[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 4]
[Senate]
[Pages 5016-5074]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



           BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM ACT OF 2001--Continued


                           Amendment No. 155

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I saw my colleague from Minnesota, but I 
guess he is not now on the floor. We have a couple minutes. My 
colleague from Kentucky and I talked about this the other day. He makes 
a very good point about the declining participation in the checkoff 
system. In fact, the dollar amounts have been raised. If my friend from 
Kentucky is correct, originally it was $1 for the checkoff. You are not 
paying more in taxes. It is the money you send in. The checkoff of $1 
of your tax returns would be used for the public financing of 
Presidential races. That number then went up to $3 because there were 
fewer and fewer people who were actually doing the voluntary checkoff.
  His numbers, I believe, are correct. We have seen a decline in the 
number of people who are voluntarily checking off that $3 of their 
Federal taxes they are sending in or that are being withheld to be used 
for these Presidential races.
  I am worried about that because I think there is an underlying cause 
for this. The debate we are having about campaign finance reform, while 
we are not going to adopt public financing for congressional races 
despite the fact there is a lot of merit going that route in terms of 
dealing with the constitutional problems that exist in the absence of 
having some public financing, there is an underlying reason that I 
think contributes to that declining statistic, and that is the people 
are disgusted with the whole process.
  I do not think it is people's lack of patriotism or their lack of 
understanding how important it is to contribute to strengthening our 
democracy. People are getting fed up. Witness that last year despite 
the overwhelming amount of attention and advertising on a national 
Presidential race, a race that included Ralph Nader and the Green 
Party, there was Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party, the Democratic 
candidate, Al Gore, and his running mate from my home State, Joe 
Lieberman; President Bush and Richard Cheney. Out of 200 million 
eligible voters in this country, only 100 million participated. One out 
of every two eligible voters in this country decided they were not 
going to make a choice for President of the United States and Vice 
President, not to mention the congressional races, the Senate races, 
and gubernatorial races that occurred.
  On the Federal election for the leader of the oldest continuous 
democracy in the world, one out of every two adults in this country 
said they were not going to participate. I know some may have had 
legitimate excuses, but I suspect a significant majority of those who 
did not participate knew it was election day, did not have some 
overriding family matter that caused them to miss voting. I think they 
made a conscious decision not to vote. I think they decided they were 
not going to show up, and I cannot express in our native language 
adequately the deep, deep concern I have over that fact and what 
appears to be a growing number of people.
  I hear it particularly among younger people. I visit a lot of high 
schools in my home State of Connecticut. I get a sense that too many of 
our younger people are embracing the notions held by one out of every 
two adult Americans in the last election, that they are not going to 
participate by showing up to choose the leader of our country. I 
suspect that a good part of the reason is that people are just 
disgusted by what they see and how elections are run when they see this 
mindless advertising, these 30-second spots, the attack ads that go 
after each other as if this was somehow an athletic contest rather than 
a debate of ideas where we are talking about the future of our country 
and what the priorities of a nation ought to be.
  I, too, am very concerned with the declining statistics that my 
friend from Kentucky has identified, but I think it is more a poll not 
about public financing, I think it is a poll we ought to pay attention 
to, what the American people are saying, at least in the majority of 
cases, I believe: We think the system is not working very well. We 
think the system is out of control. We think there is too much money in 
politics; that our voices do not get heard; that we cannot afford to 
participate in these contests where contributions of $1,000, now $2,000 
per individual, that people can write a check now for $37,500 if this 
McCain-Feingold bill is adopted.
  Last year--I said this over and over in the past week and a half--
there were only 1,200 people in this country who wrote the maximum 
check of $25,000; 1,200 people out of 280 million Americans. We now 
have raised that because this hasn't been enough. We are told you can't 
finance these campaigns with maximum contributions of $25,000 in 
Federal elections. We are raising it to $37,500. That is per 
individual, per year. Double that for a primary election. That gets you 
to $75,000. Of course, if it is a husband and wife, it is $150,000. We 
had to debate that. I commend my colleague from California who 
negotiated that number down.
  Those who wanted that number higher wanted $100,000 per individual, 
$200,000 for a husband and wife. We are told the system is financially 
bankrupt. We don't have enough money in politics, we are told.
  That has more to do with these declining numbers of people 
voluntarily checking off for some of their tax dollars to be used to 
publicly finance the Presidential races in America. I am

[[Page 5017]]

hopeful the adoption of the McCain-Feingold bill, if it is adopted, 
will at least turn people's opinion in a direction that says at least 
we are beginning to do something about these elections.
  For those reasons, I commend, again, the principal authors of this 
bill and those who are supporting it. But I don't think it is enough. 
People are still turned off, to put it mildly, on how the races are run 
and on how politics is conducted. There will always be some; I am not 
suggesting we will get 100-percent participation. I oppose any laws 
that require people to vote as some countries do. We better do a lot 
better job in convincing more than just one out of two adult Americans 
they ought to participate in choosing the leaders of our Nation than we 
presently are.
  If those numbers continue to decline and we trail the rest of the 
world as we lecture them about democracy and the importance of 
participating, I will say again, you put this country in peril and 
these institutions that have survived for more than 200 years, and the 
public support for them will decline. That, more than anything else, is 
what ought to preoccupy the attention of each and every one of us, 
regardless of our views on the particular aspects of amendments. Every 
single one of us privileged to serve in this Chamber, who have a voice 
and vote on how we might conduct the political debate in this Nation, 
needs to take notice of what the American public is saying when they go 
to the polls or don't go to the polls on election day and exercise 
their right that people have spilled blood for, for over two centuries, 
not only in our first great revolution but in a civil war that 
threatened to divide and destroy this country, through two world wars, 
wars in the 20th century and other such contests in which Americans, in 
countless numbers, lost their lives to protect and defend.
  We are not asked to put our lives on the line. We voluntarily seek 
these positions. If we are fortunate enough to be chosen by our 
constituents to be here, we bear a very high degree of responsibility 
during the brief amount of time the Good Lord gives us to represent the 
constituencies that have chosen us to do what is right, not only for 
our own time but that future generations will inherit, as we have 
inherited, from the sacrifices of those who came before us, the 
privilege of being here to see to it that this wonderful ideal and 
vision of democracy is perpetuated throughout this country for, 
hopefully, centuries to come.
  For those reasons, I hope while this amendment may be rejected, we 
could find more common ground between Democrats and Republicans on how 
to restore the public's confidence in the electoral process in this 
country. That is at the heart of what McCain-Feingold is all about, 
despite all the debates about various minutiae in the bill or ideas to 
be added to it. Our solemn responsibility, in addition to dealing with 
the issues of the day, is to see to it the process by which we choose 
people to make those decisions enjoys the broad-based support of the 
American public. It is in jeopardy today. We better take it more 
seriously than we are.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the 
time be charged against the bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the amendment 
being offered by my friend and colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin. 
Earlier this week, Senator Kerry and I offered a similar amendment that 
called for voluntary spending limits and partial public financing. 
Senator Harkin's amendment differs in some respects to the proposal 
that we offered, but it still seeks to alleviate the same problem: How 
can we reduce the obscene amount of special interest money that is 
being spent in Senate campaigns today? And while I know that Senator 
Harkin's amendment will not pass, I nevertheless believe that it is 
truly needed to reform our campaign finance system.
  Since 1976, while the general cost of living has tripled, total 
spending on congressional campaigns has gone up eightfold. For the 
winning candidates, the average House race went from $87,000 to 
$816,000 in 2000. And here on the Senate side, winners spent an average 
of $609,000 in 1976, but last year that average shot up to $7 million.
  The FEC estimates that last year more than $1.8 billion in federally 
regulated money was spent on federal campaigns alone, and that doesn't 
even count the huge amount of soft money that went into attempts to 
influence federal elections. That has been roughly estimated to reach 
as high as nearly another $700 million.
  I have been calling for public financing of congressional campaigns 
for a very long time: since 1973, my first year in this body. And, as 
my colleagues who have been here for a while know, I have taken to this 
floor again and again over the years to urge us to solve the public's 
crisis in confidence and do the right thing.
  To be clear, I would prefer full public financing of campaigns that 
would reduce spending and completely eliminate the link between special 
interest money and candidates. I have long held that such a system is 
the only true, comprehensive reform that would help restore the 
American people's faith in our democracy and allow candidates to 
compete on an equal footing where the merits of their ideas outweigh 
the size of their pocketbook.
  But as the problems in our system have escalated in recent years, so 
too has my despair over our failure to see real reforms enacted, not 
just debated. That is why I am here again to see that we take at least 
a step toward achieving these much needed reforms. Senator Harkin's 
amendment is one such step, and urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 155. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) is 
necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
Hawaii (Mr. Akaka) would vote ``aye.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 32, nays 67, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 58 Leg.]

                                YEAS--32

     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Stabenow
     Torricelli
     Wellstone

                                NAYS--67

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Akaka
       
  The amendment was rejected.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.

[[Page 5018]]

  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Delaware be added as a cosponsor of the Harkin amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been prepared for 2 months now to 
have this full debate and votes on amendments, and to actually get to a 
conclusion. Senator McCain and I have talked, and Senator McConnell and 
I have talked, and the agreement all along was that we would have 
amendments, full debate for 2 weeks, and then we would go to a 
conclusion.
  I assure the Senate that we are going to do that. We can do it 
tonight at a reasonable hour, we can do it at midnight, or Friday, 
Saturday, or Sunday. But I think we have a responsibility to complete 
action on this bill.
  I hope the concern I have now that maybe amendments are going to 
start multiplying when, in fact, there are no more than one or two 
amendments that really are still critical that are out there to be 
offered and debated and voted on--maybe there are more. And I don't 
want to demean any Senator's amendment, but we have been on this now 
for the agreed-to almost 2 weeks. Anybody who thinks that by just 
beginning to drag this out and coming up with more amendments, we will 
carry it over until next week, that is not going to be the case.
  Everybody has labored--sometimes with difficulty--to be fair with 
each other and give this thing a full airing and get some results, and 
you can debate about whether they are good or bad as long as you want 
to. At some point, we have to vote and move on.
  We have very serious problems in this country. We need to address 
them. We have to pass a budget resolution. We have to take into 
consideration the needs of the country in terms of funding for 
programs, whether it is education, agriculture, defense, health care. 
We need to take whatever actions we can to provide confidence and a 
boost in job security and the economy. We have an energy crisis that 
will not go away. We need to get on to those issues.
  Again, not to demean this issue at all--it is very important--but we 
will have done what we promised to do, and now it is time we begin to 
look for the conclusion and be prepared to move on to other issues next 
week. I just wanted to remind Senators on both sides of our discussion 
and my commitment to follow up with the agreement.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the majority leader, and I thank Senator 
McConnell and Senator Dodd, who have managed this bill, I think, with 
efficiency and, I believe, in a total environment of cooperation.
  But as we said all during last week, a couple times when we only had 
two or three amendments, we intended to be done by tonight or the end 
of this week. We have disposed of some. We will have an amendment that 
I think is very important that is about to be addressed soon. After 
that, there are not any major issues. We should finalize this bill so 
that we can move forward and none of us has to stay here over the 
weekend.
  I want to say the majority leader is correct. We all agreed that we 
could get this thing done in 2 weeks if we allowed the 2 weeks. So 
there is no reason whatsoever that we should not enter into time 
agreements on specific amendments and a time for a final vote on this 
amendment.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank Senator McCain. That discussion was not just 
between Senator McCain and me, but also with the Democratic leader, 
Senator Feingold--we were all in the loop. We all had an understanding 
of how we would bring this to an eventual conclusion.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the leader yield?
  Mr. LOTT. I am glad to yield to Senator McConnell.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I say to the distinguished majority leader, nobody 
more passionately opposes this bill than I do, but I am prepared to 
move to final passage today. There is one important amendment left on 
nonseverability, which is about to be the pending business before the 
Senate.
  I say to my friend from Arizona, we may have a few sort of cats-and-
dogs amendments, as Senator Dole used to call them, but we are 
basically through on this side.
  Mr. LOTT. Can I inquire of Senator Dodd, does he have any idea what 
might be outstanding and when we can move to a conclusion on this 
legislation?
  Mr. DODD. I will be happy to, Mr. President. First of all, the past 
week and a half has been a rather remarkable week and a half in the 
Senate. We have had very few quorum calls. I do not know the total 
number of amendments we have considered, but they have been extensive, 
back and forth.
  I find it somewhat amusing that someone else's amendment is a cat or 
a dog, but if it is your amendment, it is a profoundly significant 
proposal.
  We dealt yesterday with the opposition's efforts to raise the hard 
number limits, and now a severability amendment from the opposition. 
Those are fundamentally important amendments but amendments that may 
try to enhance and strengthen the bill from those who support the 
legislation are a cat or a dog.
  Our list has not expanded, I say to the majority leader. The list of 
amendments is about the same as it has been. There are about 12 or 13 
amendments. There is a list of 21, which has been the consistent number 
for the past week. We just dealt with one of them--Senator Harkin's--
this morning. It was laid down last night. Senator Bingaman, Senator 
Durbin, Senator Dorgan, and Senator Levin come to mind immediately. I 
think Senator Clinton as well. These do not require much time.
  We are prepared to move forward, I say to the majority leader, and if 
it takes going into tonight, going into tomorrow to finish it up, 
Saturday, or Sunday, whatever it takes, because I know we want to 
finish the bill, we fully respect that. I support that.
  I have an obligation--if I can complete this thought. There are those 
on this side who support McCain-Feingold, and have for years, who have 
ideas they think will enhance and strengthen this legislation. While 
this is an important amendment we are about to consider, there are 
other amendments that should be heard.
  I hope my colleagues will respect the rights of Members to offer 
amendments and be heard on them. There certainly is no effort over here 
to delay this at all. We will stay here however long, I am told by the 
leadership. Unfortunately, the Democratic leader cannot be here at this 
moment, but I am told he takes the position that if it takes being here 
all weekend, we will be here all weekend to complete it.
  Mr. LOTT. I want everybody to understand that I am prepared to do 
that, too. Instead of that being a threat, it is a promise, No. 1, but 
No. 2, it is to urge Senators to work with the managers to identify the 
amendments we are going to have to consider, and if it can be done by 
voice vote, let us get time agreements on them. We should be prepared 
to move to table, if that is what is required, too.
  We have an opportunity to make progress and complete this bill. We 
are going to do that. I want to make sure everybody understands it, so 
everybody needs to start making plans, if we are going to have to stay 
here Friday and Saturday, and take actions to allow that to happen.
  Mr. DODD. A point, if I can, Mr. President. I am informed that we 
have dealt with 24 amendments about equally divided; 24 left, I am 
sorry, both Democratic and Republican amendments.
  I know, for instance, Senator Lieberman and Senator Thompson have an 
amendment, one of the outstanding amendments. Maybe it can be worked 
out. Senator Bingaman has one that has been worked out. It is important 
to note there is a good-faith effort obviously to complete this work, 
but I do not want to see us put in a position now, having considered a 
lot of these amendments, that we are going to start telling people who 
have had amendments pending--Senator Durbin

[[Page 5019]]

has been on me and talking to me for the past 10 days about when can he 
bring his amendment up; also Senator Harkin and Senator Levin.
  I have been trying to orchestrate this the best I can, but I do not 
want them put in the position of all of a sudden because we completed 
the amendments the opponents of the legislation care the most about, 
that we are going to deny or curtail in some way the rights of other 
Senators who care just as deeply about their proposals and not provide 
adequate time for them to be heard.
  We are prepared to go forward. I know the next amendment is from 
Senator Frist on severability. I have a number of requests, I say to 
the majority leader, from people who want to be heard on this 
amendment. I know the proponents of the amendment do as well.
  Mr. REID. Before the majority leader leaves the floor----
  Mr. LOTT. I will be glad to yield to Senator Reid.
  Mr. REID. I said this morning, I have been working trying to help 
Senator Dodd. One of my assignments has been to work with individual 
Senators. We have had people, as Senator Dodd indicated, who have been 
waiting the entire 9 days we have been on this floor to offer 
amendments. They come to me and Senator Dodd a couple times a day.
  Looking at simple mathematics, I say to the majority leader, it is 
going to be really hard to do this. If we cut down the time by two-
thirds, it is still going to get us into sometime tomorrow. If that is 
the case, that is the case.
  Senator Bingaman, Senator Durbin--these people want to offer their 
amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. I say to Senator Reid, he always does good work, not just 
with Senator Dodd but with this side, too. He is an ombudsman for us 
all. We do not want to cut off anybody, but all I am saying is we are 
going to complete this bill this week and everybody needs to know that. 
If we go into Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, I only have one commitment, 
and I really did not want to do it anyway, so I will be delighted to 
stay here.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Is there some particular constituency in Mississippi the 
Senator wants to inform?
  Mr. LOTT. Actually, it is in a State other than my home State.
  Mr. DODD. I thought the majority leader might want to make that 
clarification. I think we are prepared now to go to the Frist 
amendment.


