 
     such certification.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, let me begin quickly by going over 
current law, McCain-Feingold, the Thompson amendment, and the 
Feinstein-Cochran-Schumer amendment.
  Under current law, candidates in hard money are limited to $1,000 per 
election or $2,000 a cycle. PACs are limited to $5,000 a calendar year, 
State and local parties to $5,000, national parties to $20,000, and the 
aggregate limit that any individual can contribute to all of the above 
is $25,000 a year. That is present law.
  McCain-Feingold keeps the $1,000 limit, keeps the limit on PACs at 
$5,000. State and local parties are doubled to $10,000 per calendar 
year. National parties remain the same at $20,000 per calendar year. 
And the aggregate limit that an individual can contribute to all of the 
above is $30,000 a calendar year, or $60,000 a cycle.
  The Thompson amendment changes that. The limit on an individual 
contribution goes to $2,500 an election or $5,000 a cycle. PACs go to 
$7,500 per calendar year. State and local parties stay the same as 
McCain-Feingold at $10,000. National parties double to $40,000 a 
calendar year or $80,000 a cycle. The aggregate limit is a substantial 
change. It goes from $50,000 per calendar year to $100,000 a cycle.
  What Senators Cochran, Schumer, and I propose is as follows: that a 
candidate limit go to $2,000. That is a doubling of the $1,000 limit of 
current law. The PACs remain the same as McCain-Feingold and as present 
law at $5,000 a calendar year. The State and local parties remain the 
same as McCain-Feingold, and the national party's contributions remain 
the same as McCain-Feingold.
  We differ with McCain-Feingold, and I will make clear why. We raise 
the aggregate per cycle, which is $60,000, under McCain-Feingold, to 
$65,000 a cycle. So we are just $5,000 more than McCain-Feingold. What 
we do in this cycle to allow for flexibility and also to allow for 
party building, we say of that $65,000, it is split as follows: $30,000 
per election cycle can go to candidates, and $35,000 per election cycle 
to party committees and PACs. We also say the $2,000 cap on individual 
contributions would be indexed for inflation.
  So the substantial differences between McCain-Feingold and Feinstein-
Cochran-Schumer are on the candidate cap, which is doubled, which is 
from $60,000 to $65,000 with a split to encourage both giving to 
candidates as well as to parties, and indexing per election to 
inflation, which I happen to believe is extraordinarily important.
  Right now, individuals may contribute $1,000 to a House or Senate 
candidate for the primary and another $1,000 for the general. As I 
said, we double that. We believe our amendment is necessary for the 
simple reason the $1,000 limit was established in 1974. It hasn't been 
changed since then. That was 27 years ago. Ordinary inflation has 
reduced the value of a $1,000 contribution to about one-third of what 
it was in 1974. The costs of campaigning have risen much faster than 
inflation.
  In 1996, the Congressional Research Service cites figures to the 
effect that $4 billion was spent on elections in 1996, up from $540 
million in 1976. So that is an eightfold increase in spending; an 800-
percent increase in spending between 1976 and 1996.

  Let me give some examples of how the cost of campaigning has soared 
since that thousand dollar limit was established three decades ago. The 
bulk mailing permit rate in 1974 was 6 cents per piece. Today it is 25 
cents per piece. If you send out mail, that is a substantial increase 
in cost. In 1990, when I ran a gubernatorial campaign in California, a 
30-second television spot run in the Los Angeles media market at 6 
o'clock at night cost $1,800, one spot. Last year, when I ran for 
reelection to the Senate, the same spot cost $3,000. That is a 67-
percent increase in the cost of one television spot in 10 years.
  In 1990, a 30-second spot run in the Los Angeles media market during 
prime time cost about $12,000; by 2000, it cost $22,000. That is an 83-
percent increase. So bulk mail has gone up dramatically, television 
advertising has gone up dramatically. If you come from a large State, 
you cannot run a campaign without television advertising and without 
some bulk mail.
  The hard money contribution limits have been frozen now for 27 years. 
What has been the result? Is that result good or bad? Candidates, 
incumbents, and challengers have had to spend more and more time just 
raising money. What gets squeezed out in the process? Time with 
constituents or, in the case of challengers, prospective constituents. 
I don't think that is good for our democracy.
  Personally, in just this past election alone we have had to have over 
100 fundraisers, and that took a lot of time--time to call, time to 
attend, time to travel, time to say thanks. That was time I could not 
spend doing what I was elected to do.
  So the task of raising hard money in small contributions, unadjusted 
for inflation, is indeed increasingly daunting. Particularly in the 
larger States, it is not uncommon for Senators to begin fundraising for 
the next election right after the present one, as they often find 
themselves dialing for dollars instead of attending to other duties. In 
my book, that is bad.
  I think that presents us with a problem. Let's be honest with each 
other and the American people. Campaigning for office will continue to 
get more and more expensive because television spots are getting more 
and more expensive. Meanwhile, one of the effects of McCain-Feingold is 
that as we ban soft money, which I am all for, the field is skewed 
because one has to say: Can you still give soft money? Some would say 
no. That is wrong. The answer is: Yes, you can still give soft money. 
But that soft money then goes toward the independent campaign; into so-
called issue advocacy. I think it is a very dangerous skewing of the 
field.
  Spending on issue advocacy, according to CRS, rose from $135 million 
just 5 years ago, 1996, to as much as $340 million in 1998. Then it 
rose again to $509 million in the year 2000. So there has been almost a 
400-percent increase in unregulated, undisclosed soft money-type 
dollars going into independent issue advocacy campaigns. That is the 
danger I see.
  Remember, these figures are only estimates and are probably very 
conservative, since issue advocacy groups do not have to disclose their 
spending. It is likely that spending on so-called issue advocacy, most 
of which is thinly

[[Page S3012]]

disguised electioneering, probably is going to surpass all hard money 
spending, and very soon. It has already passed soft money spending. If 
we do not raise the limit on hard money contributions to individual 
campaigns, the pressure on the candidate and the party will grow 
exponentially.