                           Amendment No. 156

  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I ask for immediate consideration of my 
amendment, which I believe is at the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Tennessee [Mr. Frist], for himself and Mr. 
     Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 156.

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

 (Purpose: To make certain provisions nonseverable, and to provide for 
 expedited judicial review of any provision of, or amendment made by, 
                               this Act)

       On page 37, strike lines 18 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if 
     any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, or 
     the application of a provision or amendment to any person or 
     circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder 
     of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and the 
     application of the provisions and amendment to any person or 
     circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
       (b) Nonseverability of Certain Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--If one of the provisions of, or amendments 
     made by, this Act that is described in paragraph (2), or if 
     the application of any such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, then 
     all the provisions and amendments described in paragraph (2) 
     shall be invalid.
       (2) Nonseverable provisions.--A provision or amendment 
     described in this paragraph is a provision or amendment 
     contained in any of the following sections:
       (A) Section 101, except for section 323(d) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971, as added by such section.
       (B) Section 102.
       (C) Section 103(b).
       (D) Section 201.
       (E) Section 203.
       (c) Judicial Review.--
       (1) Expedited review.--Any Member of Congress, candidate, 
     national committee of a political party, or any person 
     adversely affected by any provision of, or amendment made by, 
     this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment 
     to any person or circumstance, may bring an action, in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
     for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the ground 
     that such provision or amendment violates the Constitution.
       (2) Appeal to supreme court.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any order of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia granting or denying an 
     injunction regarding, or finally disposing of, an action 
     brought under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable by appeal 
     directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such 
     appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 
     calendar days after such order is entered; and the 
     jurisdictional statement shall be filed within 30 calendar 
     days after such order is entered.
       (3) Expedited consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme 
     Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to 
     expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of 
     any matter brought under paragraph (1).
       (4) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply only with 
     respect to any action filed under paragraph (1) not later 
     than 30 days after the effective date of this Act.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, can I have a copy of the amendment? We have 
not seen the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is on its way. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment which has 
been offered by myself and Senator Breaux that I believe gives us the 
opportunity--and I encourage my colleagues to pay attention to the 
debate over the next 2 or 3 hours because it gives us the opportunity 
to assess where we are today in the bill, as amended, and to understand 
the implications for each of us, for people who are interested in 
participating in the political process both today and also for years to 
come.
  I am going to refer back, again, to set the big picture and then 
update my colleagues, to a diagram that I believe is important. It is 
simple, but sometimes when we look at all these lines, it is confusing, 
and that is the nature of the whole campaign finance apparatus. This 
chart summarizes that when you pull or push in one area, it has effects 
throughout the system. It is very important because the issue we are 
addressing is what is called the nonseverability and the severability 
clause in the underlying McCain-Feingold bill.
  Money flows into the system from the top of my chart down to the 
bottom. This is the political process. At the top of the chart is where 
money comes from, and it is all these blue lines. My colleagues do not 
need to focus on what these blue lines are right now, but I do want 
them to focus on the funnels, where this money is collected and where 
it goes.
  As I said before, there are seven funnels, when one looks at all the 
political money that comes in and where it goes to affect free speech, 
political voice.
  We have the individual candidate who can receive money from 
individuals, and we will talk about what we did yesterday in increasing 
what I call the contribution limits in terms of the hard dollars, the 
Federal dollars.
  There have been changes to the underlying McCain-Feingold bill that 
are very positive. What angers people the most is that the individual 
candidate is losing his or her voice today. It might be a challenger; 
it might be an incumbent. Over time, because of the erosion from 
inflation on the one hand, without any adjustments in the Federal 
dollars of the hard dollars, but also the increasing influence, this is 
what angers the American people, the influence issue groups, special 
interest groups have on the system, all of which, if it grows too much, 
will overshadow and overwhelm the voice of the individual candidate.
  They might be talking education, Medicare reform, military defense of

[[Page 5020]]

the country, but the issue group, the unions, the corporations right 
now that have to disclose very little, because very little is regulated 
in this arena, have become increasingly powerful at the expense of the 
individual candidate who is out there doing his or her best, traveling 
across Tennessee or across any State in this country with a voice that 
no longer is being heard.
  I say that because it is this relative balance that has gotten out of 
kilter. Members on both sides of the aisle have been doing their best 
to address this over the last 2 weeks.
  Political action committees, we talked a little bit about that, as 
long as we understand that corporations, unions, issue groups can all 
channel money, political action groups, to the individual candidates.
  The Democratic Party and the Republican Party are in this box on this 
chart, and we traditionally have been able to collect both Federal hard 
dollars and soft or non-Federal dollars. Again, it all has been 
disclosed. Everything in the green on the chart is fully disclosed. You 
can hold people accountable to that.
  That is where the party system has worked. Our party system has 
traditionally worked to accentuate or amplify the voice of the 
individual candidate. You can see that the party hard money goes to the 
individual candidate, the soft money subsequently will be used to 
reinforce that voice of the individual candidate.
  It is very important to understand this role of the party has real 
value in a system today which has changed radically, which, 
unfortunately, has pulled the power away from the individual candidate 
over to the corporations, unions, the special issue groups, groups 
created specifically around an issue used to overpower the voice of the 
individual candidate.
  Again, this part of the chart--the party hard and party soft money, 
PACs, and individual candidates--has very little disclosure by 
corporations, unions, issue groups--very little in terms of 
accountability or regulation.
  What have we done? This is where we are today having not passed the 
underlying bill as of yet. What have we done over the last 10 days of 
the discussion? We have had good amendments today that have been 
debated in a very thoughtful way. We saw the earlier chart with the 
funnels still on the chart.
  With the underlying McCain-Feingold and the amendments that have 
passed, we have the following:
  Yesterday, we increased the contribution limits. We already had 
contributions defined historically but we increased the hard dollar 
limits for the individual candidates. We argued yesterday. Some people 
were for, some were against, and a compromise was reached. We have to 
point out the fact that the value of the individual contributions, even 
in what we approved yesterday, is not the same value we gave it in 1974 
because it does not meet a correction for inflation. That was increased 
yesterday. That helps a little bit. Again, it is not up to 1974 
standards, but it helps to give more voice to the individual candidate. 
That is why that is important. That is why you had the people who feel 
strongest about reform coming forward saying, absolutely, on both sides 
of the aisle, we have to increase these limits that individual 
candidates can receive.
  Second, the underlying McCain-Feingold bill does something very 
important. I am spending time with this because we have to see that the 
compromise achieved in McCain-Feingold has resulted in a balance. We 
have to be very careful not to disrupt. Not us in the Senate. We have 
spoken on it through an amendment earlier this morning, but we had the 
careful balance disrupted by the courts, resulting in a detrimental 
impact on the overall system, which does the opposite of what we as 
elected officials want or the American people want--making the system 
worse.
  No. 2, McCain-Feingold, as amended today, increased contribution 
limits but takes out party soft money from individuals, through 
corporations, unions, issue groups through sponsorships. All the soft 
money that comes to the parties is gone. That just about wipes out 50 
percent of what the Republican Party, say, of the Senate, has, along 
with the impact it can have. So it diminishes our voice perhaps 20 
percent, perhaps 50 percent, perhaps 60 percent. Whatever our voice is 
now, which, again, is fully disclosed, highly regulated, where we can 
be held accountable, aimed at giving voice to the individual candidate, 
it, today, if McCain-Feingold passed, now is gone. Why? Because we have 
eliminated the soft party money.
  The third key point applying to our amendment, you can see we are 
wiping out the party soft money which gives voice to the individual 
candidate. The balancing act achieved in the underlying McCain-Feingold 
bill is that, since we restricted speech, or we rationed political 
discourse, or we have in some way put restrictions on the use of 
resources that affect speech, you sure better do it out here as well. 
If you don't, I guarantee the money will keep coming to the system, and 
the money instead of coming here will all flow to the area of least 
resistance. That is, the special interest groups, the unions, the 
corporations.
  It is not any more complicated than that, but I am building up to be 
able to answer why you have the nonseverability.
  Now I have dollar signs indicated on this chart and I will come back 
to that. They don't mean anything in terms of overall quantity. 
Qualitatively, you can see the individual candidate spends money, the 
party spends money, the party soft money is gone under McCain-Feingold. 
The restrictions put in for constitutional reasons are the Snowe-
Jeffords amendment; we voted on it earlier today.
  Put restrictions on speech party soft money here, and you 
counterbalance that with restricting speech or rationing speech or 
basically saying 60 days before an election you can't engage fully in 
political speech under the Jeffords-Snowe provision.
  It attempts to limit the role and influence of special interest 
versus candidates and parties through the electioneering provision. It 
doesn't take care of direct mail, phone calls, or get out the vote. 
That money can come over and include that, but the electioneering, the 
broadcast provisions are of Snowe-Jeffords. I will come back to that.
  The careful balance, achieved by a compromise, no question. As we 
have gone through this process and as McCain-Feingold was developed in 
negotiation, it is a compromise, trying to achieve balance. The 
underlying bill tried to achieve balance and the two provisions we are 
talking about today are underlying provisions. They are not amendments 
added on, a poison pill, but two existing provisions we will link 
together in this narrow, highly targeted nonseverability clause. Those 
are linking party soft money with the Snowe-Jeffords provision.
  McCain-Feingold has attempted to achieve balance by eliminating party 
soft money and having the Snowe-Jeffords provision. That balance has 
been achieved as crafted by the authors in the original bill and not 
altered by amendments. That is very important because people will say 
what about the Wellstone amendment. That is not part of this. It is the 
underlying provisions. McCain-Feingold is built on that basic 
understanding I have just outlined.
  I argue that the last thing we want to do is upset that balance for 
the reasons I said. We have the potential for opening the floodgates if 
we allow party money to be eliminated and all of a sudden we remove, 
for constitutional reasons or a court does later, the Snowe-Jeffords 
amendment.
  The next chart will show what would happen if all of a sudden we took 
the restrictions off here and said Snowe-Jeffords is unconstitutional, 
that is what the courts decided would happen. This is what, 
potentially, might happen if our amendment does not happen.
  Again, this side of the chart is basically the same as McCain-
Feingold. We have eliminated the party. As I have said, if you take the 
restriction on speech, the Snowe-Jeffords restriction on speech, off, 
the money is going to still come into the system and it can't go this 
way. It can't go to individual

[[Page 5021]]

candidates because we have limits there, the hard money limits. It has 
nowhere to go but to flow to the area of least resistance, and the area 
of least resistance is corporations, unions, issue groups that all of a 
sudden have unregulated, no-limits, no-caps--for good constitutional 
reasons, I argue--and you can see the dollar signs. Ultimately, we do 
exactly what we don't want to do. We increase the interest and the role 
and the power of the special interests versus the individual candidates 
and the parties.
  That is the impact. That is the big picture. I think that linkage is 
critically important.
  As to the specifics of the amendment, first of all, it addresses this 
balance. Second, it is narrow, it is targeted, and it is focused. The 
media has been saying this is a poison pill because if you strike down 
one part of McCain-Feingold the whole bill falls. That is wrong. That 
is false. This is narrow and targeted. It does not apply to the whole 
bill. It links just the two provisions, the Snowe-Jeffords provision 
with the ban on soft money--nothing else. The linkage is for a good 
reason. It is because the impact on one has an impact on the other. 
They are complementary; they are intertwined. That is why that 
nonseverability is absolutely critical to prevent the possibility of 
this happening.
  The nonseverability clause ties together just those two provisions 
and nothing else. When I say it is narrowly tailored, a narrowly 
tailored nonseverability clause, it is basically because everything 
else will stand. If the Snowe-Jeffords provision is ruled to be 
unconstitutional and therefore the cap is released, the party soft 
money elimination will be invalid; again, coming back to the original 
balance. Other provisions in the bill stand. It is just those two. The 
other provisions, which will not be affected by this nonseverability 
clause, are provisions such as the increased disclosure for party 
committees, the provision clarifying that the ban on foreign 
contributions includes soft money, the clarification of the ban on 
raising political money on Federal Government property. All of that 
stands. We are talking about just these two provisions to which I have 
spoken.
  The provisions on independent versus coordinated expenditures by 
political parties are unaffected by this amendment. The coordination 
provisions of the bill, the portions of the bill such as tightening the 
definition of independent expenditures, the provisions providing 
increased reporting of independent expenditures--again, all of these 
provisions of the McCain-Feingold bill are not excluded as a part of 
our amendment today. It has to be one of the two provisions to which I 
have spoken.
  Another point I want to mention, and it will probably be talked about 
over the next couple of hours, is the fact that this narrowly targeted 
nonseverability clause also provides a process for expedited judicial 
review of any court challenges to these two provisions. The purpose of 
that clearly is that challenges--we don't want to be held up in court 
with a lot of indecision over the years.
  All this does, as part of this nonseverability clause, its purpose, 
is to provide that if the provisions of this legislation that restrict 
the ever-louder voice of the issue ads--which, again, are poorly 
disclosed and poorly regulated--are declared unconstitutional, just the 
Snowe-Jeffords provisions, then the provision that weakens the voice of 
the individual candidate and of the party would not be enforceable.
  Simply put, sort of boiling it down: The person running for public 
office will not be left out here defenseless, without any voice, if our 
effort in McCain-Feingold as the Snowe-Jeffords provision falls, if the 
courts say no, we are going to take this cap off here--which clearly, 
just looking at the dollar signs, would put the individual candidates 
again at a point where they are almost helpless as they are trying to 
make their point.
  The history of severability legislation I am sure we will go to. I 
will not address that.
  Let me answer one question because we were talking as if this were a 
poison pill because people bring in editorials saying this is a poison 
pill. It is clear, a poison pill, to me, is if you give somebody a pill 
and they drop dead and they are gone. We are not adding a new entity or 
provision to the bill. All we are doing is linking two provisions that 
are already in the bill. They are in the underlying McCain-Feingold 
bill. They are not amendments that have been added that are trying to 
poison the bill.
  The only thing we are doing is working with two underlying provisions 
that are already in the bill, saying they are inextricably linked and 
have an impact one on the other.
  Proponents of the bill--we heard it a lot this morning--told us time 
and time again that this is constitutional, Snowe-Jeffords is 
constitutional, the ban on party soft money is constitutional. If 
people really believe that, I think proponents of the bill have nothing 
to fear by this linkage in our nonseverability proposal.
  As we look at what I have presented, we should take this opportunity 
to look realistically at what is happening in campaigns and campaign 
finance reform: The sources of money, how it is being spent, whether or 
not it is disclosed, and where the money is going. In all this we need 
to make absolutely sure we do not muffle the voices and diminish that 
role of the individual candidates out there while increasing the role 
of the special interests or the unions or the corporations.
  I hope all my colleagues will study this particular amendment, will 
carefully consider this balanced and narrowly tailored amendment that 
addresses what I believe is a critical, critical issue.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the senior Senator 
from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized for 
15 minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Tennessee, 
Senator Frist, who has done his usual excellent job in laying out his 
case. I think the concern that is being expressed is a valid concern, 
in that we need to keep in mind the totality of the system as we are 
addressing this issue. That is one of the things that makes me feel 
good about what happened yesterday, because I think that is exactly 
what we were doing.
  If we, for example, had lost Snowe-Jeffords somewhere along the way 
and just had a soft money ban without any increases in the hard money 
limit, I think the potential problem that my colleague expressed would 
really have been a significant one. I do not think that practical 
problem exists nearly as much as we feared, because even under a worst 
case scenario, if the disclosure and other provisions of the Snowe-
Jeffords even were to fall and we lost soft money in the system--which 
I think would be a good happening--we have increases in the hard money 
limit. We have now doubled, under the original bill--we have doubled 
the amount of money the candidate can have for his own campaign, $1,000 
to $2,000; $4,000 in a primary, $4,000 in a general election. We have 
also increased the amount of money that can go to parties.
  We did not increase it as much as I would like, but we increased it. 
We also increased the aggregate amount. We also increased and doubled 
the amount that parties can give to the candidates. We indexed all of 
it.
  It is not that we are not in the same position we were when McCain-
Feingold started. We have taken some significant steps in order to get 
some legitimate, controlled, limited, hard money into the hands of 
candidates and into the hands of parties that they didn't have when 
this debate began.
  The problem that is being addressed today is one of the very kinds of 
things we were trying to address yesterday. I think this body 
effectively and overwhelmingly addressed it in the compromise amendment 
that we have. The proponents of the current amendment for 
nonseverability, however, make the case that we shouldn't risk the 
situation where the soft money limitations or abolitions and the Snowe-
Jeffords requirements with regard to unions, corporations, and others 
would be struck down; that there would be an imbalance. My first point 
is that we

[[Page 5022]]

corrected and I think significantly corrected that imbalance yesterday.
  My second point would be that it is not exactly as if Snowe-Jeffords 
were some kind of a major happening in terms of the overall picture of 
any given campaign. In the first place, none of it kicks in 60 days 
before an election. So anything goes up until 60 days. Part of Snowe-
Jeffords is simply a disclosure requirement. It doesn't have anything 
to do with money. A part of Snowe-Jeffords has to do with corporations 
and unions within the last 60 days and their expenditures, and that is 
a money situation.
  Let's say that was knocked out, hypothetically. We are all talking 
hypothetically because obviously none of us knows what a court will do. 
We have argued the constitutionality of Snowe-Jeffords in the past. For 
the moment, let's hypothetically say that a 60-day restriction with 
regard to what corporations and unions could do, and nobody else--no 
individuals, as Senator Wellstone pointed out, for example--is a part 
of this. I compliment my friend for narrowly tailoring this legislation 
so we didn't have to deal with all of that. But that is knocked out.
  Then we are knocking out some corporate and union money in the last 
60 days of the campaign. That is not insignificant. But I am not sure, 
in the total context of things, that it is all that important. It 
certainly doesn't justify doing what we may be doing here in terms of 
nonseverability.
  The first thing we need to understand about nonseverability and 
Congress passing a bill with a nonseverability provision in this is 
that it is extremely rare. It is rarely done. We asked the 
Congressional Research Service about it. Their information is that 
there have been 10 bills introduced or considered in the last 12 years 
that have had a nonseverability provision in them. They further say 
that there has only been one bill in the last 12 years where we have 
passed legislation that contained a nonseverability clause. It is 
extremely rare in the thousands of bills that passed during that period 
of time of 12 years. I said: How many public laws were there? They said 
12,962. Out of 12,962 pieces of legislation, only 1 of them contained a 
nonseverability clause.
  That is some indication of the rarity and the significance of what we 
are doing here today, or what is being suggested that we do.
  There was a principle established a long time ago in this country 
that is honored by Congress and is recognized by the judiciary--that in 
a piece of legislation, which more likely than not will contain several 
provisions, you can have some parts of it that are constitutional and 
maybe one part that is not. Strike the unconstitutional part, says the 
Court, and leave the rest intact.
  That is the normal way we have handled things in this country. It is 
based upon a concept that I think all of us honor and adhere and we 
talk a lot about. That is the concept of judicial restraint. We have 
recognized in this country for a long time--and our courts have 
recognized for a long time--that they should exercise judicial 
restraint and make constitutional rulings only when necessary. The 
courts have adopted their own rulings that militate in that direction 
and cause them not to go off and even consider constitutional issues 
unless they really have to. It is for the reasons that I explained: 
Because of the concept of restraint and the benefit we get as a country 
and that the judiciary gets for adopting judicial restraint, not 
reaching out to take on more than it should and look for opportunities 
to strike down laws when they are not even really directly presented to 
them, and so forth.
  I think the Court said it very well in the case of Regan v. Time, 
Inc., with the Supreme Court plurality decision in 1984. This is a 
little long, but I think it is important because it gets to the heart 
of what I am saying.
  The Court said:

       In exercising its power to review the constitutionality of 
     a legislative act, a Federal court should act cautiously. A 
     ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the 
     elected representatives of people. Therefore, a court should 
     refrain from invalidating more of the statute than is 
     necessary. As this court has observed, whenever an act of 
     Congress contains unobjectionable provisions separable from 
     those found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of this 
     court to so declare and maintain the act insofar as it is 
     valid. Thus, this court has upheld the constitutionality of 
     some provisions of a statute even though other provisions of 
     a statute were unconstitutional. For the same reasons, we 
     have often refused to resolve the constitutionality of a 
     particular provision of a statute when the constitutionality 
     of a separate controlling provision has been upheld.

  I think that states it very well. In summary, I think it has been the 
law and the practice of the United States for many years. It is a valid 
one. I think we would all agree that it is a valid one.
  Those are the circumstances. No. 1, the extreme rarity of the 
situation; No. 2, these longstanding principles that our judiciary has. 
Those are the foundation blocks as we approach this issue this time as 
a Congress.
  What will be the legal effects of a nonseverability clause? Not only 
has Congress not legislated a nonseverability clause once in the last 
12 years, but there are no cases ever in the history of the country 
where Federal courts have been called upon to construe a 
nonseverability clause.
  We really are in uncharted waters here in terms of how such a clause 
might be interpreted. I fear we are getting into an area of unknown 
consequences, and potential perversive results that we don't fully 
appreciate.
  What will be the probable result? As you think it through, you can 
see situations very readily that are going to produce perplexities, 
shall we say, that maybe we can resolve here on the floor--I don't 
know--and determine what intent the proponents have with regard to this 
amendment.
  Article III of our Constitution says there must be a case in 
controversy before a person can bring a lawsuit, have it upheld. Any 
law professors out there, forgive me for my shorthand as I go through 
this. I want to touch on the general principles, and I hope I get them 
right.
  If you are a litigant, someone challenging this act, you have to have 
standing. There is a criminal aspect to this statute; if you are a 
criminal and you are convicted, you have standing. As far as the civil 
aspects of it are concerned, in any kind of a situation, you have to 
have a case in controversy, and you have to have standing.
  That means you have to be injured directly by the provision you are 
dealing with or have been convicted of. If the statute is in force, you 
will be injured, if you sustained injury or you face imminent injury, 
something like that, not just a general public kind of a potential 
injury. There was a case back in 1974 where some concerned citizens got 
together and sued the CIA because they were not disclosing their 
budget. The courts held that your interests are not any different from 
any other citizen. You have no standing in this lawsuit.
  That little background has relevance because someone challenging 
these two provisions will refer to them as the soft money provision and 
the Snowe-Jeffords provision of the McCain-Feingold bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I request an additional 10 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield an additional 10 minutes to the 
Senator from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for an additional 10 
minutes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. It has to do with how the cases would come up. If 
someone, let's say, was convicted under the soft money provision--in 
other words, somebody sent some soft money to somebody they weren't 
supposed to after this law was passed, and they got caught doing that 
and they got charged with and got convicted of it, if you had 
severability, then that person would clearly have standing with regard 
to the soft money provision they were convicted of. That is all that 
would be at issue.
  Presumably, if you had nonseverability the way that the proponents of 
this amendment would suggest, that person who is affected by the soft 
money provision that he is convicted of, presumably he could also 
challenge the Snowe-Jeffords part of the bill that

[[Page 5023]]

has no relevance to him. If so, are we telling the Court, by means of 
this amendment, to give standing to this person to challenge Snowe-
Jeffords when they are not affected by Snowe-Jeffords? If so, we are 
running afoul of article III because the Congress cannot give people 
substantive jurisdiction or grant constitutional standing for anyone 
such as that. If we were trying to do that, we certainly would not be 
exercising judicial restraint.
  During the course of this debate, I hope we can agree on what we are 
trying to do by means of this amendment. Do we want to be able to allow 
someone who is affected by one provision to be able to challenge the 
other provision? That is the question. If the answer to that is, yes, 
then we can talk about the constitutional implications of that. If the 
answer to that is, no, that they can only challenge the provision they 
are affected by, then what about a fellow who is convicted under the 
soft money provisions, which is held to be constitutional? He goes to 
jail. Another person comes along, he is sued under the Snowe-Jeffords 
provision. That is held to be unconstitutional, which wipes out the 
entire legislation, under this amendment.
  So you have the first individual sitting in jail for a period of time 
under an act that has been declared unconstitutional. Is that what we 
desire to do?
  It is not as easy as it seems. That is one of the reasons Congress 
has never passed such a law as is being suggested that would allow this 
particular result. There has never been a Federal case on this subject. 
There have been a few lower court Federal cases deciding State law. 
Surprisingly, in some of those cases, in interpreting nonseverability 
provisions, they have ignored them.
  I say to my friends, even if this nonseverability provision passes, 
which I hope it does not, there is a good chance the Court would ignore 
it. And, if not a good chance, depending on how it is interpreted as to 
what Congress' intent is, that it will be declared unconstitutional.
  For reasons set forth in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, a 1992 
Supreme Court case, the Court made this statement:

       Whether the courts were to act on their own or at the 
     invitation of Congress in ignoring the concrete injury 
     requirement described in our cases, they would be discarding 
     a principal fundamental to the separate and distinct 
     constitutional role of the third branch. One of the essential 
     elements that identifies these cases in controversy is that 
     they are the business of the courts rather than the political 
     branches.

  In other words, Congress, you can't tell us what is a case in 
controversy. You can't tell us that there is a case in controversy out 
there or that a person has standing in a case when he really doesn't. 
That is for us to decide. If you are attempting to intrude, you are 
violating the doctrine of separation of powers.
  I hope my colleagues will not view this amendment favorably. It would 
be not only a reflection on us, but it wouldn't do the judiciary any 
good. We are in danger, if we pass this amendment, in one fell swoop, 
of doing something that would be hurtful to two branches of our 
Government: the legislative branch and the judicial branch--the 
legislative branch, us, because after all these years, after 25 years 
we finally get around to addressing this issue, after going through and 
agreeing or disagreeing, but let's say agreeing on some fundamental 
principles that we believe ought to be passed, at the same time, in 
some cases supporting amendments which, in my estimation, pretty 
clearly have constitutional problems. I don't think that reflects well 
on us in what we ought to be doing and how we ought to be doing it. It 
doesn't reflect well on us when we threaten judicial independence or 
judicial restraint.
  There are some broader principles involved. Those principles are 
involved here. So while I appreciate the concern that has been 
expressed in terms of balance, in terms of the need for balance--and we 
saw part of that yesterday--the portion of Snowe-Jeffords that deals 
with money is a fairly limited segment: Never done this before; 
treading in uncharted waters; trying to accomplish things we probably 
cannot, in the end, do.
  For all those reasons, I will respectfully urge defeat of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I will turn to my colleague from Utah in a 
minute. First, I will take a moment to respond on our time to at least 
two of the comments made. It will take just a second.
  I appreciate the comments that have been made. The first statement 
made was about the relative importance of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. 
I think it is important because my whole argument is based on this 
balance of the linkage, the tie between the two. How important is 
Snowe-Jeffords--the significance of not being able to go on the air 60 
days prior to an election. We should not underestimate that because, 
really, it is the balance between giving the candidate voice and the 
special interest voice.
  Our whole argument is if you are going to take voice away from one, 
you ought to take voice away from the other. If you are going to give 
one voice, give the other voice. I point out that Snowe-Jeffords is 
very important, and that is why we are targeting it in this narrowly 
targeted amendment. If you just look at special interests, which is in 
red on this chart, versus party ads, the issue ads, I think, disturb a 
lot of people. I can't say that all of these ads were in the last 60 
days, but anybody who has watched campaigns knows it is really in the 
last 2 weeks of most of these campaigns, not 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 
8 weeks. The Snowe-Jeffords provision is 60 days. This is just to show 
that Snowe-Jeffords is critically important, and if we disrupt Snowe-
Jeffords, get rid of that limitation on free speech, there will be an 
infusion of money even greater than today. The special interest ads--
again, the ads that Snowe-Jeffords is directed at--amounted to about 
$347 million in the campaigns we just finished.
  The party ad money, which is predominantly soft money, non-Federal 
money, was only $162 million. What we are basically saying is that if 
you are going to take off the restriction of Snowe-Jeffords and you are 
going to allow this money to come flowing into the system, the least we 
can do for the candidate out there is to allow the party to participate 
without unilaterally being challenged and overrun by special interests. 
So Snowe-Jeffords is critical.
  No. 2--and other people will comment on this--nonseverability may be 
rare, I guess, in the big scheme of things, but it has been done a 
lot--in fact, three times on campaign finance reform, where you do 
bring people together and you have this rich interaction. Three times 
we voted for nonseverability clauses on this floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. FRIST. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Not only is the Senator correct that the last three 
campaign finance reform bills that cleared the Senate had 
nonseverability clauses in them, the amendment we voted on a few 
moments ago--the Harkin amendment, which was supported by 31 colleagues 
on the other side of the aisle--had a nonseverability clause in it. In 
fact, the Senator from Tennessee is entirely correct.
  When the subject turns to the first amendment and to the 
constitutional rights of Americans in these kinds of bills, it is the 
exception not to have a nonseverability clause in it. I am sure the 
other Senator from Tennessee was not suggesting that nobody would have 
standing to bring a case affecting so many different people's 
constitutional rights. I am confident, I say to my friend, the junior 
Senator from Tennessee, there will be some Americans who will have a 
standing to bring a suit against this case. I will be leading them. I 
thank the Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. I thank the distinguished Senator from Kentucky for his 
comments.
  I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Utah.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
  Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I was interested to hear Senator Thompson

[[Page 5024]]

say we are in uncharted waters, facing unknown results that we don't 
fully appreciate. That is the theme of my comments.
  I go back to another philosopher, Mark Twain. I can't quote him 
exactly, but he has been quoted as saying something to the effect that 
``prophecy is a very iffy profession, particularly with respect to the 
future.'' That is where we are. We are all trying to divine what is 
going to happen in the future if McCain-Feingold passes, as I expect it 
will, and if it should be signed and upheld by the Supreme Court. What 
would we face?
  Well, I read in the popular press that on the Democratic side, one of 
their leading campaign attorneys is telling them if McCain-Feingold 
passes, the Democrats can kiss goodbye any chance of gaining control in 
the Senate in the 2002 election. That should cause everybody on this 
side of the aisle to stampede and vote for it. However, there is an 
equally qualified observer who has spoken to our Members and has said 
if McCain-Feingold passes, the Republican Party will go into the 
minority and stay there for 25 years.
  Now, obviously, one or the other of these has to be wrong in terms of 
what is going to happen at the election. But neither one of these 
observers is an unqualified observer. The reason they have come to 
these two differing conclusions is that each one is looking at this 
issue through the prism of his own self-interest. If the Democratic 
campaign lawyer sees the destruction of the Democratic Party and the 
Republican campaign consultant sees the destruction of the Republican 
Party, I submit to you, as murky as our crystal ball may be, the 
chances are that they are both right--that we are going to see, as a 
result of the passage of this bill, not the destruction of the party--I 
won't go to that extent, but certainly a dramatic diminution of party 
influence in politics in this country.
  One very practical example that we can expect is the scaling down, if 
not the elimination, of party conventions because party conventions now 
are financed entirely with soft money which, under this bill, would 
become illegal. So we may see party conventions disappear altogether, 
or we may see them become very truncated affairs, which the media may 
decide is not worth covering. This would be good news for an incumbent 
President. This would be bad news for a challenger trying to prevent a 
President from seeking a second term. He would be denied the 
opportunity of exposure that comes from a party convention.
  One of the things we will not see as a result of the passage of 
McCain-Feingold is the elimination of corruption in politics. 
Corruption comes from the heart of the receiver, not the wallet of the 
giver. If an individual is corrupt, he is going to stay corrupt, 
whether or not the ``speech police'' are watching him. He is going to 
find some way to remain corrupt and to game the system to his 
advantage. The person of integrity is going to remain a person of 
integrity, regardless of how many people come waving bills at him to 
try to get him to change his position solely on the basis of money.
  Integrity and corruption does not come as a result of participation 
in the political process. Integrity and corruption come from the way 
you were raised, from the way you make your decisions, from the hard 
commitments you make along the way in life.
  There are corrupt people in entertainment and there are people of 
integrity in entertainment. There are corrupt people in the media and 
there are people of integrity in the media. There are corrupt people in 
politics and there are people of integrity in politics, and they will 
not change on either side just because we pass a bill. So that is the 
one prediction of which I can be confident. On these others, we are 
guessing.
  I let my imagination run. If the political conventions disappear or 
become seriously truncated as a result of the passage of this bill, and 
if I were a special interest group with an unlimited wallet, I would 
anticipate holding a major convention of my own and invite certain 
favored speakers. I would gear it in such a way as to get maximum media 
attention, and those speakers could then get media attention that would 
come out of attending that convention.
  I do believe that we are going to see an increase in political 
spending of soft dollars on the part of special interest groups in 
different and inventive ways that we at the moment cannot anticipate. 
Once again, in the newspaper there is a story of a fundraiser. He 
signed it himself. He said: Those of us on K Street are already 
figuring out ways to get around McCain-Feingold and use our soft 
dollars in a fashion to influence the political situation.
  We are going to see, I am sure, an increase in Harry and Louise kind 
of advertising. Those of us who were on the floor through the debate on 
President Clinton's health care plan know how powerful those soft 
dollars were. We know how many those soft dollars were, and we know how 
totally outside the ambit of McCain-Feingold those soft dollars were. 
If McCain-Feingold says you cannot give those soft dollars to a party 
to pay its light bill, well, OK, we will give the soft dollars to 
Madison Avenue to influence politics in other ways.
  One of the other ways the parties are going to be seriously 
disadvantaged by this bill is in candidate recruitment. Senator Frist 
is the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee. When 
he goes out and tries to convince a reluctant candidate to challenge a 
Democratic incumbent, one of the first things that candidate says is: 
If I do this, will you be there for me? Senator Frist can say now: Yes, 
we will commit X amount of activity in your behalf. Please, come do 
this. Do this for the party. Do this for your country. Come do it, and 
we will be behind you.
  Senator McConnell has already laid out the financial implications of 
McCain-Feingold in terms of the amount of money that would be available 
to the senatorial committee if we had nothing but hard dollars based on 
actual experience. As Senator Frist goes out to recruit candidates, or 
as Senator Murray goes out to recruit candidates on the other side, she 
is going to find her ability to attract candidates into this situation 
will be severely reduced.
  The ultimate answer is: We want you to run, but when it comes to 
financial support, you are on your own; you are not going to get any 
significant help from the national party in any way because we simply 
cannot do it. We have to use our hard dollars for things for which we 
used to use soft money. We simply are not going to have the resources 
that we would like to have to help you. We will see many outstanding 
candidates decide they do not want to run under those circumstances.
  Make no mistake about it, those in the press gallery who have been 
talking about the present system being an incumbent protection act, 
wait until we pass McCain-Feingold and I guarantee you an incumbent 
will really have to foul his nest in order to lose. This virtually 
guarantees that no challenger of any consequence will be able to raise 
the money and produce the organization to take on an entrenched 
incumbent because the restrictions are so severe that they will not be 
able to do that.
  What does this have to do with the amendment? Simply this: At least 
as a result of the Wellstone amendment for which I voted, there is a 
degree of equal damage to the special interest groups. With the 
Wellstone amendment in the bill, the bill does not unilaterally damage 
parties and leave special interest groups totally free. Oh, it does 
leave special interest groups huge loopholes, but it at least, on the 
advertising phase, says the special interest groups have the same kinds 
of problems as the parties.
  People said to me: Why in the world did you vote for the Wellstone 
amendment when it is clearly unconstitutional? I voted for it with my 
eyes wide open. I believe it is unconstitutional. I believe the other 
parts of the bill that it seeks equality for are equally 
unconstitutional. But I thought if the time should come, through some 
dark miracle, that McCain-Feingold survives the White House, the 
Supreme Court,