  Between 1992 and 2000, soft money jumped from $84 million to $487 
million. In just 8 years, soft money increased sixfold.
  Hard money has not. Clearly, that indicates the skewing of the 
playing field that I am trying to make the case against. Clearly, what 
that indicates is more and more people are turning to the undisclosed, 
unregulated, independent campaign which, increasingly, has become 
attack oriented.
  There are some who do not want to increase hard dollars at all. To 
them I say if you do not increase hard dollars, you put every candidate 
in jeopardy. You put political parties in jeopardy.
  What we have tried to do in this amendment is create an incentive for 
contributions to political parties for party building in the aggregate 
limit, for contributions to the individual within the aggregate limit, 
and also to give the candidates the opportunity to better use their 
time, to increase the hard cap, the contribution limit from $1,000 to 
$2,000.
  Additionally, what the Feinstein-Cochran-Schumer amendment will do is 
move campaign contributions from under the table to over the table. Our 
amendment will make it easier to staunch the millions of unregulated 
dollars that currently flow into the coffers of our national political 
committees and replace a modest portion of that money with 
contributions fully regulated, fully disclosed under the existing 
provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act. That is the value of 
this split, the raising from $60,000 per cycle provided for in McCain-
Feingold to $65,000, providing that $30,000 per election would go to 
candidates and $35,000 for PACs and party committees.
  McCain-Feingold is meaningful reform. I have voted for versions of it 
at every opportunity over the past several years. I commend both 
Senators McCain and Feingold. I support the soft money ban in S. 27. I 
support the Snowe-Jeffords provision in S. 27. I support the bill's ban 
on foreign contributions and the ban on soliciting or receiving 
contributions on Federal property.
  Doubling the hard money contribution limit to individual candidates 
and creating these two new aggregate limits that are just $5,000 more 
than what is already in McCain-Feingold per election cycle will help 
level the playing field and better enable candidates to run for 
election with dollars that are all disclosed and regulated.
  On March 20, on the floor of the Senate, Senator Feingold remarked:

       We used to think that [$10,000] was a lot of money. 
     Unfortunately, given this insane soft money system, it is 
     starting to look as if it is spare change.

  To an extent that is what has happened to the $1,000 limit.
  It is very likely that candidates and their campaigns are going to 
have to live with what we do today for more than likely another 30 
years, and costs are not going to drop in the next three decades.
  Therefore, some ability to account for inflation, we believe, is both 
necessary and achievable.
  Additionally, we believe that increasing the limit on individual 
contributions to Federal candidates would also reduce the need for 
political action committee--or PAC--funding by reducing the disparity 
between individual contributions and the maximum allowable PAC 
contribution of $5,000.
  The concern about PACs almost seems unimportant now compared with the 
problem that soft money, independent expenditures, and issue advocacy 
presents. But we shouldn't dismiss the fact that PACs retain 
considerable influence in our system.
  Again, from 1974 to 1988, PACs grew in number from 608 to a high of 
4,268, and PAC contributions to House and Senate candidates from $12.5 
million to $148.8 million--that is a 400-percent rise in constant 
dollars--and in relation to other sources, from 15.7 percent for a 
congressional campaign committee to 33 percent.
  So, today, one-third of all congressional campaigns are fueled by 
PACs.
  The amendment Senators Cochran, Schumer, and I are offering would 
also diminish the influence of PACs.
  The underlying Thompson amendment would increase the PACs. And that 
takes us back to where we were a few years ago, which is a mistake.
  The Feinstein-Cochran-Schumer amendment would reinvigorate individual 
giving. It would reduce the incessant need for fundraising. I believe 
it compliments McCain-Feingold.
  Let me conclude.
  As I pointed out last Monday when I spoke in support of the Domenici 
amendment, I just finished my 12th political campaign. For the fourth 
time in 10 years, I ran statewide in California, which has more people 
than 21 other States. These campaigns are expensive. I have had to 
raise more than $55 million in those four campaigns. And I can tell you 
from my personal experience that I am committed to campaign reform. And 
I am heartened to see that we are considering this bill, and I believe 
we will pass it on Thursday.
  I believe this amendment will make that bill stronger. I believe it 
will help to level the playing field.
  I believe if we pass a campaign spending bill without adding 
additional dollars of hard money to political parties and increasing 
the individual campaign limits, we skew the playing field so 
dramatically that the issue of advocacy and the independent campaign 
has an opportunity with unregulated large soft dollars to occupy the 
arena entirely.
  That is a very deep concern to me.
  With this amendment, a candidate has an opportunity to respond to an 
attack ad. With party building, a candidate has an opportunity to tell 
their political party they need help, that they are being attacked by 
the X, Y, or Z group that is putting in $5 million in attack ads 
against them, that they need the party's help. Individuals can respond 
through the party on an increasing basis with flexibility because the 
limit is for the election cycle and not the individual calendar year.
  That gives an opportunity for parties to raise disclosed regulated 
hard dollars.
  Without this--again, as one who has done a lot of campaigns now--the 
playing field becomes so skewed that the independent campaign and the 
attack issue advocacy effort has an opportunity to dominate the 
political arena.
  Mr. President, I would like to yield the floor and hope that you will 
recognize my cosponsor, the distinguished senior Senator from the State 
of Mississippi.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from 
California for yielding, and also for her leadership in helping to 
craft an amendment to seek to find a solution to the challenge of 
putting the so-called hard money or regulated contributions at an 
appropriate limit in this modification of the Federal Election Campaign 
Act.
  My perspective comes from my first candidacy for Congress in 1972. It 
was the first year that candidates for House and Senate seats in 
Congress were required to operate and fund their campaigns under the 
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. It required recordkeeping. It 
required disclosure of contributions that candidates were receiving. It 
limited those contributions. It required all expenditures to be 
reported on periodic reports to the Federal Election Commission. It 
required the keeping of records of all expenditures that were made and 
the keeping of receipts and invoices to back up the entire financial 
operation of a Federal election campaign.
  That was the first election year in history that such extensive 
recordkeeping and disclosures and limitations were required.
  Many Senators have been talking about the post-Watergate limits and 
reforms. Frankly, this preceded Watergate. It was in that election 
campaign that the Watergate incident occurred in 1974. But the fact is, 
candidates were required to make full disclosure but not organizations 
who were not covered by the Federal Election Campaign Act.

  Now we have seen that the amounts being raised and spent by 
individual candidates have diminished considerably in comparison with 
the total amount of money being raised and spent to influence the 
outcome of Federal elections. Most of that money is

[[Page S3013]]

now not even recorded. The contributions are not limited. The 
expenditures are not limited. Hence, the phrase ``soft money'' has been 
used to describe those expenditures and those contributions. They are 
behind the scenes. They are secret. And we are trying, by this McCain-
Feingold bill, to put an end to that kind of spending that is secret, 
undisclosed, repetitious, and expenditures which are not disclosed 
either.
  Advertising is bought by groups. You don't know who is buying the 
ads. You just see the campaign ad attacking a candidate or a cause. The 
people are completely confused in many cases as to who is on which side 
and who is spending the money. We are trying now to help recreate a 
system where there is full disclosure.
  In doing so, the McCain-Feingold original bill makes very few changes 
to the regulated, disclosed, and reportable political spending that 
goes on. Only in two instances--one involving contributions to State 
and local parties--does the McCain-Feingold bill increase the amount 
that could be contributed, from $5,000 per calendar year to $10,000 per 
calendar year. Then, in the aggregate limit allowed by law for 
regulated publicly disclosed contributions, the limit was increased 
from $25,000 per calendar year to $30,000 per calendar year.
  Most Senators believe those modest changes aren't enough; that in 
order to make the campaign system fully operational so that candidates 
can, on their own initiative, raise and spend the moneys they need to 
offset opposition from organized groups, those limits must be 
increased. Most Senators agree with that proposition.