[[Page 5025]]

and gets into the public stream, I do not want the loophole that the 
Wellstone amendment closed to stay open. If they are going to find some 
of it unconstitutional, I want them to find all of it unconstitutional. 
I want that loophole plugged.
  If, indeed, we have the circumstance before the Court where the Court 
says the Wellstone amendment is unconstitutional, so the special 
interest groups are off the hook, but all of the corresponding 
pressures on parties are constitutional so that parties are under this 
kind of restriction, we are going to see a distortion in the political 
world that none of us is going to like.
  I am supporting this amendment that says if the Supreme Court says, 
OK, we are going to strike down the Wellstone amendment as 
unconstitutional, as I hope they do, then we are going to strike down 
all the rest of it as unconstitutional because it all goes together, it 
fits together; it is a legitimate pattern.
  I happen to think it is a total pattern of the violation of the first 
amendment. I have said before I think if James Madison were alive, he 
would be appalled at the debate, let alone the outcome. I have been 
ridiculed for that by members of the press who somehow think it is kind 
of funny to talk about the Founding Fathers, but I still believe the 
Federalist Papers are the best guide we can have as to how we make 
public policies around here.
  As we look into our crystal balls, murky as they may be, we have to 
try to understand what the consequences will be if this bill passes and 
becomes law. I think the consequences are as I have stated: Parties 
will be seriously disadvantaged, special interest groups will be 
advantaged. But I do not want that to be done by the Supreme Court. I 
want the Supreme Court to tell us, all or nothing.
  If the Supreme Court says an intrusion on first amendment rights is 
legitimate when you are dealing with political parties, then that 
intrusion ought to be legitimate when you are dealing with special 
interest groups. If, on the other hand, they say, no, the first 
amendment is so precious that we are going to leave it alone as far as 
special interest groups are concerned, why should they not then be 
required to say, we will leave it alone with respect to political 
parties?
  Since when did the Constitution make a difference between the way 
people assemble themselves in their right of assembly and their right 
to petition and say: If you assemble yourselves in your right of 
assembly and right to petition in a political party, we are going to 
treat you one way, but if you assemble yourselves in your right to 
assemble and right to petition in a special interest group, we are 
going to treat you a different way?
  The possibility exists that might happen if this amendment is 
adopted. If this amendment is adopted, then the Supreme Court will have 
to make the fundamental decision: Are they going to amend the first 
amendment by upholding McCain-Feingold, or are they not?
  If they decide they are not, then they are not across the board. They 
cannot do it selectively. To me, that is the kind of outcome with which 
Hamilton, Madison, and John Jay would all agree. I make no apologies 
for calling them to this argument because I think this argument 
fundamentally is about the preservation of their handiwork which all of 
us in this Chamber have taken an oath to uphold and defend.
  I do not take that oath lightly. I know my fellow Senators do not 
take that oath lightly. We should talk about it in those terms. I plead 
with my colleagues to think in those terms and, therefore, to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois, Mr. Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the American people have had an incredible civics 
lesson these past few months. No novelist, no playwright, no movie 
director--not even the creator of the X-Files--could have dreamed up a 
more intricate, a more convoluted, or more fantastic plot than the one 
played out in our national political arena in last year's Presidential 
election.
  For weeks on end, it seemed there was only one topic of conversation: 
Who won the election? And that conversation focused on some of the most 
arcane aspects of constitutional law.
  What if Florida cannot send a slate of electors to the electoral 
college? What if they send two slates? Are contested elections a State 
or a national issue? Or for that matter, a county by county issue? Who 
ultimately decides the results of a disputed election? Congress? The 
Florida Supreme Court? Federal district court? The Supreme Court? What 
about the vote of the people? Doesn't that count?
  Woven through every one of these questions is a crucial feature of 
our American style of democracy--the separation of powers. This is 
perhaps our Nation's most critical feature, our backbone, if you will.
  For without a clear cut separation of powers--a separation between 
the Federal branches of Government, and between the Federal Government 
and the States--our system of Government founders and fails.
  Prior to the creation of the Federal courts, Alexander Hamilton 
envisioned in Federalist No. 78 that ``the judiciary is beyond 
comparison the weakest of the three departments of power.'' Given the 
recent role the Supreme Court played in last November's Presidential 
election, Alexander Hamilton's vision was wrong.
  Our delicate balance of power has tipped in favor of nine justices 
that have the power to legislate from the bench and have now elevated 
the Court as the most powerful of the three ``departments of power.''
  Commenting on the Supreme Court's role in picking the President, 
Laurence Tribe noted that the Justices were ``driven by something other 
than what was visible on the face of the opinions.''
  We will continue to ponder whether the Court's decision was derived 
from established legal and constitutional principles. Or whether the 
Court was ``results oriented'' and searched for a rationale to 
substantiate a decision more political than legal.
  In our Government this question of the separation of powers never 
goes away. It is here before us today, in this bill, with this 
amendment, with the issue of campaign finance reform. Specifically, it 
confronts us with the issues of severability and nonseverability.
  When the Congress of the United States creates a new law of the land, 
how difficult should it be for another branch of Government to strike 
it down?
  For the executive branch of Government, the answer has always been 
clear. The President can veto any law we pass. Congress can override a 
Presidential veto with a two-thirds majority in each House. The balance 
of power between Congress and the executive branch is part of our 
national strength.
  But what of the balance of power between Congress and the Judiciary?
  Federal courts have the authority to decide on the constitutional 
legitimacy of the laws passed by Congress, and to dispose of any 
provisions of the law they find unconstitutional. It is an ultimate 
authority dating back to Marbury v. Madison. If the Supreme Court 
declares a provision of law to be unconstitutional, it is conclusive.
  Short of changing the Constitution itself, a step we have taken only 
17 times since the passage of the Bill of Rights, there are no options. 
A finding of unconstitutionality by the Supreme Court effectively voids 
congressional and Presidential action. This, too, is a vital part of 
the balance of powers. And I respect it.
  The nonseverability amendment would alter, even if only slightly, the 
balance of power between the legislature and the judiciary. Is this a 
wise change to make?
  I have been grappling with this question these past few days. And 
grappling, as well, with some of the profound and, I must say, 
unsettling changes that have occurred at the Supreme Court in recent 
years.

[[Page 5026]]

  My perception and I confess this is my own, of where the Court is 
today, and the direction in which it is heading, will carry great 
weight in my ultimate decision about the nonseverability issue.
  A law professor at New York University wrote an interesting article 
on this very topic a few weeks back in the New York Times. The author's 
name is Larry Kramer, and his article, which could hardly be more to 
the point, was titled ``The Supreme Court v. Balance of Powers.''
  His main point, which I think he makes quite convincingly, is that:

     the current Supreme Court has a definite political agenda--
     one devoted chiefly to reallocating governmental power in 
     ways that suit the views of its conservative majority. . . .
       For nearly a decade, the court's five conservative justices 
     have steadily usurped the power to govern by striking down or 
     weakening federal and state laws regulating issues as varied 
     as gun sales, the environment and patents--as well as laws 
     protecting women and . . . the disabled.

  Many of the Supreme Court's recent decisions have indeed been made by 
the conservative majority. Decisions are often carried on the basis of 
a single vote. Age discrimination--five to four. Gay rights--five to 
four. Warrantless police searches--five to four. The Federal role in 
death penalty cases--five to four. And of course, the selection of the 
43rd President of the United States--five to four.
  Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissenting opinion to this last 
decision, said:

       Although we may never know with complete certainty the 
     identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, 
     the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the 
     nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of 
     the law.

  This is my own starting point for reflecting on the nonseverability 
question. I agree with Justice Stevens. My confidence in the 
impartiality of the Supreme Court has been shaken. The American 
judicial system has been increasingly politicized. Politicized by the 
unseemly rejection by the Senate of qualified nominees to the Federal 
bench. Politicized by the recent decision by the White House to end the 
half century involvement of the American Bar Association in reviewing 
the qualifications of potential nominees to the Federal bench--a 
tradition that dates back to the Eisenhower administration.
  With that as context--recognizing that for many the impartiality of 
the Supreme Court is being called into question--I return to the 
question of nonseverability. Is this a Supreme Court to whom we want to 
hand over the absolute authority to rewrite whatever campaign finance 
reform measure ultimately is enacted by Congress?
  I am not enamored by the idea of granting to the Court--particularly 
this Court--such authority. Maintaining severability denies them the 
opportunity to sink the entire law on the basis of the 
constitutionality of one provision.
  At the same time, I am not enamored by the prospect of allowing this 
Supreme Court to selectively dismantle our campaign finance reform 
measures, picking and choosing among the different provisions to find 
ones that suit their visions of reform, and rejecting the rest.
  The last time we tried this in Congress and sent the law across the 
street, it had a pretty disastrous outcome. The Supreme Court at that 
time decided they would limit how we raise money for campaigns. They 
would not limit, as Congress wanted to, the ultimate amount of money 
spent on campaigns, and then they came in with a decision in Buckley v. 
Valeo in 1976 and said, incidentally, millionaires in America, when it 
comes to campaign financing, are above the law. Now that preposterous 
outcome was rationalized by them and has been capitalized on by 
candidates since.
  Campaign finance activist Ben Senturia compared the Buckley decision 
by the Court relating to campaign finance reform to that of a large 
tree in the middle of a ball field. The game can still be played, he 
says, but it has to be played around the tree.
  Despite my serious misgivings about this Supreme Court, the 
opportunity severability will give it to move beyond the role of 
constitutional arbiter, to actually craft their vision of campaign 
finance reform, I will vote against the Frist amendment for three 
reasons.
  First, for the good of our Nation, the strength of our Government, 
and the future of the Court, I must still retain the faith and the hope 
that the Supreme Court will rise above any political consideration to 
judge this law on its constitutional merits.
  Second, taking my misgivings about the distribution of the Court to 
their logical conclusion, Congress would have to raise this matter on 
every legislative issue we face. That would invite confrontation and 
chaos that would not serve our Nation.
  Third and finally, I have supported McCain-Feingold and campaign 
finance reform from the start. I am prepared to set aside my heartfelt 
concerns over the issue of severability rather than jeopardizing this 
good-faith effort to clean up the tawdry campaign climate in America.
  I support the severability provision in this bill and oppose the 
Frist amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, before the Senator from Illinois leaves the 
floor, I express my personal appreciation for his speech. I say that, 
recognizing that he and I have been in Congress the same length of 
time. We came together to the House of Representatives. During that 
period of time, I have gotten to know him well and I recognize his 
history as being a real legislator, a parliamentarian as he was in the 
State of Illinois.
  This debate has been a very good debate. During the past couple of 
weeks, we have had some very fine presentations made. But when we look 
back on the presentations made, there will not be any better than the 
one just made by the Senator from Illinois. Not only did he deliver it 
well, as he always does, the Senator from Illinois has no peer, in my 
estimation, as someone able to present facts. But here, not only did he 
do a great job in his delivery, the substance of what he said is really 
meaningful.
  For someone such as me who struggled with this issue of severability, 
he certainly laid the foundation, in effect poured the cement. I have 
no question the Senator from Illinois is right on this issue. I am 
personally very grateful for having been present to listen to this 
brilliant presentation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. REID. I yield to the Senator from Wisconsin for 15 minutes.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me join in the comments the Senator 
from Nevada made about the presentation of the Senator from Illinois. I 
know he thought long and hard about this. I am grateful, not only for 
his decision on this but also for the rationale and presentation he 
made. I thank him for it.
  I appreciate very much the way the Senator from Tennessee, Senator 
Thompson, kicked off the debate on our side. He made some very powerful 
points about how this issue of severability and nonseverability relates 
to the separation of powers and issues of judicial restraint. What I 
would like to do is use my time to talk about what this means for our 
effort to do something about the campaign financing system in our 
country.
  Mr. President, the Senate is being asked to agree to an amendment 
that would make two provisions of this bill ``nonseverable'' from one 
another. What does ``nonseverable'' mean? What does it mean for this 
bill? And what does this vote mean for the cause of reform?
  My friend John McCain has said that nonseverability is French for 
``kill campaign finance reform.'' That is a pretty good short 
definition. But in simple legal and practical terms, the addition of 
this kind of nonseverability clause means that the soft money and 
Snowe-Jeffords provision, title I and title II of the bill, would 
become a single integrated unit for purposes of constitutional 
scrutiny, that its many separate sections would all stand or fall

[[Page 5027]]

together if any part of it is challenged in court on constitutional 
grounds. So, if this amendment passes, and the bill passes into law in 
a form that includes this amendment, and some time later a federal 
court finds one provision of either the soft money ban or the Snowe-
Jeffords provision to be unconstitutional, then both of those 
provisions will be struck down, and it will be as if we had never 
passed a campaign finance reform bill at all.
  Our bill contains an explicit severability clause, added only for 
emphasis. We pass hundreds of bills in each Congress, and each of them 
is deemed implicitly to be comprised of severable parts, unless it 
contains ``nonseverability'' language. Two weeks ago we passed a 
bankruptcy bill, that ran on for hundreds of pages. I thought it was a 
bad bill, I wish it were not about to become law. Still, I understand 
that if some part of its hundreds of pages is struck down on 
constitutional grounds, the rest will stand. The same is true of nearly 
every bill we have passed or will in the future pass in this body. In 
fact, I am informed that during the last 12 years only 10 bills have 
been introduced, let alone passed, that contain a nonseverability 
clause. It is incredibly unusual.
  The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that even without a 
severability clause, the presumption is that Congress intends for each 
provision of a bill to be evaluated on its own merits and severed from 
the bill if it is found to be unconstitutional. In Alaska Airlines v. 
Brock, for example, the Court said:

       A court should refrain from invalidating more of the 
     statute than is necessary . . . Whenever an act of Congress 
     contains unobjectionable provisions separable from those 
     found to be unconstitutional, it is the duty of the court to 
     so declare, and to maintain the act in so far as it is valid.

  That is the general rule. In order to overcome that presumption there 
has to be specific evidence that Congress would not have passed the 
constitutional provisions without the unconstitutional provisions.
  Senator McCain and I have drafted a bill that we believe is 
constitutionally sound. My record is not the record of a legislator who 
is casual about the first amendment, but some people, out of legitimate 
concern, and some other people, seeking strategic advantage in their 
effort to kill reform, have raised first amendment questions about the 
Snowe-Jeffords provisions of the bill, which would place restrictions 
on the use corporate and union treasury of phony issue ads run on radio 
or TV within 60 days of general election. Similar questions have been 
raised about the Wellstone amendment that extends the Snowe-Jeffords 
restrictions to issue ads run by independent groups.
  We knew that our bill would face this scrutiny and we drafted the 
Snowe-Jeffords provision with care and respect for the right to 
political speech, but if we, or the author of a successful amendment to 
our bill, has missed the constitutional mark, there are federal courts 
to rule on the question. Ultimately, under our system of government, 
there is a Supreme Court to give the final word about the 
constitutionality of any part of our bill that may be challenged. And 
if the Supreme Court says that some piece of our bill is 
unconstitutional, that's the last word, and we would have to accept 
that.
  But this amendment goes much farther. It would mean that if the 
Supreme Court finds a defect in the Snowe-Jeffords provision, and 
strikes it down, then the soft money ban will be invalidated as well. 
This makes no sense. It respects neither the proper rule of the Court, 
nor the proper role of the Congress. We have a Congress to pass laws, 
in this case a set of laws. We have a Supreme Court to tell us when one 
of those laws is unconstitutional and must cease to have effect.
  I try to avoid cliches in debate, but here I must implore my 
colleagues, don't vote for an amendment that obliges this Senate and 
the Court to throw the baby out with the bathwater. In this case, the 
bathwater is the Snowe-Jeffords provision that we have always known 
will face a constitutional challenge, and while we believe there is a 
strong argument for it being upheld, we cannot state with any certainty 
that it will. But the most important provision in our bill, the baby in 
our metaphor, is the soft money ban. The sponsor of this amendment 
knows that he will never get the Court to say that the soft money ban 
is unconstitutional. He holds out hope that Snowe-Jeffords will be 
found to be constitutionally flawed, so he pins his hopes on the 
extraordinary, mechanistic and, in this case, cynical device of non-
severability. It is his only chance, because he knows he can't beat 
reform in the Congress, and he knows he can't possibly beat the most 
important part of it in the courts, not in any analysis on the merits.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment, and I add 
these words of caution: If you vote for this amendment, you are voting 
to place in peril the most important reform measure in this bill. If 
you vote for this amendment, you vote for a gross departure from 
ordinary legislative procedure. If you vote for this amendment, you 
vote to distort the usual proper role of and relationship between the 
courts and this Congress. If you vote for this amendment, you vote, and 
will be seen to vote, for maximizing the chances of the enemies of 
reform to prevail against the decisions of this Senate and against the 
will of the American people.
  I must also point out to those of my colleagues who have told me 
privately, or have stated in public that they support a ban on soft 
money but cannot vote for the bill because they believe the Snowe-
Jeffords amendment is unconstitutional, you should vote against this 
amendment. If you would vote for a bill that includes a soft money ban 
and no provision on issue ads, you should vote here to preserve the 
option for the Supreme Court to uphold a soft money ban and strike down 
the Snowe-Jeffords amendment.
  I made this clear in the last few days. I believe this is the vote. 
This vote is the ultimate test for the Senate in this debate on 
campaign finance reform. It might be called the campaign finance reform 
test. The American people are standing by, waiting to see whether this 
body will pass or fail that test. Do not let them down my colleagues. 
There are no makeup exams.
  This is the vote that will decide if we are going to be able to get 
rid of this awful soft money system--to really get rid of it, not just 
pass a bill in the Senate, not just pass a bill in the House, not just 
have the President sign it, but actually have it survive a court 
challenge and become the law of the land.

  Before yielding the floor, I ask unanimous consent a letter sent to 
our Democratic colleagues of the Senate by Representative Meehan and 
Representative Frank of the other body on March 22 be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                Congress of the United States,

                                   Washington, DC, March 22, 2001.
       Dear Senate Democratic Colleague: We are writing to urge 
     you to oppose any amendment to S. 27--the bipartisan campaign 
     finance reform legislation introduced by Senators John McCain 
     and Russ Feingold--that would invalidate all or other 
     provisions of the bill were one such provision declared 
     unconstitutional by the courts.
       The House confronted amendments of this nature during 
     debate on the similar Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform 
     legislation in 1998 and 1999. These amendments were soundly 
     defeated--in 1998 by a vote of 155 to 254 and in 1999 by a 
     vote of 167 to 259. 188 of 194 House Democrats voted against 
     a non-severability amendment in 1998, and 202 out of 210 
     House Democrats voted against this amendment in 1999.
       The pro-reform majority in the House rightly perceived non-
     severability to be lacking in public policy justification and 
     precedent. This amendment cedes enormous power to the courts 
     to undo Congress's work in instances where that work is of 
     unquestionable constitutionality. Under non-severability, if 
     a court found one provision of a comprehensive bill to be 
     unconstitutional, the entire bill would be invalidated. While 
     we believe that judicial review is an essential part of our 
     system of checks-and-balances, non-severability tilts the 
     scales too far towards judicial domination. Indeed, we find 
     it strange that some who have decided the prospect of so-
     called ``activist judges'' overriding the will of officials 
     elected by the people apparently endorse such an assault on 
     Congress's power and prerogatives.
       The inclusion of non-severability provisions in enacted 
     legislation is extremely

[[Page 5028]]

     rare. At the time the House considered the Shays-Meehan bill 
     in 1999, only three bills had passed in the last decade that 
     had non-severability clauses. Indeed, Congress has often 
     inserted severability clauses in legislation to ensure that 
     constitutional provisions remain in effect. For example 
     Telecommunications Act of 1996 contained a severability 
     clause. If Congress had instead inserted a non-severability 
     clause in the Act, the entire Act would have been invalidated 
     when the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously struck down its so-
     called ``Communications Decency Act'' provision. The Brady 
     Bill was also protected by a severability clause.
       Finally, non-severability is an unjustified threat to the 
     laudable effort to clean up our campaign finance system. We 
     believe that soft money contributions to the national 
     political parties should be banned and that campaign ads 
     masquerading as issue discussion should be subject to the 
     same laws governing uncloaked campaign ads. Moreover, we 
     believe that both of these elements of the McCain-Feingold 
     bill pass constitutional muster. We do not believe, however, 
     that tying the fate of one to a court's view of the other--or 
     tying either's fate to a court's view of other provisions of 
     McCain-Feingold--is justified. Soft money contributions at a 
     minimum give rise to an appearance of corruption. That will 
     be the case whether or not other provisions of McCain-
     Feingold ultimately survive judicial review. Accordingly, the 
     public policy merits weigh strongly in favor of cleaning up 
     as much of our disgraceful campaign finance system as we can. 
     Non-severability may compromise our ability to do so, as well 
     as create an incentive for opponents of reform to offer 
     patently unconstitutional amendments in the hope of poisoning 
     the prospects for reform's survival in the courts.
       Thank you for you consideration.
           Sincerely,
     Marty Meehan,
       Member of Congress.
     Barney Frank,
       Member of Congress.

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Frist 
amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The proponents have 53 
minutes and the opponents have 44 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have been listening carefully to the 
speeches on the other side of this issue. With all due respect, they 
are somewhat misleading.
  The last three campaign finance reform bills that passed out of the 
Senate included nonseverability clauses--in 1990, 1992, and 1993. 
Members of the Senate who voted for that include 23 current Members who 
supported the bill with a nonseverability clause in it in 1990; 24 of 
the current Members supported the bill in 1992 with a nonseverability 
clause in it; and 28 of the current Members supported the bill in 1993 
with a nonseverability clause in it.
  It is wholly irrelevant whether most bills do or don't have 
nonseverability clauses. What we are talking about is campaign finance 
reform bills which are fraught with first amendment constitutional 
principles, and it has been almost always the rule rather than the 
exception that they include nonseverability clauses in them.
  It is so common that the Harkin amendment we just voted on and was 
supported by 31 Members of the Senate on that side of the aisle had a 
nonseverability provision in it tied to Snowe-Jeffords; also, the 
amendment we had a couple of hours ago in which 31 Members of the 
Senate on the other side supported.
  So this notion that somehow it is inappropriate and unwise to have a 
nonseverability clause in a campaign finance bill is utterly and 
totally baseless and without merit. In fact, that is what is typically 
done.
  I say to my friends who support the underlying bill, what are you 
afraid of? There have been numerous discussions and hearings about how 
constitutional Snowe-Jeffords is. We have had lengthy discussion on the 
floor by various Members of the Senate.
  Senator Snowe, of Snowe-Jeffords fame, says it is constitutional. It 
is common sense. It is not speech rationing but informational, and so 
on. Senator Snowe referred to 70, as she put it, constitutional 
experts.
  Senator Jeffords says: My focus will be on reassuring you that Snowe-
Jeffords is constitutional. He says they took great care in drafting 
their language.
  Senator McCain is, likewise, totally confident that Snowe-Jeffords is 
constitutional. Senator Thompson, the same.
  Senator Edwards is on the floor now. He said he is totally confident 
that Snowe-Jeffords is carefully crafted to meet the constitutional 
test of Buckley v. Valeo.
  Senator DeWine offered an amendment to take Snowe-Jeffords out 
earlier today. That was defeated. It is a part of the bill.
  Those who want to keep that in the bill are totally confident that it 
is constitutional.
  What are they afraid of?
  As the author of the amendment, Senator Frist pointed out that there 
is a rationale for linking Snowe-Jeffords and the soft money ban. And 
it is this, I say to my friend from North Carolina: What if I am right 
and they are wrong, and Snowe-Jeffords is struck down, the Democratic 
Senatorial Committee loses 35 percent of its budget, and the Democratic 
National Committee loses 40 percent of its budget? If candidates are 
under attack by conservative groups from outside, who is going to rush 
to their defense?
  The party is the only entity in America that will certainly support 
the candidates that bear its label. There is nobody else you can 
totally depend on to be there to defend you when you are under assault.
  There is a rationale for linking Snowe-Jeffords and the party soft 
money ban; that is, if we eliminate it, and if all of the Senators who 
are confident, including the Senator from North Carolina, that it is 
constitutional are wrong, every group in America--conservative, 
liberal, vegetarian, and libertarian--will all have a right to come 
after our candidates and our parties will be largely defenseless.
  I asked consent later this afternoon to have some time at 4 o'clock 
to describe to the Members of the Senate the impact of McCain-Feingold 
on our political parties. I am going to take the opportunity to do that 
at 4 o'clock. It will be chilling to learn what will happen to our 
parties under this underlying bill.
  Let me sum up because I see the coauthor of the amendment is on the 
floor.
  I don't think this is in any way inappropriate. In fact, it is 
common. If the proponents of Snowe-Jeffords are confident it will be 
upheld, I don't know what they are afraid of. We will need the 
political parties to defend our candidates if Snowe-Jeffords is struck 
down.
  I yield the floor. I see the Senator from Louisiana is here.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana is recognized.
  Who yields time to the Senator?
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from 
Louisiana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I thank the author of the bill, the 
Senator from Tennessee, for yielding time to me.
  We have just heard a good explanation of the situation from the 
Senator from Kentucky about the concern of the so-called severability. 
Imagine most people in America scratching their heads and asking: What 
in the world is the Senate talking about--nonseverability, 
severability, and everything else? When we talk about severability, 
back in Louisiana they think someone lost an arm or a finger. They get 
very confused when we start talking about severability in legislation 
as an integral part of a bill.
  We have learned the mistake we make when we craft a carefully 
constructed compromise that people are allowed to vote for because it 
is carefully balanced with amendments through the legislative process 
and then have that legislation go to a court which says that one part 
of this bill we will take out and we are going to leave everything 
else, or the court will say they will take out half of it and leave 
everything else. We tried that in 1971 when we wrote the landmark 
Federal elections law. I was running for Congress then and was watching 
it very carefully, not knowing what in the world the results would be. 
But I looked at it at that time, as the people helped write it, as a 
carefully crafted

[[Page 5029]]

compromise. It did not have a nonseverability clause in that 
legislation. When it left this body and it left the House, a lot of 
people said: This is a good balance; I got this in it; I got that in 
it; I got limits on contributions but we got limits on how they can 
spend it; therefore, I think this is a good package; it makes sense; it 
is reform.
  Because it didn't have a nonseverability clause in it, which we are 
trying to add in this legislation, when it got to the Supreme Court, in 
its wisdom, said: Well, this can stand and this can't stand; we are 
going to eliminate this and we are going to keep that.
  In essence, what they did was replace the role of the Congress in 
writing the legislation as they thought in their final words what was 
legitimate and what was constitutional.
  Guess what. We ended up for all of these years with a bill that was 
totally different from what the Congress had carefully crafted. In 
essence, what we ended up with was a bill that limited contributions 
but had no limits on expenditures. What we thought we were doing was 
saying, all right, we are going to reduce the money in campaigns, we 
are going to eliminate expenditures, and limit contributions. What we 
ended up with was only one-half of the equation. This body, the other 
body, this Congress and past Congresses learned from that monumental 
mistake.
  As the Senator from Kentucky pointed out, when we considered campaign 
finance legislation in subsequent Congresses, we didn't make that 
mistake. We considered it in the 101st Congress, the 102d Congress, and 
the 103d Congress. And in every one of those Congresses we did not make 
the same mistake that we made in 1971.
  We took the position in those acts of the Congress that the carefully 
crafted compromise was going to have to be accepted or rejected; the 
Court could not piecemeal it. They could not rewrite it. They could not 
decide in their wisdom what they thought was legitimate and keep that 
and throw out what they thought was unconstitutional. We did not make 
the mistake in the previous Congresses that we did the first time.
  I hope what we do here is to also recognize that we should say that 
this carefully crafted compromise, the ban on soft money to parties 
plus the restrictions on outside groups running sham ads 60 days before 
an election, are intricately tied together. They are part of the 
compromise. If you knock out one, you break the deal. Without this 
amendment, we will have perhaps only half of the deal being enacted 
into law and the other half disappearing because of a Court decision.
  That is not what the role of legislators should be. We should be 
putting together comprehensive packages with intricate amendments and 
compromises woven together to create a package.
  There are people who would not be for this legislation, I dare say, 
if they thought the Snowe-Jeffords legislation on money being spent on 
sham ads right before the election were not restricted in this bill. 
What do we say to those people who voted for it because of Snowe-
Jeffords being part of it: That somehow it may not be there in the end? 
They would not have voted for the legislation.
  It is so significant that we have this nonseverability clause. It is 
very restrictive, and I want to expand it. I will ask unanimous consent 
to offer an amendment to the Frist-Breaux amendment which will include 
the soft money ban plus the Snowe-Jeffords amendment plus the Thompson 
amendment which increased the hard dollar contributions, that if any 
one of those three would be found to be unconstitutional, all three 
would fall.
  It makes no sense, I agree, to have the ban, for instance, on soft 
dollars to be declared unconstitutional, which it probably is not, but 
if it should be, then you would be left with a hard dollar increase. It 
makes no sense to say that, well, we could ban or declare 
unconstitutional the Snowe-Jeffords prohibition but yet still have the 
hard dollar increase. All three are integral parts of this compromise. 
I think the Frist-Breaux amendment should be amended to say that if 
either of those three essential ingredients is knocked down as 
unconstitutional, therefore, all three of them would fall. That would 
be the right thing to do.
  That doesn't mean the whole bill falls. Everything else is still 
there: The millionaire's amendment, the lowest unit rate for television 
would still be there, the ban on foreign contributions, the ban on 
solicitations. Those are all still improvements in the current system.
  When I try to explain nonseverability to people, it gets very 
confusing. I am probably as confused as anyone trying to explain it to 
our colleagues and to the press, and to the general public, who have to 
cover all of this. I try to use the analogy of ANWR which I think makes 
sense. The question of whether we drill for oil in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge is a very controversial and contentious issue. Suppose 
we came to the floor of the Senate and someone said: All right, I am 
willing to allow for drilling in ANWR if you double the environmental 
requirements that would apply to that part of the United States. That 
amendment is adopted. People say: Well, with that amendment, I can 
support drilling for oil in ANWR because we have an amendment that 
doubles the environmental protections in that part of the world only.
  But then that bill goes to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court 
says: Oops, sorry, you are all wrong, you can't do doubling of the 
environmental protections in only one part of the country. That part of 
the bill is unconstitutional. But the drilling for oil is OK.
  How would that treat all the Members of Congress who said: Well, I 
can vote for the carefully crafted compromise because at the same time 
we have doubled the environmental protections and therefore it is a 
comprehensive package and therefore it makes sense? To have the Court 
strike down the environmental protections while leaving the right to 
drill would be a sham on the Members of Congress who voted for the 
carefully crafted compromise.
  The same is true with regard to this controversial, complicated, 
emotional issue of how we handle campaigns in this country. All of the 
ingredients are essential to the compromise. To allow the Court to 
knock out one or two and leave the rest is to put into effect through 
law something that was never intended by the people who voted on it to 
ever occur. When you vote for all of the parts of the bill, you have 
the right to expect that all of the parts will survive.
  Someone said: Maybe we should do that for every piece of legislation. 
I say: Well, it may not be a bad idea, but certainly not a bad idea for 
things that are complicated and carefully crafted and subjected to 
numerous compromises that are part of the package.
  I am extremely concerned that we have a situation where we are going 
to ban soft money to the two political parties and somehow leave all of 
these groups and organizations that are running ads, special interest 
groups, basically single-interest groups, who will be able to continue 
to use all of the soft money they want to attack candidates for 2 years 
prior to our elections. None of these groups represents, I argue, the 
more moderate parts of both parties; they tend to be more extreme. Not 
all of them, some of them are moderate, but most are single-issue, one-
issue groups that generally run only negative advertising against 
candidates.
  Addressing this with the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, saying that 
corporate and union contributions cannot fund any of these groups 
within 60 days of an election, is an important step. If we don't have 
the nonseverability and Snowe-Jeffords is knocked out, all of these 
groups could use corporate money to continue to blast candidates 
without us having the same ability to help our parties respond to those 
accusations.
  I am talking about groups such as those that ran the Flo ads on 
Medicare. None of the people on my side liked those at all. I am 
talking about groups that ran the Harry and Louise ads which used 
corporate contributions to run negative ads all the way up to 60 days 
before the election, if this amendment goes down. I am talking about