  The issue now before the Senate is how much should the increases be. 
The Senator from Tennessee offered an amendment, and he discussed his 
views with the Senate that originally he wanted to triple the 
contributions in all of these categories. My personal preference was to 
double them. I made that comment to several Senators as we began to 
look closely at the provisions of McCain-Feingold.
  Senator Feinstein from California agreed that in most instances she 
thought so, too. We have been working now to craft the specifics of an 
amendment that would be more than McCain-Feingold provided for 
increases but a level that we think should pass and could pass the 
Senate and become a part of the McCain-Feingold bill on final passage.
  That is the effort that is reflected in this amendment. It does not 
increase some of the categories as much as I personally think they 
should be. As I say, I think they should be doubled across the board.
  It is easy to understand. It is substantially less than the index 
amounts would be if you took inflation into account from 1971 when the 
act was first created. Over $3,000 would be reflected if we had indexed 
those amounts in 1971; so that the amount of an individual contribution 
could be limited now, if it were indexed for inflation, at about 
$3,300-something instead of $1,000 as it is now.
  So to strike a compromise, our suggested limit is $2,000. It is a 
modest increase when you think about it. The other accounts are 
likewise increased, except for PACs, which some Members view with some 
skepticism. Frankly, all of the PAC contributions that are made under 
the law are fully disclosed; records have to be kept, just as in the 
case of individual contributions. It is there for the public to 
scrutinize and see in every instance of contributions from political 
action committees to Members or to candidates.
  I am hopeful the Senate will look carefully at this proposal and in 
the instance of a motion to table, that Senators will vote not to table 
the Feinstein amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Who yields time?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. How much time is remaining on my side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Sixteen and a half minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If neither side yields time, it will be taken 
out equally.
  Mr. REID addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. If I could say to my friend from Kentucky, Senator Schumer 
wishes to speak for 15 minutes. He is indisposed at this time. He badly 
wants to speak. We only have 16 minutes left. Do you think we can work 
it out that he have 15 minutes?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from Nevada, I am sure we can work 
it out. He will come back sometime before the vote is scheduled?
  Mr. REID. He will be back sometime within the next 5 or 6 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. It shouldn't be a problem.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask 
unanimous consent that the time be charged equally, and also keeping in 
mind that my friend from Kentucky, if he does not have a number of 
speakers here when Senator Schumer comes back, might give him the extra 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from 
California for at least moving in the right direction, recognizing that 
the cost of campaigns has gone up dramatically.
  If the Senator from California is willing to respond to a couple 
questions, I do wonder, in the Senator's proposal, since the underlying 
bill would take away 40 percent of the budgets of the Republican 
National Committee and the Democratic National Committee, and 35 
percent of the budgets of the Democratic Senatorial Committee and the 
Republican Senatorial Committee--and I know from reading the newspaper 
that many Senators on your side are concerned about what this proposal 
is going to do to the parties, regardless of how they may be voting--I 
was curious why the Senator made no change at all in the amount of 
money an individual could give to a political party in order to try to 
provide some opportunity to compensate, in hard dollars, for the 
dramatic loss of funds that this underlying bill will provide by the 
elimination of soft dollars?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I would like to try to answer the distinguished 
Senator from Kentucky.
  Essentially, today, under current law, the aggregate limit that 
anyone can give in a calendar year to anything--to all of these--is 
$25,000 or $50,000 a cycle. McCain-Feingold, as you know, increases 
that to $60,000 a cycle or $30,000 a calendar year. We increase that 
further to $65,000 a calendar year. And we tried to create an 
incentive. Again, we are replacing soft dollars with hard dollars.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. All the giving to the political parties would have to 
be with hard dollars. So the way we approach it is that we create these 
split accounts. In other words, over the cycle an individual can 
contribute up to $30,000 to candidates and $35,000 to PACs and party 
committees. So that is a specific requirement.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But the Senator is not responding to my question, 
which is, the category right above the one you are pointing to on your 
chart, which is what an individual can give to a national party 
committee, remains unchanged from current law. According to your own 
chart, which I have in front of me, that remains unchanged from current 
law.
  Let me repeat the question. Everyone agrees that the abolition of 
soft money, which this bill will accomplish based upon the Hagel vote 
yesterday, will take away 40 percent of the budgets of the two big 
national committees and 35 percent of the budgets of the two senatorial 
committees--gone. Your bill does not change what an individual can 
contribute in hard dollars to a party; it does not change that from 
current law.
  Thus my question: How does the Senator envision that her proposal 
would help in any way the national party committees compensate in hard 
dollars for the loss of soft dollars?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. You are correct. It does not. We simply believe the

[[Page S3014]]