[[Page 5030]]

the National Rifle Association. To people principally on my side of the 
aisle, how many times do we have to see Charlton Heston talking about 
why Democrats should not be elected and having corporate contributions 
pay for those ads?
  Those principally on my side who are saying we want to vote for this 
because it is a carefully crafted compromise ought to recognize that 
without the Frist-Breaux amendment, that carefully crafted compromise 
could cease to exist. What we have done is to abdicate our 
responsibility to legislate in a package, not with blinders on, and not 
looking at reality.
  I strongly support the nonseverability amendment. I plan at the 
appropriate time to ask that the amendment be modified in order to add 
a third category in addition to the soft money prohibition to parties 
and the Snowe-Jeffords amendment. I would add the Thompson amendment 
reflecting the increase in hard dollars, that any one of those three 
being declared unconstitutional would bring down all three of those.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Reserving the right to object, I would like to get a copy 
of the modification.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, if it is all right, I will hand a copy to 
my colleague, since he is managing the bill, and allow him the chance 
to review it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may, Senators have the right to modify 
their amendments. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. President, I am prepared to yield 5 minutes to my colleague from 
North Carolina, Senator Edwards.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, let me speak in opposition to this 
amendment. I'll talk briefly about why I oppose the amendment, and 
respond to the comment by the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator 
from Louisiana, who has just modified his amendment.
  First, it is very important for my colleagues who aren't on the 
floor, in looking at the precise language of these amendments, to 
recognize there are really only three provisions, with the 
modification, that are covered by this amendment. The soft money ban is 
number one; the Snowe-Jeffords ban on broadcast ads paid out of union 
and corporation treasury funds 60 days before the election is number 
two; number three is the raising of the hard money limit.
  No one who has looked closely at this question would argue that 
either the soft money ban or the hard money limit increase is subject 
to serious constitutional challenge. The only thing the soft money ban 
has to do under the Buckley case is for the Court to find that there 
was a compelling State interest to support that ban. The Court, in 
fact, has already found in Buckley there is such an interest. So as 
these other Senators have recognized during the course of this debate, 
there is no serious question about the soft money ban. The soft money 
ban--if it passes from this Chamber, and is signed by the President and 
passed by the House--is going to become law.
  The raising of the hard dollar limit also is not subject to any 
serious constitutional challenge. So what we are talking about is 
Snowe-Jeffords.
  Now my friend from Kentucky points out that during the course of this 
debate I have argued that Snowe-Jeffords is constitutional. I don't 
want to repeat that argument, but I, in fact, believe that Snowe-
Jeffords is constitutional. But I want my colleagues to understand, and 
not get caught up too much in the morass of this debate, that there is 
only one issue raised by this amendment as modified, and that is if 
Snowe-Jeffords were found to be unconstitutional by a Court at a later 
time, do we want the soft money ban and the raising of the hard money 
limits to stand? That is the simple question raised by this amendment.
  Now I don't believe a Court will find Snowe-Jeffords to be 
unconstitutional. But the U.S. Supreme Court has done many things in 
the past that I didn't expect, including some things in recent times. 
So I have no way of predicting with certainty what the Court will do 
when confronted with this question. I do believe Snowe-Jeffords meets 
the constitutional requirements. So the argument that is made is, if 
Snowe-Jeffords is found to be unconstitutional, we create a strategic 
imbalance in our electoral process.
  The difference I have with my friends from Kentucky and from 
Louisiana is why we are enacting campaign finance reform. I don't think 
that the focus of campaign finance reform, and the reason we are doing 
it, is to make sure the strategic balance that now exists is 
maintained. I think what we are trying to do is take these huge, 
unregulated soft money contributions out of the system. What we are 
trying to do is restore public faith in our campaign and election 
system in this country.
  It is difficult for me to understand how removing these huge soft 
money contributions doesn't contribute to the restoring of that 
integrity. It obviously does. It may be that if one of these 
provisions--I think the only one in play is Snowe-Jeffords--is found to 
be unconstitutional, somewhere down the road there is a strategic 
imbalance. That may be true. But this debate and this law is not about 
us. It is not about what is good for Democrats, it is not about what is 
good for Republicans, and it is not about what is good for incumbent 
Senators; it is about the American people. It is about whether their 
voice is going to be heard and whether they believe they have some 
ownership in their Government; or, instead, whether we continue to 
perpetuate a system where huge amounts of money flow, unregulated, into 
the campaign process and ordinary people feel as if their vote makes no 
difference anymore. Senator Dodd made an eloquent and passionate 
presentation yesterday, or the day before, on this very subject.
  My point is this: The disagreement I have with my colleague from 
Kentucky--and it is a fundamental disagreement--is why we are trying to 
enact campaign finance reform. I don't think we ought to be focused on 
ourselves, or focused on how we are going to combat a particular ad 
that may or may not be run against us. I am as practical as anybody 
else. I understand the way the system works. All of us have lived with 
it. But the baseline for this debate, and what I hope all of my 
colleagues will use as their touchstone, is not what is good for us, 
not what is good for Republicans, not what is good for Democrats, but 
what is good for the American people.
  I have great respect for all of my Senate colleagues, including the 
Senators who have authored this amendment, who I know are well 
intentioned, and I don't doubt that. I just think we have a fundamental 
difference.
  Mr. BREAUX. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  Mr. EDWARDS. I will yield for a question now.
  Mr. BREAUX. I take it the Senator from North Carolina, who supports 
Snowe-Jeffords, which would prohibit all these groups on this chart 
from using corporate dollars to attack candidates--these single-issue 
special interest groups--is that not an important amendment, that if it 
were to be declared unconstitutional, the rest of the bill would go 
into effect? Does this not bother the Senator that without the Snowe-
Jeffords amendment all of these groups would be able to continue to use 
corporate dollars to attack candidates with no ability for the parties 
to defend them?
  Mr. EDWARDS. My answer to that question is, first, what we do, even 
without Snowe-Jeffords, is we prohibit candidates for political office 
from raising large soft dollar contributions for these very groups to 
which the Senator from Louisiana is referring.
  If our focus is on restoring integrity to the process and the 
public's perception of ourselves, then getting us out of the process of 
raising soft money dollars, getting soft money, period, out of the 
system is a positive thing. And my view is that it helps restore 
integrity.
  Mr. BREAUX. Does the Senator think that the Health Insurance 
Association of America, or the National Rifle Association really needs 
any help

[[Page 5031]]

from Members of Congress in raising corporate money to run those types 
of ads? My point is that those groups don't need Members of Congress to 
help them raise money to do the Flo ads, and the Harry and Louise ads. 
Those are corporate dollars. The pharmacy industry doesn't need Members 
of Congress to raise money to pay for ads attacking everybody in 
Congress.
  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, reclaiming my time, my answer is the very 
answer I just gave the Senator from Louisiana. We can't stop these 
entities from running ads. What we can do, is stop Members of Congress 
from raising huge amounts of money and creating a public perception 
that we are involved in what is wrong with the system. You are 
absolutely right. As a matter of pure strategic balance, that there is 
the possibility there will be a strategic imbalance, I would not argue 
for a minute about that. But that is not what campaign finance reform 
is about.
  What campaign finance reform is about is restoring integrity to the 
system and causing the American people to believe, once again, that the 
system has integrity, that it works, and this democracy belongs to 
them, and that it is their Government. That is the fundamental 
difference. Anything we do, I strongly suspect, with or without Snowe-
Jeffords, or any of these other provisions, as we have learned from 
experience, may turn out a year, 5 years, 10 years from now to create 
some result that we don't expect. I think that is just realistic.
  But the one thing we know for certain is that the public believes 
this system is awash in money. These huge, unregulated contributions 
that are being made to political campaigns are wrong, and we need to 
make a clear and unequivocal statement that we will not allow that to 
happen.
  This debate is not about us. It is about the American people. I yield 
the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will take a couple of minutes, if I may. I 
think the Senator from North Carolina has eloquently framed what the 
present amendment would do and what the consequences are, should the 
Frist-Breaux amendment be adopted--and I am not sure it has been 
offered yet--even if you accept the modification that is about to be 
offered by our friend and colleague from Louisiana. This gets a little 
confusing. It is hard for people to even hear--despite the fact we live 
in this world--and to even understand the issues of severability, 
nonseverability, hard money, and soft money.
  This can glaze over the eyes of even the most determined person to 
follow this debate. It is confusing, but it is very important.
  Let me try, if I can, to frame this so people may have a clear 
understanding, at least as I understand it.
  If Snowe-Jeffords--the union and corporate disclosure provisions; I 
will call that Snowe-Jeffords although they are often in different 
places--if that falls because it is ruled to be unconstitutional, then 
the ban on soft money also falls.
  If the Breaux amendment modifies the Frist amendment, then so would, 
as I understand it, the Thompson-Feinstein amendment, which allowed for 
the increases in hard money.
  With all due respect to my friend from Tennessee, who is also 
opposing this amendment--not the author of the amendment but the 
opponent of the amendment--and my friend from California, Senator 
Feinstein, Thompson-Feinstein is not a reform. Thompson-Feinstein was 
the price we paid to have the votes together on the banning of soft 
money.
  There is no illusion about this. That was not a reform. I know they 
want to call it that. I reluctantly voted for it, having spoken against 
the increases in hard money. My friend from Wisconsin and my friend 
from Arizona also took similar positions that they did not endorse or 
support those increases except that it was necessary to keep the votes 
together for the two reforms in this bill: Snowe-Jeffords, disclosure 
elements, and the ban on soft money. Those are the only two reforms in 
this bill.
  Thompson-Feinstein is the price we paid for those two reforms 
politically. I will stand corrected if someone wants to tell me I am 
wrong.
  Basically that is the deal. We have this increase in hard money, 
which I have a hard time accepting, but in exchange for that we get the 
two reforms of getting rid of unregulated money and the Snowe-Jeffords 
provisions. I believe, based on those who know far more about this than 
I do, Snowe-Jeffords should not fall for constitutional reasons, 
although my friend and colleague from North Carolina properly points 
out that we have been surprised lately by Supreme Court decisions where 
experts have told us they would rule one way and they ruled another.
  I urge my colleagues to keep this in mind, that if, in fact, they 
have been a supporter of McCain-Feingold, understanding that this is 
not every reform of the process, and understanding there may be some 
imbalances created here--we are all very much aware of this. My 
colleague from Utah spoke eloquently about the fact that none of us can 
say with any certainty exactly where all of this is going to end up. If 
you took McCain-Feingold as modified up to now and it became the law of 
the land tomorrow, there is some uncertainty, except this: The 
certainty that soft money, the unregulated millions of dollars--
billions of dollars now have been pouring into campaigns--is going to 
be stopped.
  No one is suggesting the ban on soft money is unconstitutional, and 
that would be a major achievement. We may end up coming back at some 
future date, less than 30 years down the road, because we discover 
there have been unintended consequences in this legislation. Let's not 
lose sight of the fact that the ban on soft money and the Snowe-
Jeffords provisions--assuming they survive--are worthy of this body's 
support. The issue of saying they both fall, the ban on soft money and 
the price we paid for it, as well, if Snowe-Jeffords falls is an 
unequal trade off. I urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Lastly, I say to my friend from Kentucky, there are differences of 
opinion on how we voted on two previous campaign finance reform bills. 
There was tied severability in those two other bills. It was not 
nonseverability. We linked two provisions. We said if one fell, then 
the other would fall as well.
  It was, if you will, a partial severability in those two bills for 
which 23 of us, who are still here, voted. We did not vote for 
nonseverability. That is a semantical game in a sense. We voted for 
tied severability, partial severability. That is a side question.
  The basic issue is my colleagues ought to, with all due respect, 
reject the Frist-Breaux amendment if they believe, as I think a 
majority of us do, that the ban on soft money and Snowe-Jeffords are 
truly reforms. We fought too long and too hard not to succeed with 
those and to link severability is a mistake.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, listening carefully to the Senator from 
Connecticut trying to explain the previous nonseverability clauses that 
passed in 1992 and 1993, those nonseverability clauses included the 
whole bill, so that if any little portion of the bill that cleared the 
Senate in 1990, cleared the Senate in 1992, cleared the Senate in 1993, 
if any little portion of that bill was unconstitutional, the whole bill 
fell.
  As I understand the amendment of the Senator from Tennessee and the 
Senator from Louisiana, the whole bill does not fall. It carefully tied 
the two relevant parts of the amendment, the Snowe-Jeffords language 
and the party soft money ban. The Senator from Louisiana has pointed 
out why those two are relevant and important. He has his whole list of 
people who are going to be attacking our candidates, and our parties 
are going to have no funds--none, none--to protect them from attack 
from outside groups.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. BREAUX. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana.

[[Page 5032]]


  Mr. BREAUX. I ask the Presiding Officer whether it would be 
appropriate for me now--I have two requests. First, would it be 
appropriate for me to now ask unanimous consent for a modification to 
the Frist-Breaux amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be appropriate.
  Mr. BREAUX. Further parliamentary inquiry: If there is an objection 
to the unanimous consent request to modify the Frist-Breaux amendment, 
would it not be in order at a later date to reoffer a Frist-Breaux 
amendment with that modification?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be in order under this agreement.
  Mr. BREAUX. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
modification to the Frist-Breaux amendment that is pending at the desk 
be offered.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Reserving the right to object, and I do intend to 
object, I know my friend can bring this after--if this amendment 
survives a motion to table, of course, he can bring it back, or I 
suppose he can bring it back separately. My understanding is this 
amendment would cause the following result; that is, if either Snowe-
Jeffords or the soft money portion of the bill were struck down, then 
the Thompson-Feinstein amendment language would fall also at that time. 
For that reason, I object.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator withhold his objection?
  Mr. THOMPSON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Louisiana still has the 
floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BREAUX. I yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, was the objection finalized or did the 
Senator withhold?
  Mr. THOMPSON. I will withhold momentarily.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time be 
charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. DODD. I yield to my colleague from Tennessee 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I withdraw my objection.


                     Amendment No. 156, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. I renew the consent request of the Senator from 
Louisiana that his amendment and the amendment of Senator Frist be 
modified.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 37, strike lines 18 through 24 and insert the 
     following:
       (a) In General.--Except as provided in subsection (b), if 
     any provision of this Act or amendment made by this Act, or 
     the application of a provision or amendment to any person or 
     circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder 
     of this Act and amendments made by this Act, and the 
     application of the provisions and amendment to any person or 
     circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.
       (b) Nonseverability of Certain Provisions.--
       (1) In general.--If one of the provisions of, or amendments 
     made by, this Act that is described in paragraph (2), or if 
     the application of any such provision or amendment to any 
     person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, then 
     all the provisions and amendments described in paragraph (2) 
     shall be invalid.
       (2) Nonseverable provisions.--A provision or amendment 
     described in this paragraph is a provision or amendment 
     contained in any of the following sections:
       (A) Section 101, except for section 323(d) of the Federal 
     Election Campaign Act of 1971, as added by such section.
       (B) Section 103(b).
       (C) Section 201.
       (D) Section 203.
       (E) Section 308.
       (c) Judicial Review.--
       (1) Expedited review.--Any Member of Congress, candidate, 
     national committee of a political party, or any person 
     adversely affected by any provision of, or amendment made by, 
     this Act, or the application of such a provision or amendment 
     to any person or circumstance, may bring an action, in the 
     United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 
     for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief on the ground 
     that such provision or amendment violates the Constitution.
       (2) Appeal to supreme court.--Notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, any order of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia granting or denying an 
     injunction regarding, or finally disposing of, an action 
     brought under paragraph (1) shall be reviewable by appeal 
     directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Any such 
     appeal shall be taken by a notice of appeal filed within 10 
     calendar days after such order is entered; and the 
     jurisdictional statement shall be filed within 30 calendar 
     days after such order is entered.
       (3) Expedited consideration.--It shall be the duty of the 
     District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme 
     Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to 
     expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of 
     any matter brought under paragraph (1).
       (4) Applicability.--This subsection shall apply only with 
     respect to any action filed under paragraph (1) not later 
     than 30 days after the effective date of this Act.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask 
that the time be divided equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FRIST. 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. FRIST. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from New 
Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee for 
yielding.
  For nearly 2 weeks, the Senate has been engaged in an exhaustive but 
illuminating debate on reforming the campaign finance system of the 
Nation, the foundation of the rules by which a free people choose their 
government. The consequences could not be more enormous.
  I believe the Senate has met the best expectations of the American 
people in this debate. It has been thoughtful, civil, and far reaching. 
Indeed, rather than simply engaging in a narrow changing of the rules, 
what has emerged from the Senate is genuinely comprehensive campaign 
finance reform. It may not have been our intention, I don't believe it 
was planned, but in the best traditions of the Senate, Members from 
both political parties, with good ideas, took some basic reform 
legislation and made it into a workable, comprehensive system.
  That is what brings this question before the Senate. If these were 
simply individual changes in the campaign finance system, where some 
were enacted and some failed, it would be interesting but not of 
overriding consequence. That is not what the Senate has done. This is a 
series of reforms inextricably dependent on each other. If one or more 
is removed, the Nation will have a radically different campaign finance 
system and our system of choosing candidates, and even the people whom 
we elect, will be altered.
  I understand in the rush to judgment there are some who are prone to 
reform for reform's sake. It is a question of pass anything, get 
something done, and we will live with the consequences. But the truth 
is, the campaign finance system of this country is changed only once in 
a generation. These rules will last, not simply for us but for those 
who follow us, not just in this decade but in decades to come.
  The fact that we have seized this opportunity in these 2 weeks to 
write

[[Page 5033]]

comprehensive changes, far-reaching in nature, is not only to the 
credit of the Senate but it is a genuine contribution to the country.
  This is the last great debate of the campaign finance consideration. 
But in some ways it is the most profound question because ultimately 
the question is whether we have simply decided on a series of ideas 
that will be thrown out to the American people to challenge in the 
courts where others will make the decision or whether we have really 
designed a new campaign finance system in the Senate, where it is our 
responsibility.
  It is important to look at how each of these provisions is linked 
because, as one Member of the Senate, I am only voting for McCain-
Feingold because of the different provisions and how they are all 
related. We eliminate soft money for the political parties. We also 
eliminate it from outside interest groups. But we do not want to deny 
the American people political debate, so we raise the hard money 
limits. We want to end the monopoly on candidates' time and the growing 
expense of campaigns, so we lower the cost of television advertising. 
Those are all related and they are all important.
  My colleagues, what is to happen if the Supreme Court of the United 
States decides the Senate has decided upon six interrelated provisions 
but we do not like one--or two? Then the Senate is no longer writing 
campaign finance reform; we simply made a few suggestions, enacted them 
into law, and we will let someone else write them.
  This would not be so perplexing to this Member of the Senate, that we 
might be yielding in our responsibilities on the question of 
severability, if not for the fact that the Senate has been at this 
moment before. This is exactly what happened in 1974. If you do not 
like the campaign system now in the United States of America, if you 
object to what has happened in public confidence, the rising expense, 
the dominance of powerful interests, the rise of soft money 
expenditures, then you have a responsibility to ensure these provisions 
are inseparable, or the Supreme Court will write this law just as they 
did in 1974.
  Here is the most remarkable thing about the campaign finance system 
in the United States: No one ever proposed it, no one ever wrote it, 
and no one ever voted for it. Because the Supreme Court of the United 
States created it, and that is exactly where we are going again.
  In 1974--a year in which I did not serve in government, but I 
remember the debate, and some of my colleagues were here--had the 
Senate been presented with the following proposition: We will limit 
contributions to $1,000 but we will allow unlimited soft money to 
political parties and we will allow outside groups to spend their money 
and we will allow wealthy candidates to spend unlimited amounts of 
money--if anyone had come to the floor of the Senate with that bill, it 
would have received no votes. There is not a member of the Democratic 
or Republican Party who would have voted to limit themselves to $1,000 
contributions while wealthy individuals could spend unlimited money and 
outside groups had no restrictions at all, with no control on 
expenditures. No one would vote for such a system. But that is the law 
of the United States of America. It has governed our country for 25 
years. If we fail today, it will continue to govern our country.
  That has created all this outrage, and that is the product of not 
having a nonseverability clause. That was an attempt to have 
comprehensive reform. But when the Court ruled provisions 
unconstitutional, rather than meeting our responsibilities, returning 
to the floor of the Senate to rewrite the legislation consistent with 
constitutional guidelines, ensuring it was comprehensive and met our 
national objectives, the Senate failed to meet its responsibilities and 
this problem was created.
  By what logic do we solve this problem now by returning to the same 
rules, the same yielding of responsibility, to ask the same Court to 
write campaign reform legislation once again? I ask my colleagues to 
think of the system that may not evolve from McCain-Feingold as we have 
voted upon it but which might evolve from a reasonable action by the 
U.S. Supreme Court.
  I believe every provision we have agreed to in this Senate, absent 
possibly the Wellstone amendment, is constitutional. It is noteworthy 
the Senator from Tennessee does not put the Wellstone amendment in his 
nonseverability amendment that he offers the Senate at this moment. I 
believe the remainder is constitutional.
  But if I am wrong and the U.S. Supreme Court decides that Snowe-
Jeffords amendment controlling expenditures by independent groups by 
the use of unlimited soft money is unconstitutional, mark my words, the 
system we are creating in the United States of America is a radical 
change in how we govern this country and, for all practical purposes, 
it is the end of the two-party system financing national elections as 
we have known them in our lifetime. That is because under a McCain-
Feingold bill that no one in this Senate voted for--and I suspect no 
one really supports--the system enacted in the United States will be 
the Democratic and Republican Parties will be limited to hard money 
expenditures only and independent groups will spend unlimited money 
with no restrictions or controls. Of all the thousands of organizations 
in America, civic and corporate and labor, of all the thousands of 
organizations, we will have chosen two for these restrictions: The 
Democratic Party and the Republican Party.
  In the practical world in which we live, let's consider what this 
will look like. I, as a candidate, may choose to run for office on a 
progressive platform, wanting to describe my own views. And good allies 
that I believe in, such as organized labor or environmental groups or 
women's rights groups or civil rights groups, may decide to support me. 
But they will run my ads. They will decide what I am for, describe my 
positions, and run my advertising.
  My Republican opponent will be in a similar position. The Chamber of 
Commerce or a business group, a gun advocacy group, will run 
advertising with soft money, saying what I am against.
  American politics will be fought over the heads of the candidates--
aerial warfare with the Democratic and Republican Parties in the 
trenches simply firing at each other. The real battle will be fought by 
surrogates, and political candidates in the Democratic and Republican 
Parties will be nothing but spectators in American politics.
  This is not the system anyone here wants. Were I to offer it now, no 
one would vote for it. It sounds like 1974, doesn't it? It is. And we 
can have exactly the same result.
  My colleagues, the Senator from Tennessee has offered an important, 
in some respects the most important, amendment in campaign finance 
reform.
  It is the difference between a few ad hoc ideas to reform the 
campaign finance system and ensuring that this is comprehensive and 
fundamentally changes the entire system. Each becomes dependent on the 
other.
  I asked the Senator from Tennessee to change his amendment in one 
more respect. I do not want my intentions questioned on the Senate 
floor. I have voted for campaign finance reform as often as any Member 
of this Congress in the last 20 years--as many times as Senator McCain, 
as many times as Senator Feingold. I will keep voting for reform.
  My intention to ensure that this is constitutional and comprehensive 
is not because I oppose reform but because I want it to be genuine and 
complete. It is because of that that I asked the Senator from Tennessee 
to adjust his amendment. He complied. Under his amendment, not only are 
these provisions nonseverable, but there would be immediate Federal 
court review.
  Upon action of the district court finding any provision of this 
legislation unconstitutional, there would be immediate appeal to the 
U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that this Senate had guidance immediately 
so we could return to session and correct any constitutional defects.

[[Page 5034]]

  This, my colleagues, is exactly what this Senate has done in dealing 
with other legislation that was of questionable constitutional 
compliance. It is what the Senate and House of Representatives did in 
dealing only a few years ago with the Religious Land Use 
Institutionalized Persons Act. We ensured that the provisions would 
have to stand together, and that there would be immediate court review 
if they did not return to the Senate.
  So I ask the Senate to do what it did to correct what it did wrong in 
1974 and did correctly on three previous occasions to ensure 
constitutionality and that the responsibility for writing this 
legislation remains here.
  I do not understand, my colleagues, in fact, if we vote differently. 
The lessons of 1974 were learned in a very hard way. The American 
people lost confidence in this Government, and the campaign finance 
system evolved which took Members of the Congress away from their 
responsibilities and dispirited us and our constituents. It is not a 
system worthy of a good and great country--but it is the law--because 
we did not write it. We allowed others to write it. It evolved. It was 
not thought through or properly conceived.
  I thought we learned that lesson in 1974 because on the last three 
occasions that we reviewed campaign finance legislation in this 
Congress, we ensured that there was a nonseverability clause.
  What Senator Frist does today, on three previous occasions this 
Congress assured was in campaign finance legislation. What he does is 
not the exception. It has been the rule, specifically because of what 
we learned in 1974. Now Senator Frist brings it to the Senate again.
  I urge my colleagues to act with caution. This vote has meaning, and 
it will last. It will change the complexity of this entire Congress as 
the years pass because the access to financing and how we govern this 
campaign finance system governs who rules, who wins, and who loses, and 
what issues come before their institution. It could not be more 
profound.
  I urge my colleagues, no matter how they have viewed this question of 
severability in the past, to think carefully--not reform for reform 
sake, not a slogan, not a campaign statement, but a careful review of 
how this law will evolve and what it means to this Senate and to this 
country.
  I compliment the Senator from Tennessee for offering it. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it. I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before the Senator from New Jersey 
leaves, I listened carefully to his remarks, and I also say to the 
Senator from New Jersey that not only were nonseverability clauses a 
part of the three campaign finance reform bills that left the Senate in 
1990, 1992, and 1993, it is a part of the Harkin amendment that we just 
voted on a couple of hours ago which had the support of 32 Members of 
the Senate on his side of the aisle.
  So the notion that somehow nonseverability is unusual or 
inappropriate is absurd. It is more often the case that these are part 
of campaign finance reform bills that we deal with in the Senate.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. I am glad the Senator noted that.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, how much time remains for the opponents?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The opponents have 21 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, it continues to be such an excellent 
debate. I am proud to be a part of it. I commend my colleagues on both 
sides of the issue.
  I believe it is fair to say that putting nonseverability clauses into 
bills is not at all unusual. Congress passing a bill with a 
nonseverability clause in it is very usual.
  Let's make sure we are not comparing apples with oranges.
  Are campaign finance laws so different from anything else that it 
should be looked upon differently? Because in everything else, 
severability is the norm. Nonseverability is very unusual. So we say we 
continually do it in these bills that we don't ever make into law. But 
we continue to put them into bills because they are campaign finance 
bills, and they are intricately woven.
  I suggest if anybody who ever sponsored a bill--especially a large 
bill on the floor of this Senate--thinks this bill is pretty intricate, 
they think their bill was pretty intricately woven, also.
  I don't think there is anything that unusual about campaign finance 
regulations except it pertains to how we raise money. That makes it 
unusual.
  With regard to Buckley, my colleagues, of course, are correct to say 
the law that was passed in 1974 changed our campaign system in this 
country in the aftermath of Watergate. Buckley took a look at it and 
basically said: Congress, you can limit contributions but you can't 
limit expenditures.
  I have often wondered what the Congress would have done had they 
known that.
  My friend from New Jersey talks about soft money and all of that that 
was not relevant back then. That was in play. Certainly the so-called 
billionaire exception turned out to be in play with regard to Buckley, 
and limiting the expenditures was certainly in play. That was stricken.
  But what would they have done? Would Congress, knowing they were 
going to have their expenditures limited, have raised the ceiling on 
the contributions? I don't think so. What they were doing was in 
response to Watergate. Would they have lowered the contributions? 
Basically, that is what you are talking about--contributions and 
expenditures. I do not know that Congress would have done anything any 
differently had they known what Buckley was going to do. And, if so, 
why didn't they?
  We have been meeting regularly now for 27 years since they did that 
dastardly deed to us, as it has been described to us on the floor. I 
don't know of any serious attempt to go back and readdress the entire 
issue since that time.
  I think the longstanding practice we have had in this country both 
legislatively and in our court systems to be restrained to have 
severability clauses in most cases is a wise one.
  I say to my friends who talk about these outside groups that both 
sides have groups that support them and campaign against them. As far 
as I am concerned, let them come on as long as I have the right to go 
out and be happy when groups support me or oppose my opponent, and 
whatnot. And there will be plenty of each. There is plenty of robust 
debate out there. It makes us mad sometimes. These people have a first 
amendment right to do that.
  According to an independent study, the House of Representatives the 
last time had more independent money spent on them than the Democrats 
did with independent ads.
  They also said that Senate Democrats had more independent ad money 
spent on them than the Republicans did. Of course, in that battle, and 
the Presidential race, the Republicans won. And that is one race. If 
you look at these soft money donors--I say to my friend from Louisiana 
who is concerned about this aspect, if you look at the large soft money 
donors, of the top 10 of them, 6 or 7 are Democrats. They will find a 
way to support some of these organizations otherwise. In fact, that is 
a concern on our side of the aisle, that they will do that. The 
Democrats will have more support that way than the Republicans will 
have.
  Democrats say: Well, the hard money limits will hurt us more than it 
will the Republicans.
  We will never be able to figure out exactly who is marginally helped 
or hurt with all of these. We have never been able to do that before.
  Mr. President, I ask for 1 more minute from my friend.
  Mr. DODD. I yield an additional minute.
  Mr. THOMPSON. We are in as much equilibrium now probably as we will 
ever be. Behavior changes. The reason we are so soft money oriented now 
is

[[Page 5035]]

because we have neglected the hard money, the small dollars, for some 
time. I think both parties have. If we raise the hard money limits, as 
we have, and do away with soft money, you will see the concentration 
back toward the old-time way of raising money--in smaller amounts, 
legitimate, limited amounts--that we had since 1974.
  Don't treat the legislation that was passed that year as a total 
abomination. The fact is, until the mid-1990s, the 1974 law worked 
pretty well. We didn't have any Presidential scandals. The money spent 
on each side was about the same. Sometimes the challenger won. 
Sometimes an incumbent won. We don't like it now because some people in 
the 1990s showed us some ways to get some whole new money into the 
process.
  That is what we are reacting to now. It is not that law. It is what 
has been done, not just by the courts but the FEC and the Justice 
Department and a few others.
  It is a complicated issue, but it all boils down to this: Are we 
prepared to get rid of the multimillionaire soft dollars that are 
coming from corporations and unions and wealthy individuals in this 
country into our political process? That is what this vote is all 
about.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from Tennessee. He 
made a very good point at the outset on the severability issue and 
precedence. We went back the other day and looked at legislation over 
the last 10 or 15 years. We are told that of the hundreds, thousands of 
bills that passed the Congress, there are about 10 or 11 examples where 
limited severability was involved, the point the Senator was making.
  With that, let me turn to my colleagues who seek recognition. Senator 
Wellstone has been around all afternoon.
  I yield Senator Schumer 7 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that I follow Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I rise in adamant opposition to the 
nonseverability amendment. At the outset, let us be very clear about 
the unmistakable goal of this amendment. It has been signed, sealed, 
and delivered primarily by opponents of the bill for one and only one 
purpose: as a poison pill.
  Of all the prescriptions for all of the poison pills that our friends 
on the other side of this issue have diligently mixed over the last 2 
weeks, this one is the most lethal.
  Why do I say that? Because it is aimed straight at the soft money 
ban, which is the heart and soul of this bill and has been at the core 
of cleaning up our campaigns since at least 1988. Banning soft money 
finally ends the practice, unhealthy in any democracy, whereby the 
wealthiest few pour millions and millions into our campaigns with no 
restriction at all and sometimes no disclosure, as long as the money is 
given to a State party.
  The debate over how much advocacy groups can do is simply a sideshow. 
Only those who don't believe that banning soft money is key let it 
override the dominant purpose of this bill, to ban soft money once and 
for all. Banning soft money is the forest of this effort. It is far 
more important to the viability of our campaigns to ban soft money than 
regulate sham issue ads. There is no compelling reason to force the 
former to live or die based on the latter.
  In medicine, it would be like killing the patient when all he has is 
a headache. In warfare, we would destroy the village in order to save 
it. In legislation, it is just plain bad policy.
  The better policy, obviously, is to see what the Court does. And if 
we are left with an uneven system we don't like, fix it then. That is 
what we always do. That is why we never enact nonseverability clauses. 
Only once in the last 12 years has a nonseverability provision become 
law, though nearly 3,000 bills were passed during that time. Passing 
one now will just be a transparent way of saying we never wanted to ban 
soft money in the first place, and we found a clever way to pass the 
buck.
  It would be particularly ironic to do this in the name of preventing 
the Court from writing our campaign finance laws instead of Congress. 
It is precisely this amendment that gives the Supreme Court too much 
power, not ordinary severability of the kind we always have and that is 
in McCain-Feingold.
  If we approve this amendment, we will be asking the Court to dictate 
our campaign finance laws to a far greater extent than in McCain-
Feingold because the soft money ban, which is constitutional, which we 
and the House have debated for years and which we are poised to enact 
right now, will disappear even if it is not considered by the Court, 
much less struck down.
  Why would we concede that much power to the Court? Most of the time 
the Senators supporting this amendment talk about the danger of 
judicial activism, but we will be rubberstamping a peculiar and 
virtually unprecedented form of judicial activism with this amendment.
  As the great Justice Robert Jackson once wrote of the Supreme Court's 
role as the final arbiter of our law:

       We are not final because we are infallible--we are 
     infallible because we are final.