amount in this for PACs and parties, which is the $35,000 out of the 
$70,000--$35,000 a cycle out of the $70,000--can be given to parties.
  Now, of course, this is not $40,000 a calendar year, but, again, 
there is a limit on the individual in hard dollars. I think most of the 
party building today comes from soft dollars rather than hard dollars, 
in any event.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So the Senator from California would agree with me, 
while there is some relief for us candidates, there basically is no 
change on the hard dollar donations--
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. To the parties.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I think the evidence is that very few people 
essentially max out to parties. So we make it easier to contribute to 
parties by creating a separate account. That is my answer.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to my friend from California, both parties, it 
seems to me, are going to be anxious to try to increase the number of 
people who are interested in giving to parties because they are both 
going to have a dramatic shortage of funds should this----
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is healthy. It is all hard dollars. It is 
regulated. It is all disclosed.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Of course, as the Senator knows, all party soft money 
contributions are disclosed. That is how everyone knows what the 
parties are getting in soft dollars. There is no point in having that 
debate again. We had it yesterday. Soft dollars are gone. Now we are 
looking at a hard-dollar world.
  I am trying to figure out how in the world the parties can compensate 
for the loss of those soft dollars under the proposal of the Senator 
from California. The annual aggregate under her proposal actually 
decreases the amount national parties can receive. Currently an 
individual can give $50,000 to national parties in a cycle; that is, 
over 2 years. But under the Feinstein proposal, I gather they can only 
receive $35,000 over a cycle; is that correct?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. That is correct. As I said, this really affects very 
few people. We believe it is a good, healthy reform.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I thank the Senator from California. I did understand 
her amendment correctly.
  Again, we saw a picture in the Washington Post yesterday of the world 
to come. This is a full-page ad by a billionaire named Jerome Kohlberg 
which appeared in the Post yesterday. He is one of the principal 
funders of this reform industry, the employees of which are huddled off 
the floor of the Senate working on this bill. I bring up Mr. Kohlberg 
only to illustrate what the world is going to be increasingly like if 
McCain-Feingold passes.
  The distinguished occupant of the Chair experienced the wrath of Mr. 
Kohlberg in 1998 as he spent half of $1 million trying to defeat the 
junior Senator from Kentucky. People such as Mr. Kohlberg are going to 
be the wave of the future. There is a common misconception that people 
of great wealth are Republicans. In fact, they are overwhelmingly 
liberal Democrats, people such as Mr. Kohlberg.
  With the dramatic weakening of the parties not only through the loss 
of soft money--that decision having been made yesterday--but should the 
Feinstein amendment or anything close to it be approved, none of that 
will be compensated for in hard dollars because there is no change in 
what individuals can give to parties. Get used to it; this is the wave 
of the future. We have a picture of it right here in the Washington 
Post yesterday. People of great wealth who have an interest in politics 
and public policy are going to increasingly control the national 
agenda, allied, of course, with the great corporations that own the New 
York Times and the Washington Post that also have an unfettered right 
to speak. I am not trying to change that. They just have a bigger voice 
than all the rest of us because they have big corporations behind them.
  I find this very distressing. I do think it is important for 
everybody to understand the world into which we are about to march.
  Having said that, I commend the Senator from California for at least 
recognizing the need to increase the individual contribution limit set 
back in 1974, when a Mustang cost $2,700. She represents a State which 
really illustrates the heart of the problem. Imagine an unknown 
challenger in California who is not wealthy deciding to take on the 
well-known and powerful incumbent Senator from California, Mrs. Dianne 
Feinstein. I expect Senator Feinstein would agree with me, with a 
$1,000 contribution limit, trying to pool enough resources together to 
reach 30 million people against a well-known incumbent, that challenger 
would probably have to spend the whole 6 years trying to pool together 
enough resources to be competitive. I wonder if the Senator agrees with 
that observation.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I actually agree with it strongly. Most people in 
California find that they can't win statewide the first time out. Money 
is one of the issues here. The State is so big.
  I harken back to a conversation I had with Alan Simpson. He said he 
could go home and have lunch at the grill in Cody and he would see all 
200 people in Cody. He would campaign that way.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Right.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. In the big States, that is impossible to do. Your 
campaign, getting your message out, has to depend to some extent on 
large-scale communication, big speeches, large direct mail, television, 
radio, those things that reach large numbers of people. It is a fact of 
life. As these prices go up, the candidate can buy less and less. This 
is what opens the field, then, to the very wealthy candidate who can 
come in and spend tens of millions of his or her own money and preempt 
the field just because of that.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think the Senator has it absolutely right. I am sure 
she also shares my opinion that the people who would benefit from a 
hard money contribution limit increase the most would be challengers 
who typically have fewer friends and not nearly the network that we 
incumbents have. They have a smaller group of friends and supporters to 
try to start with as a way to pool enough resources to get in the game. 
Does the Senator not think that the principal beneficiaries of an 
increase in the hard money contribution limits to candidates really 
will be challengers?
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. If the Senator will yield for a moment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I do.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I heard an interesting comment by a Senator 
yesterday. He said: Well, at least I will only have to do half the 
number of fundraisers to raise the amount of money that is required. 
Now the question is, Is that good or bad? I happen to think it is 
great.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I do, too.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. The fewer fundraisers one has to do, the better, 
because you can spend more time doing the things you are supposed to be 
doing. I have seen on both sides of the aisle the prodigious efforts 
dialing for dollars. People leave; they have to take time off. They go 
to party headquarters. They stand out on the street corner with their 
cell phone, and they call people and ask for contributions.
  If inflation had not risen to the extent it has, that would be a 
different story. I know there are people on my side who believe that if 
you raise this contribution limit, it disadvantages Democrats. I truly 
do not believe that. It goes across the field. It gives a nonincumbent 
an advantage; it gives an incumbent the ability to do their work and 
concentrate less on fundraising. It gives one at least double the 
opportunity to meet expenses which, since this limit was put on, have 
actually tripled.
  May I ask a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I believe I have the floor.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Is the Senator's time running?
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield for a question.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I just wanted to know whose time was running.

  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my time, the Senator will be pleased to know.
  Regretfully, the problem with the Feinstein amendment is it just 
doesn't go very far. It is certainly headed in the right direction. I 
don't know enough about the exact annual inflation increase over the 
years to know what going from $1,000 to $2,000 gets us up to. My guess 
is it probably gets us up to the mid-1980s in terms of purchasing 
power. I know my friend from California may even be in the minority on 
her side that want to raise the limit at all.

[[Page S3015]]

  I have heard it said by a number of our colleagues that not many 
people can contribute this amount of money. That is certainly true. The 
fact that not many people can contribute this amount of money does not 
mean that no one should be able to. The cold, hard reality is that most 
people are not terribly interested in politics, and most people don't 
contribute to it. The best example of that that we talked about 
yesterday is the Presidential checkoff on the tax return where a 
taxpayer gets to check off $3 they already owe--it doesn't add to their 
tax bill, just $3 they already owe--into a Presidential campaign fund. 
Only 12 percent of Americans do that even when it doesn't cost them 
anything.
  The real message is, people are just not terribly interested in 
politics and not terribly interested in contributing. I wish they were. 
It would certainly be great if large numbers of Americans had an 
interest and were willing to contribute. I wish we could get back to 
the $100 tax deduction we had before 1986 that at least made some 
effort, through the Tax Code, to encourage people to contribute. But 
the cold, hard reality is, a rather small number of people are going to 
contribute to politics.
  The question is, Are the parties going to still be viable? 
Regretfully, it seems to me, the amendment of the Senator from 
California creates an incentive for contributions to the party 
committees for party building, she said, but how can this happen if we 
reduce the amount national parties can receive? With the aggregate 
limit to parties, the $20,000 limit, under current law, it is actually 
reduced to $17,500 by the amendment. I think by, in effect, pushing the 
$20,000 limit backward because of the aggregate provision the Senator 
has, we really move the party contributions back to the 1960s, not even 
leaving them at 1974.

  I have sort of a mixed feeling about the Senator's amendment. It is 
great that she is moving in the right direction as far as candidates 
are concerned, but she has not addressed the needs of political 
parties, which are getting whacked by the underlying bill in a major 
way.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 28\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California is recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, how much time do I have left?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 15 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I am hopeful Senator Schumer will come 
to the floor as soon as possible. Let me make a couple of comments to 
the remarks the distinguished Senator from Kentucky just concluded. I 
very much appreciate his comment about the political parties. On our 
side of the aisle, when you are in public office, there is concern 
about asking individuals to contribute large amounts of money to a 
party, period, and that this uses power unwisely. What McCain-Feingold 
does is it eliminates the soft money aspect of that powerful use of 
request. You can't ask someone to contribute $500,000 to the party or 
$1 million to the party or $100,000 to the party. You are essentially 
limited to the $35,000 per election to go to the party. There are some 
on our side who don't like that because they say it is too big a 
request. I don't happen to believe that it is. I also don't happen--
well, some are willing to do that and others are not willing to do it.
  But in answer to the question of the Senator from Kentucky, that is 
really the answer. It is people in elected office requesting citizens 
to contribute large amounts of money. And what that request in itself 
conveys is the sense of that public official then giving the 
appearance, somehow, of indebtedness to the individual because they 
contribute that large amount of money.
  The beauty of McCain-Feingold is that is now removed and a Senator is 
not in the position of having to do that anymore. I think that is very 
healthy for the system.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, a further provision in the Feinstein 
amendment, which I want to call to the attention of the Senator--and I 
am sure she is familiar with it, as is the rest of the Senate--is 
worthy of discussion. There is a current Supreme Court case, called the 
Colorado case, pending for decision, which, if the Court upheld the 
lower court, would declare that the party-coordinated contribution 
limits are unconstitutional. These are hard dollars spent by party 
committees on behalf of their candidates.
  The Schumer provision says if that is struck down--the coordinated 
limit--and if parties take advantage of this ruling and make unlimited 
coordinated expenditures, then they will not get the lowest unit rate 
on television. They say parties will only get the lowest unit rate if 
they continue to abide by the coordinated party limits, even if those 
limits have been declared unconstitutional.
  Now, I say to my friend from California--and I see the Senator from 
New York is back--this is clearly an unconstitutional condition. Party-
coordinated expenditures are 100-percent hard dollars. There is no 
problem unless you believe parties can corrupt their own candidates, 
and it is illegal to earmark contributions to specific candidates in 
the amount beyond the individual contribution limit. In short, it is my 
understanding that the Schumer provision requires an unconstitutional 
condition on party spending.
  So let's sum it up. If the Supreme Court strikes down the coordinated 
limit as unconstitutional, which might happen, then the Schumer 
provision will require parties to continue to abide by an 
unconstitutional limit, in order to get the lowest unit rate from a 
broadcaster. I would look forward to litigating that in court, Mr. 
President. Declaring an unwillingness to follow a pattern declared as 
unconstitutional, putting in a stipulation that to do something that is 
constitutionally protected costs you money is not likely to be upheld 
by any court in the land.

  I wanted to call that to the attention of our colleagues before we 
vote on the Feinstein amendment.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Senator from California has 12\1/2\ 
minutes, and the Senator from New York needs 15 minutes. May I get the 
attention of my friend from Kentucky? Would the Senator be so kind as 
to allow us 2\1/2\ minutes of his time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 26 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I will be happy to give 2\1/2\ minutes to the Senator 
from New York.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I yield 14 minutes of my time to the 
Senator from New York and 1 minute of my time directly following that 
to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Kentucky for his 
courtesy, as well as the Senator from Nevada for arranging things on 
the floor with exquisite neatness and efficiency, as he always does, 
and most of all the Senator from California for her leadership on this 
issue.
  I agree with everything the Senator from California was trying to do 
before. But I have joined this because of my concern about the 
441(a)(d) amendment, which the Senator from California and the Senator 
from Mississippi have graciously agreed to add to their amendment. I 
will address that issue now.
  Although I am fully supportive of the other parts of the amendment as 
well, the Senators from California and Mississippi have taken those up 
very well. Many Members come to me and say: What are you talking about 
with these 441(a)(d) limits?
  Well, the bottom line is simple, that the very basis of McCain-
Feingold, which is limiting the amount of contributions that can go to 
a candidate, is undermined by a removal of the 441(a)(d) limit. That 
limit is in the law now. It has been in the law for a long time--since 
the original campaign finance bill was passed.
  But a Supreme Court case, called FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal 
Campaign Committee, has just been argued in the Court, and a decision

[[Page S3016]]

should come down shortly, within the next month or two. And to believe 
most--not all, but most--of the prognosticators, they will rule that 
the 441(a)(d) limits are removed. If the Court rules as most observers 
expect, we will face a gross distortion of our campaign finance system 
and the return of six-figure contributions by wealthy individuals that 
we absolutely have to address now.
  The bottom line is simple. Even if McCain-Feingold were to pass 
completely intact, this Court case would greatly undermine what we are 
trying to do. But if we were to raise the limits under which a person 
could give to a party and then a party could give to a candidate, it 
would make it so much the worse.
  Part of the Feinstein-Cochran-Schumer amendment that I am referring 
to would at least prevent that exacerbation of the problem.
  Let us take it from the beginning. The 441(a)(d) limits direct a 
national party, whether it be the RNC or the DNC or, as usually 
happens, the DSCC and the RSCC, in the amount of money they can give 
directly to a candidacy. Coordination between the national party and 
the candidacy is completely allowed by the 1996 Supreme Court decision. 
It may be 1998. I do not remember the year.
  Until now and as of now, there are real limits as to how much a party 
can give. It is 2 cents per voter-age person in the State. In 
California, it is limited to about $2 million; in my State of New York, 
$1.7 million; and the rates go down accordingly.
  The problem with the 441(a)(d) mechanism, from the point of view of 
McCain-Feingold, is very simple. Under present law, a person can give 
$20,000 to a national party, to the DSCC or the RSCC, and they can give 
it right to the candidate. What has kept that in check, of course, is 
the overall amount the party can give to that candidate is limited, but 
if the Supreme Court lifts that ruling and says there can be no limits 
on a constitutional first amendment basis--something we debated with 
Senator Hollings' amendment and others; I disagree with that 
interpretation of the Constitution, but like everyone else, we must 
live with it. But if they were to lift that limit, then parties 
presently could raise virtually unlimited amounts of money in $20,000 
chunks. Under McCain-Feingold, it would go up to $30,000 chunks per 
year.
  If John Q. Citizen wished to fund Senate Candidate Smith in his 
State, he could give $20,000, $30,000 a year, each for 6 years to the 
national party, and that money could go right to Candidate Smith. It 
makes a mockery of the $1,000 and $2,000 limit. It allows people of 
great wealth to give huge amounts of money to the candidates.
  My view is that the No. 1 thrust of McCain-Feingold in eliminating 
soft money was to prevent these large sums of money from going to 
candidates. If 441(a)(d) is lifted, those large sums of money will 
continue. True enough, McCain-Feingold does other things with corporate 
and labor union contributions, and true enough, no one can give, say, 
$\1/2\ million to a candidate through the party, which they can do 
today, but the limits would be so astoundingly high that they would 
almost make a mockery of the $1,000 or $2,000 limit that we are talking 
about on individual contributions.
  What can we do about that? One thing we can do is make sure we do not 
raise the aggregate limits of giving to a party very high. One of the 
reasons--and I discussed this last night with my friend, the Senator 
from Tennessee--I am so opposed to his amendment is because it would 
not just mean you could not just give to the candidate through a party 
at a $20,000 clip but rather at a $60,000 clip. The Feinstein-Cochran-
Schumer amendment at least limits that to $35,000 per cycle.
  It is an improvement over present law and, in my judgment, an 
improvement over McCain-Feingold before it was adopted. I think this is 
a step forward, not just a compromise, that you are not stepping back 
as much, but on the aggregate limits on the party, it is a step 
forward.
  The second thing we have to do is try to discourage the parties from 
giving unlimited amounts of money to the candidates. Parties have great 
functions. I am all for party building. I have no problem with money 
going to the parties for get-out-the-vote operations and educating the 
people about the process but not for TV ads for candidates, which is 
what happens, no matter what disclaimer is on the ad.

  What we do in this amendment is say that if you go over the limits 
that are in this bill--because the Supreme Court may rule that you can 
go over those limits; if the Supreme Court rules the other way, this 
amendment has no effect. But if you do go over those limits, you cannot 
get the low-cost TV time that the Torricelli amendment now allows. It 
is an incentive to keep the limits low to prevent the parties from 
raising vast amounts of money for the candidates and obliterating the 
$1,000 or $2,000 limit for individual contributions that we are hoping 
to make a much stronger basis of campaign financing with McCain-
Feingold.
  Is it constitutional? We have consulted a variety of experts, and 
they say very simply that the constitutional requirement is that the 
carrot is related to the stick. In other words, it can well be a 
constitutional limitation that does not strike down free speech.
  I understand my friend from Kentucky has a much broader 
interpretation, but it is a constitutional limitation if what you are 
sanctioning is related to the reward. Clearly, the proposal we have 
made in the Schumer part of this amendment is related: Go over the 
limit and you do not get low-cost TV time. Stay within the limit and 
you get low-cost TV time. There could not be a clearer relationship 
because most of this money is used, at least in every campaign I have 
seen, for television time.
  We have consulted a variety of experts who all believe there is not a 
constitutional problem with this amendment.
  If we do not adopt this amendment, if we do not include this 
amendment, I believe 6 months from now, and certainly 2 years from now 
after the next cycle of elections, people are going to scratch their 
heads and say: Was this bill a step forward on the road to reform or 
was it a step backward? Because even though some limits are placed on 
corporate contributions, the ease with which people will be able to 
give large amounts of money to candidates will probably increase or at 
least not decrease at all.
  The ease with which somebody could, say, contribute $150,000 to a 
candidate through the party in an election cycle would be large.
  I say to my colleagues, first, whether you are for or against the 
limits in Feinstein-Cochran-Schumer, this is a salutary addition. 
Second, I say to my colleagues who have trouble raising the limits, 
which I do not, I support what is in the amendment that the senior 
Senator from California has crafted, and I think very well, that this 
will ameliorate some of the greater danger and make it more palatable 
to those who are against raising the limits altogether.
  I particularly salute the Senator from California for having the 
aggregate party limit be $35,000 a cycle. That is extremely important. 
Also, when in combination with the part of the amendment before us that 
I have added, it will put some brakes on a potentially runaway 
situation that could undo the very reform we seek to pass.
  This is a complicated area but one that will become very obvious 
within a year or two if we do nothing about it. I urge my colleagues to 
adopt the Feinstein-Cochran-Schumer amendment, to not go in the 
direction, as much as the good Senator from Tennessee wishes to go, 
which, as I said, will have much greater ramifications should the 
Supreme Court rule against 441 (a)(d) limits in the Colorado decision.
  I hope we will support it.
  I yield whatever time I have not consumed back to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator has 1 minute 5 
seconds.
  The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I yield that to the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I strongly urge the body not to table 
this effort of Senator Feinstein and Senator Cochran. It is much more 
restrained than the alternative. My personal view is we shouldn't 
increase the limits at all. I don't think we need to. I realize the 
majority of the body believes that is something that has to happen. I 
understand it will happen.

[[Page S3017]]

  Senator Feinstein has tried to craft a reasonable compromise between 
the different views, actually bring us together, and help us pass a 
bill. I urge my colleagues, at least on this vote for tabling, to vote 
no to table.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I listened carefully to the Senator from New York talk 
about the possibility of circumventing the individual contribution 
limits. Let me say under current law contributions received by a 
national party committee which is directed to be used on a specific 
candidate's behalf is considered an earmark. Thus, if a donor gives 
$1,000 to the Republican National Committee and directs it to a 
specific candidate, the $1,000 contribution is attributable to the 
candidate. If the donor gives $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial 
Committee and directs it be spent on behalf of a specific candidate, it 
is a $20,000 contribution to the candidate, and the contributor is 
prosecuted for making an individual contribution in excess of the 
$1,000 limit.
  What am I talking about? The Democrats understand that in the early 
1990s the Democratic Senatorial Committee and the Democratic Senate 
candidates were raising hard money with the DSCC which tallied or 
earmarked these contributions to be used for individual Senators 
accredited with bringing them in.
  Since the $20,000 earmark contributions to the party were in excess 
of the limits individuals can contribute to a candidate, the DSCC was 
prosecuted. In 1995, the prosecution resulted in the DSCC being forced 
to: One, pay a $70,000 fine; two, end the tally and earmark program; 
and, three, include specific language on all future solicitations 
stating the money raised into the DSCC is spent as the committee 
determines within its sole discretion.
  Why bring that up? Only to make the point that the fear that the 
Senator from New York has is unwarranted because we have already 
learned that lesson and the party committees know they cannot receive 
candidate contributions in hard dollars earmarked for candidates.
  The problem with the Feinstein amendment and particularly the Schumer 
provision is this: If the Supreme Court strikes down the coordinated 
limit--we are talking hard dollars, the good dollars; that is what 
coordinated is, hard dollar expenditures by petitioners on behalf of 
the candidates--if the Supreme Court strikes down the current limit 
coordinated as unconstitutional, Schumer requires parties to continue 
to abide by unconstitutional limits in order to get a broadcast 
discount. This is a classic unconstitutional condition.
  The Feinstein-Schumer provision will increase the individual 
contribution limit from $1,000 to $2,000. It does not increase the 
amount an individual can give to political parties. The aggregate 
individual limit in the Feinstein amendment reduces the amount an 
individual can give to a party from $20,000 per year to $17,500 per 
year. Even if the Supreme Court declares party coordinated expenditure 
limits unconstitutional, the Colorado case we were just talking about, 
parties must still abide by them or lose the broadcast discount.

  Even though the Senator from California gives the candidate a little 
help, it is worse than current law for parties. It is already clear 
from the action taken yesterday there is going to be no more non-
Federal money in the party committees. That is gone. If the Feinstein 
amendment passes, there will be less hard dollars for the committees 
than we have today. We are going backwards. There may be some relief 
for parties, but it is a bad deal for candidates.
  I see the Senator from Tennessee is on the floor. I yield 10 minutes 
to the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I have had an opportunity to read or have summarized 
the Feinstein amendment, and I thought we were just basically dealing 
with dollar limits. But as we get into it, it is breathtaking in its 
scope and, in my opinion, clearly unconstitutional.
  The Senator from Kentucky had it exactly right. Basically what the 
so-called Schumer provision would do--it is like the government losing 
a first amendment case and then conditioning a benefit upon not doing 
what the Supreme Court just decided he has a right to do.
  There is no way we can engage in that kind of activity. As we know, 
there are limits now on what a party can spend in coordination with its 
candidates. A lot of people think that will be overturned in Colorado 
and the Colorado 2 case.
  As I understand the Schumer amendment, if the Supreme Court strikes 
the coordinated expenditure limits of parties, then no broadcaster is 
required to give a party the lowest unit rate unless the national party 
certifies to the FEC that neither it nor the State committees where the 
television ad is run--that certifies they are adhering to what the 
Supreme Court just struck down.
  I have never seen anything quite like that before. It is clear in a 
long line of cases that we cannot require private citizens to restrict 
their speech in order to get certain benefits. It is easier when it is 
the government. This is not the government. These are private 
governmental entities, some right-to-life case, and so forth. These are 
not governmental entities. You cannot require private citizens to 
restrict their speech in order to get certain benefits.
  Velazquez v. Legal Services Corporation was decided just this year. I 
urge my colleagues to have someone take a look at that case and explain 
to me why the principles of that case don't clearly set out or 
establish that we just can't do this constitutionally. They held in 
that case that Congress can't condition legal services grants on a 
lawyer's inability to challenge the constitutionality of welfare 
reform. That is an unconstitutional restriction of the first amendment 
rights of that lawyer, even though it is government money and the 
government doesn't have to give them money to start with.

  Once you have a scheme like that, you cannot condition receiving that 
government benefit on an agreement to not exercise your free speech 
rights. In this case, we are putting into law something that requires 
them not to exercise a free speech that the Supreme Court had just 
decided they had a constitutional right to.
  This is clearly unconstitutional. I know I sound like a broken 
record. Some of these other things that we have been engaging in have 
similar problems, but I think this is the worst that I have seen.
  As I look at the limits, I second what the Senator from Kentucky said 
about party committees. I have been spending a lot of time trying to do 
something about soft money and the kind of money that gives the wrong 
kind of appearances with the hundreds of thousands of dollars that are 
flowing into these parties and soft money, corporate money, union 
money, coordinated money, and we are trying to do something about that. 
I still am. Hopefully, we can get rid of all of that.
  But we cannot emasculate the parties. Parties are not bad. Parties 
are weak enough as they are. The Feinstein amendment provides for 
$35,000 per cycle to the party committees. That is $17,500 a year when 
the limit today is $20,000. We are going backwards. That is $20,000 
that was established in 1974, which adjusted for inflation, will be in 
the neighborhood of $60,000 or $70,000. Instead of recognizing that and 
making some inflationary adjustment in response to getting rid of soft 
money, which we are trying to do, we are going in the opposite 
direction and further clamping down on the parties.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator and apologize that I had to be off 
the floor for a minute while he was addressing this amendment.
  Let me say we can disagree on the policy, in terms of strengthening 
or weakening the parties. My view is the parties are not strengthened 
when they are conduits for large amounts of money, whether it be hard 
money or soft money. I would be all for giving the money for get-out-
the-vote operations, giving the money for true educational operations--
the things the parties used to do before 1985 when I think most of us 
would admit they were a lot stronger than they are now.
  We can debate that. That is for each person. All of us here have lots 
of experience that way and have made up our minds.
  I know in our State when these party committees are formed----

[[Page S3018]]

  Mr. THOMPSON. Let me say to my friend, I will yield for a question.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Let me ask him this question on the constitutionality. 
Should the Supreme Court knock down the 441(a)(d) limit, then they 
would be doing it, I believe--because this is the argument; I have read 
the arguments--on its mandatory nature. Right now that limit is 
mandatory.
  Our amendment, as my good friend from Tennessee knows, is voluntary. 
It says you can go above the limit but you don't get the benefit of the 
low-cost TV time. But if you want the benefit of the low-cost TV time, 
then you do not get the benefit.
  My reading of constitutional law is very simple, and that is that it 
is quite different, on a first amendment case, to make something 
mandatory, where the Court is very reluctant--at least this Court--I do 
not agree with it, but it is there, and we have to live with it--than 
when there is an option, there is a voluntary limit for which you get 
some kind of benefit.
  I ask the Senator what his view is of that argument, so he can 
respond to it.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I say to my friend, I do not view that argument very 
favorably because it flies in the face of Velazquez v. Legal Services 
Corporation. The people in Legal Services did not have to take that 
money either. They had the option to take that money or not, and the 
Supreme Court there said you can't require private citizens to restrict 
their speech in order to get those benefits.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will you yield for a question?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I yield to the Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I guess the Senator from New York was saying speech up 
to a certain amount only costs this much but if you speak above that 
amount, that speech costs more.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Or if you exercise your speech as a party committee to 
coordinate with a candidate--not the donor but the party committee, 
coordinate with the candidate, which the Supreme Court has just decided 
you have a constitutional right to do--that if you exercise that right, 
then you do not get the benefits described.
  I yield to my friend from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I thank my friend for yielding.
  As I understand the Velazquez case, which dealt with Legal Services, 
the very rationale of the Supreme Court in striking that down was they 
said there was no relationship between the reward and the punishment. 
In other words, they said that this is simply an attempt to limit free 
speech and using an unrelated reward to do it. They said the nexus was 
not close enough, the nexus between government funding and the ability 
of a Legal Services lawyer to proceed in a certain way or say a certain 
thing.

  It seems to me in the amendment that we have crafted there is a 
direct nexus. First of all, the nexus is very close. You have the 
ability to get more money from your party and the privilege of getting 
the lowest TV cost.
  It does not say you can't put an ad on television. That would 
probably be unconstitutional. But what we have said here is that 
certain people, in a certain position--i.e., candidates--should be 
privileged.
  Maybe the Senator from Tennessee might think the Torricelli amendment 
itself is unconstitutional. I do not recall if the Senator from 
Kentucky has argued that. But that would be the nub of his argument 
there.
  Second, the attempt here is not the same as in Velazquez, as I 
understand the case, and that is because in Velazquez people were 
trying to shut down a certain type of activity they did not like, a 
certain type of speech, a certain type of activity. There is no such 
attempt here.
  So I ask the Senator from Tennessee, doesn't he see a real difference 
in both what the Court has said in the case law, the case 
circumstances, that way?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Tennessee has 
expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Would the Senator like some more time?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will ask unanimous consent----
  Mr. McCONNELL. You don't need unanimous consent. I yield you 5 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I respond to my friend from New York by saying, yes, in 
fact I do see a distinction. Here we are dealing with political speech, 
which makes it even more sensitive. What my friend's amendment would do 
is cut back and restrict clearly constitutionally protected political 
speech. The Supreme Court has decided on numerous occasions that there 
are only certain limited ways and times you can restrict political 
speech, such as if you are engaging in express advocacy, which this has 
nothing to do with.
  So I think not only is Velazquez relevant and on point, the amendment 
before us is more egregious than the activity in Velazquez that was 
struck down by the Supreme Court.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I think we are close to a vote here. My 
understanding is the time has run on the other side. Is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The Senator from Kentucky has 
7 minutes 10 seconds.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me just sum up prior to the vote.
  The Feinstein-Schumer provision will increase individual contribution 
limits from $1,000 to $2,000. That certainly is helpful to candidates. 
It sort of catches us up, maybe, to the early 1980s in terms of 
purchasing power. It does not, however, increase the amount an 
individual can give to political parties. In fact, the aggregate 
individual limit also, as part of the amendment, will reduce the amount 
an individual can give to a party from $20,000 per year down to $17,500 
per year. So we are going backwards.
  We have already taken away all the non-Federal money from political 
parties. That is 40 percent of the budgets of the Republican National 
Committee and the Democratic National Committee, 35 percent of the 
budgets of the Republican Senatorial Committee and the Democratic 
Senatorial Committee. We have wiped that out with the votes yesterday.
  Now if the Feinstein amendment were adopted, the parties, national 
parties, would be left only with hard money and we have, in effect, 
reduced the amount an individual could give to a party, set back in 
1974, from $20,000 down to $17,500.
  While the Feinstein amendment might make some marginal improvement 
for candidates, it is a step backwards for parties.
  In addition, it has the Schumer provision in it that the Senator from 
Tennessee has very skillfully discussed a few moments ago, that even if 
the Supreme Court declares party-coordinated expenditure limits 
unconstitutional--which may happen in the next few months in the 
Colorado Republican case currently before the Supreme Court--even if 
that coordinated limit, that hard money limit that parties can spend on 
behalf of their candidates is struck down as unconstitutional, if a 
party chooses to spend more than the old limit just having been struck 
down as unconstitutional, then the party loses the lowest unit rate on 
ads.
  So the practical effect of that is a party could spend so much on 
behalf of a candidate at a certain price and then, once it has spent 
more than that, it would have to pay more for additional speech.
  The Senator from Tennessee has persuasively argued, and I would as 
well, that is an unconstitutional condition or surcharge, if you will, 
on the exercise of free speech, a tax on speech. Clearly, a tax on 
speech raises serious constitutional questions. I could have raised a 
constitutional point of order on this. I say to the Senator from 
Tennessee that I am not going to do that. I have done that in the past 
when we had campaign finance debates. I am not going to do that.
  But I assure you that if this is in the final bill, and if the bill 
is signed by the President, it will be one of the items that, as a 
plaintiff in the case, I intend to be as one of the items that we will 
be raising in court.
  Mr. President, I yield the remainder of the time on my side.
  I make a motion to table, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.

[[Page S3019]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 46, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 54 Leg.]

                                YEAS--46

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

                                NAYS--54

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Wellstone
     Wyden
  The motion was rejected.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DODD. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                     Amendment No. 151, as modified

  The amendment (No. 151), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. 104. CLARITY IN CONTRIBUTION LIMITS.

       (a) Contribution Limits Applied on Election Cycle Basis.--
     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 
     $4,000;''.
       (b) Individual Aggregate Contribution Limits Applied on 
     Election Cycle Basis.--Section 315(a)(3) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(a)(3)), as 
     amended by this Act, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) The aggregate contributions an individual may make--
       ``(A) to candidates or their authorized political 
     committees for any House election cycle shall not exceed 
     $30,000; or
       ``(B) to all political committees for any House election 
     cycle shall not exceed $35,000.

     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.''.
       (c) Indexing of Contribution Limits.--Section 315(c) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 441a(c)) is 
     amended--
       (1) in paragraph (1)--
       (A) by striking the second and third sentences;
       (B) by inserting ``(A)'' before ``At the beginning''; and
       (C) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Except as provided in subparagraph (C), in any 
     calendar year after 2002--
       ``(i) a limitation established by subsection (a)(1)(A), 
     (b), (d), or (h) shall be increased by the percent difference 
     determined under subparagraph (A);
       ``(ii) each amount so increased shall remain in effect for 
     the calendar year; and
       ``(iii) if any amount after adjustment under clause (i) is 
     not a multiple of $100, such amount shall be rounded to the 
     nearest multiple of $100.
       ``(C) In the case of limitations under subsections 
     (a)(1)(A) and (h), each amount increased under subparagraph 
     (B) shall remain in effect for the 2-year period beginning on 
     the first day following the date of the last general election 
     in the year preceding the year in which the amount is 
     increased and ending on the date of the next general 
     election.''; and
       (2) in paragraph (2)(B), by striking ``means the calendar 
     year 1974'' and inserting ``means--
       ``(i) for purposes of subsections (b) and (d), calendar 
     year 1974; and
       ``(ii) for purposes of subsections (a) and (h), calendar 
     year 2001''.
       (d) 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 cycles.--
       ``(A) 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.
       ``(B) House election cycle.--The term `House election 
     cycle' means, the period of time determined under paragraph 
     (A) for a candidate seeking election to a seat in the House 
     of Representatives.''.
       (e) 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 limitation under 
     paragraph (1)(A) shall be increased by $2,000, for the number 
     of elections in excess of 2; and
       ``(B) if a candidate for President or Vice President is 
     prohibited from receiving contributions with respect to the 
     general election by reason of receiving funds under the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986, the limitation under paragraph 
     (1)(A) shall be decreased by $2,000.''.
       (f) Conforming Amendment.--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.''.
       (g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to contributions made after the date of enactment 
     of this Act.

     SEC. ____. TELEVISION MEDIA RATES FOR NATIONAL PARTIES 
                   CONDITIONED ON ADHERENCE TO EXISTING 
                   COORDINATED SPENDING LIMITS.

       (a) Availability of Television Media Rates.--Section 
     315(b)(2) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315(b)(2)), as amended by this Act, is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Television.--The charges'' and inserting 
     ``Television.--
       ``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
     the charges''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) Limitations on availability for national committees 
     of political parties.--
       ``(i) Rate conditioned on voluntary adherence to 
     expenditure limits.--If the limits on expenditures under 
     section 315(d)(3) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 are held to be invalid by the Supreme Court of the 
     United States, then no television broadcast station, or 
     provider of cable or satellite television service, shall be 
     required to charge a national committee of a political party 
     the lowest charge of the station described in paragraph (1) 
     after the date of the Supreme Court holding unless the 
     national committee of a political party certifies to the 
     Federal Election Commission that the committee, and each 
     State committee of that political party of each State in 
     which the advertisement is televised, will adhere to the 
     expenditure limits, for the calendar year in which the 
     general election to which the expenditure relates occurs, 
     that would apply under such section as in effect on January 
     1, 2001.
       ``(ii) Rate not available for independent expenditures.--If 
     the limits on expenditures under section 315(d)(3) of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 are held to be invalid 
     by the Supreme Court of the United States, then no television 
     broadcast station, or provider of cable or satellite 
     television service, shall be required to charge a national or 
     State committee of a political party the lowest charge of the 
     station described in paragraph (1) with respect to any 
     independent expenditure (as defined in section 301 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971).''.
       (b) Federal Election Commission Rulemaking.--Section 315(d) 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441a(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(4) If the limits on expenditures under paragraph (3) are 
     held to be invalid by the Supreme Court of the United States, 
     the Commission shall prescribe rules to ensure that each 
     national committee of political party that submits a 
     certification under section 315(b)(2)(B) of the 
     Communications Act of 1934, and each State committee of that 
     political party described in such section, complies with such 
     certification.''.

                          ____________________