  In the area of campaign finance, the Supreme Court has not been 
infallible, although it certainly is final. We should not tie this 
entire bill to the Court's final decision on any one of dozens of minor 
provisions.
  I will close by reemphasizing what the Senators from Arizona and 
Wisconsin have so often and eloquently said in the course of this 
debate. I plead with my colleagues, we cannot let the perfect be the 
enemy of the good. On this side of the aisle, I say to my colleagues, 
even if you are unhappy with the delicate balance of 501(c)(4) 
organizations, even if you realize they may not be limited once the 
courts get hold of this, don't throw out the baby with the bath water. 
The good in this bill is more than just good, it is great. It is a 
landmark achievement, the first serious reform in a generation. And we 
should strive to preserve it, not kick the can across the street to the 
Supreme Court.
  Mr. President, I yield back to the Senator from Connecticut my 
remaining time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous agreement, the Senator from 
Minnesota is to be recognized.
  Mr. DODD. That is right. We are down to a very limited amount of 
time. I have two or three people who want to be heard. I am going to 
ask the indulgence of my colleagues, unless the other side would like 
to give us a little time for people who want to be heard. How much time 
do the proponents have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. DODD. May we have 5?
  Mr. FRIST. I will yield 4 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will do it in 3 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. The Senator yields 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Although I don't like doing it in 3 minutes.
  Mr. President, I think that some of what other Senators have said 
about the whole being greater than the sum of the parts is, in part, 
true. But I think the soft money ban, which is at the heart of the 
McCain-Feingold bill, is important enough that we want to protect it.
  Second of all, I frankly don't know what the supremely political 
Court will do. You can argue different ways, but I would hate to see 
the supremely political Court render a decision taking on one part of 
the legislation and having the whole bill fall.
  Third, I would like to point out to my colleagues that the amendment 
I introduced that was passed as a part of this legislation now was 
based upon the idea of severability. That was an amendment to improve 
this bill, not to jeopardize this legislation. And so, consistent with 
my commitment to severability, I will vote against nonseverability.
  And then, finally, may I say this? How ironic it is that the 
amendment I introduced the other night is not even covered by this 
amendment that my colleagues introduced on the other side; that the 
amendment I introduced the other night that deals with these sham issue 
ads and the potential of all

[[Page 5036]]

the soft money shifting here is still severable. It is so ironic. But I 
say, no self-righteousness intended, consistent with the principle of 
improving this bill, not in any way, shape, or form trying to 
jeopardize this bill, I don't even know how I am going to vote on final 
passage. But I certainly am opposed to this nonseverability.
  You see why I wanted to have more time than 3 minutes? I have a lot 
to say.
  Mr. DODD. The distinguished Senator is always eloquent.
  I yield to my colleague from Massachusetts 3 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it seems to me it is obvious to almost 
every Senator that we are sort of reaching a critical moment where we 
decide whether we are for campaign reform or we are not. At the bottom 
line, that is really what the severability issue is about, even though 
the severability has been limited now to a major component of the bill: 
Issue ads, i.e., Snowe-Jeffords, versus soft money. The soft money 
falls, the prohibition on it, only if the Court finds that Snowe-
Jeffords is inappropriate, unconstitutional.
  I say to my colleagues that the whole purpose of this reform is to 
get rid of the largest component of money that most taints the 
political process, which is soft money. One of the reasons people have 
doubts about their ability to be able to counter issue ads, if indeed 
that prohibition were to fall, is that they haven't been raising hard 
money, because when you can go to somebody and ask for $50,000, 
$100,000, $500,000, why bother going after the smaller sum of money?
  So it seems to me what is ignored in this argument is, if indeed you 
don't have soft money, and if indeed the prohibition on issue ads, if 
Snowe-Jeffords were to fall, you are not defenseless at all, you still 
have the capacity to spend unlimited amounts of hard money in defense.
  One of the reasons Senator Wellstone, Senator Biden, I, and others 
are so concerned about the McCain-Feingold bill in the end, though we 
support it, is that it ultimately only reduces a portion of the money 
that is in American politics. It still leaves us in a race, ever-
escalating, of raising extraordinary amounts of hard money, cavorting 
around the country, still indebted to interests, still asking for large 
sums of money. We are still going to do that. I know Senators McCain 
and Feingold would love to go further if they could.
  So, colleagues, this vote on severability is really a simple vote 
about whether or not we are prepared to take the risk of getting rid of 
the extraordinary amounts of soft money and taking on ourselves the 
burden, if indeed Snowe-Jeffords were to fall, of raising appropriate 
amounts of hard money with which to take our case to the American 
people.
  I happen to believe very deeply that the bright-line test we have set 
up will withstand scrutiny. All you have to do is read Buckley v. Valeo 
and read the Nixon and Missouri case. The Court makes clear that it is 
prepared to limit contributions where they are clearly contributing to 
the advocacy of the election of a candidate. Anybody can watch those 
ads and tell the difference as to whether they are purely about an 
issue or trying to seek defeat or election of a candidate. I am 
confident we have drawn a line that will pass constitutional muster.
  I ask my colleagues to take the risk in favor of reform and eliminate 
the soft money from American politics. That is what this vote is about.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, am I out of time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 4 minutes 43 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. I yield 2 minutes to my colleague from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now facing one of the major 
hurdles, and perhaps the last major hurdle, between us and successful 
resolution of this issue. We had to fight back a poison pill in the 
form of a so-called paycheck protection. We had to speak clearly that 
we will not accept soft money in American politics. Then we voted in 
favor of a very hard-fought and carefully crafted compromise in the 
form of the Thompson-Feingold amendment. Now we face this issue. Have 
no doubt about what this vote is really about. If you vote for this 
amendment, you are voting for soft money. That is really what this vote 
is all about.
  Since this may be the last major obstacle we face, I take the 
opportunity to thank all of my colleagues for the level of this debate, 
the tenor of this debate. I also thank the thousands and thousands of 
Americans who have been active in this debate and participated with us 
through e-mail, phone calls, and through all communications. Without 
their support, we would not be where we are today.
  I urge a vote in favor of the tabling motion that will be proposed by 
Senator Thompson of Tennessee.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me also commend our colleague. This has 
been a good debate, one we can be proud of in this body. I ask for 
recognition of the Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. I join with my colleague in 
thanking each and every Member of this body for the way this debate has 
been conducted. It has been a great example of the way this institution 
can work.
  The Senator from Arizona is also right about the ultimate point. This 
amendment is couched in rather technical terms--severability or 
nonseverability. But it truly is the whole issue. I said it time and 
again, but it is the most important thing to point out to people, and 
that is that we have never allowed unlimited campaign contributions 
from corporate treasuries to political parties since 1907. We have 
never allowed unions to do the same thing from their treasury since 
1947, the Taft-Hartley Act. But now, in the 1990s, the early part of 
this century, Members of Congress are engaged in asking for $100,000, 
$500,000, and $1 million contributions.
  I say to you, Mr. President, if you told me even 10 years ago that 
such a practice could ever occur in this democracy, I would have been 
stunned. But it is standard procedure today. This vote on this 
amendment will decide whether this terribly unfortunate and corrupting 
system continues or not. This is the soft money vote. This is where the 
Senate takes its stand. This is the test.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. DODD. I presume all time has expired.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 22 seconds.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, my colleague from Tennessee, the author, has 
been very gracious in giving us some time. I am going to return the 
favor and extend a minute and a half to him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee.
  Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, I, too, applaud my colleagues and everybody 
who has participated in the debate over the last 3 hours and really 
over the last 10 days. But over the last 3 hours, I have been quite 
pleased with the nature of the discussion, the debate, the issues.
  It is very clear to our colleagues what this vote is about. Although 
some will say it is about soft money, it is about voice and it is about 
the freedom in our process, freedom of political speech.
  Very briefly, I want to make three points in closing. No. 1, people 
are billing this as a poison pill. Very clearly, we are not adding 
anything. We are linking principally two underlying factors that are 
part of the underlying McCain-Feingold bill and added to the hard money 
the Thompson amendment. These are linked in a comprehensive, 
complementary, integral way. We are addressing just these three. If one 
falls, the other two come down; if one is unconstitutional, the others 
come down. Why? Because of balance.
  All other provisions in this bill, whether it is increased 
disclosure, the provision clarifying the ban on foreign contributions, 
including soft money, the ban on raising money on Federal property, the 
millionaire amendment--all of those stand, all of those continue 
regardless of what happens with the Frist-Breaux amendment and 
constitutionality.
  The second point is, the issue has been made that most bills coming 
out of this body do not have nonseverability clauses, but the point was 
made

[[Page 5037]]

that some do. It is in times exactly such as these where we bring 
people together and knit together in a comprehensive way this balance 
that is so critical to maintain what we all cherish, and that is 
freedom of speech.
  It is in unusual times such as these that a nonseverability clause is 
called for. It is this balance. If Snowe-Jeffords falls and the ban on 
soft money stays, then we increase, not decrease, the role of influence 
of the special interest groups we talked so much about over the last 3 
hours. That is not the type of reform that Americans want.
  Third, history. Clearly, there have been precedents, in fact, on 
campaign finance reform bills that have passed out of this body that 
have had nonseverability clauses.
  In closing, I urge support of the Frist-Breaux amendment, as 
modified, during the course of the debate. It deals directly with the 
most cherished freedoms that any of us have today, and that is the 
freedom of speech.
  If there is one thing that has been pointed out over the last several 
days, it is that we must be careful whenever we pass a bill that is 
going to ration free speech, and that is what we are doing. We must 
maintain that balance, and the only way to maintain that balance is to 
support the nonseverability clause amendment proposed by myself and 
Senator John Breaux.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to table the Frist-Breaux amendment 
No. 156, as modified, and ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the motion. The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Chafee). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 57, nays 43, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 59 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Byrd
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hutchinson
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Thompson
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--43

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lincoln
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The previous order was to recognize the 
Senator from Kentucky for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I assure my colleagues that I am not 
likely to take 30 minutes. But I thought it was an appropriate time to 
say that I think we have dealt with the last very significant amendment 
to this bill.
  I think it is time for Members of the Senate on both sides of the 
aisle to take a good hard look at what we have done to the political 
parties--both yours and ours. I asked the pages to hand out this little 
chart.
  My colleagues, we have reached a point in this debate where I think 
it might be a good idea to take a look at what life in a hard money 
world is going to look like for our two great political parties. We 
have taken pretty good care of ourselves in this debate.
  We have raised the hard money limit for us. I am for that. I think 
that is a very important step in the right direction.
  We lowered the broadcast discount so we can buy time cheaper. I voted 
for that.
  We tried to protect ourselves against being criticized by outside 
groups through the adoption of the Wellstone amendment and the Snowe-
Jeffords language.
  We even adopted the Schumer amendment which would make it difficult 
for parties to use coordinated expenditures over and above the current 
limit if the Supreme Court in fact strikes down the coordinated 
expenditure limit as unconstitutional, which is the case currently 
before the Supreme Court.
  We have also defeated the non-severability clause, so that now if the 
Court strikes down our efforts to limit the ability of outside groups 
to criticize us in proximity to an election, and we are unable through 
the charting of new turf, new ground, to convince a court that the 
federalization of our parties is unconstitutional--and no one really 
knows; there is no case law on that--the parties will not be able to 
support their candidates against attacks by outside groups. By the way, 
I want you to know that I will be the plaintiff in the case. We will be 
meeting with the other people who are likely to be the co-plaintiffs in 
this case in my office next week.
  But we are left now with the possibility of being saved by the House 
or being saved by the President, who says he is going to sign this 
bill.
  If none of those things happens, you are looking at the plaintiff. I 
have no idea what the chances are of getting a Federal district court, 
or the U.S. Supreme Court, for that matter, on appeal, to tell us 
whether parties have a right of free association and a right of speech 
somewhat similar to individuals. That is really uncharted turf. We do 
know this: What we can calculate is what happens to the parties in a 
100-percent hard money world.
  I hope by now some of you have gotten--I don't see that any of you 
have gotten--where are our pages with additional copies? I guess they 
thought you all wouldn't be interested in this. I don't know why. Could 
the pages please deliver those over to the Democratic side? This won't 
take long.
  I took a look at the 2000 cycle, the cycle just completed. You will 
see in the chart before you that the chart depicts the net Federal 
dollars available to the three national party committees.
  Under current law, on the left--if I could call your attention to the 
column on the left, and for those in the gallery, this column is called 
``Actuals.'' This was the last cycle, net hard dollars.
  The Republican National Committee had net hard dollars to spend on 
candidates of 75 million; the Democratic National Committee, 48 million 
net hard dollars to spend on candidates.
  The Republican Senatorial Committee, net hard dollars to spend on 
candidates, 14 million; the Democratic Senatorial Committee, net hard 
dollars to spend on candidates, 6 million.
  The Republican Congressional Committee, $22 million; the Democratic 
Congressional Committee, minus 7 million in the whole cycle, net party 
dollars.
  Now let's take a look at what the 2000 cycle would have looked like 
under McCain-Feingold in a 100-percent hard money world. That is the 
column over here on the right. You see the Republican National 
Committee would have gone from 75 million net hard dollars down to 37 
million net hard dollars; the Democratic National Committee, from 48 
million net hard dollars down to 20 million net hard dollars; the 
Republican Senatorial Committee, from 14 million net hard dollars down 
to 1 million. That wouldn't even cover the coordinated in New York. The 
Democratic Senatorial Committee, 6 million net hard dollars down to 
800,000.

[[Page 5038]]

  Welcome to the 100-percent hard money world. You are going to like 
it.
  There has been a lot of discussion about who wins and who loses. We 
both lose. This is mutually assured destruction of the political 
parties.
  I don't think any of you believes seriously that Jeffords, or 
Wellstone, or Snowe-Jeffords are going to be upheld in court. This is 
an area of the law I know a little bit about. So the chances are pretty 
good that all of those groups that Senator Breaux was describing are 
going to be out there on both the right and the left pounding away.
  Maybe your friends in organized labor will be able to help you, or 
the Sierra Club. Or maybe the NRA will come save some of our people. 
But under this bill, I promise you, if McCain-Feingold becomes law, 
there won't be one penny less spent on politics--not a penny less. In 
fact, a good deal more will be spent on politics. It just won't be 
spent by the parties. Even with the increase in hard money, which I 
think is a good idea and I voted for, there is no way that will ever 
make up for the soft dollars lost.
  So what have we done? We haven't taken a penny of money out of 
politics. We have only taken the parties out of politics--mutual 
assured destruction.
  What is this new world going to be like without parties? Here was a 
full-page ad in the paper 2 days ago by a billionaire named Jerome 
Kohlberg. He happens to mostly like you all, but we have some 
billionaires, too. They have a perfect right to spend their money any 
way they want to, and they will. These billionaires are the people who 
are underwriting the reform movement with lavish salaries for these 
people who are hanging around off the side of the Senate telling us 
that we ought to squeeze the money out of politics.
  Welcome to the new world, a battle of billionaires over the political 
discourse in this country while we have made the political parties 
impotent; impotent in order to satisfy who? The New York Times, the 
biggest corporate soft money operation in America? The Washington Post, 
the second biggest corporate soft money operation in America? I know 
you all like them because they are sympathetic to you, but there are 
people on our side, too.
  This is a massive transfer of speech away from the two great 
political parties to the press, to academia, to Hollywood, to 
billionaires in order to satisfy who? I have often said that this issue 
ranks right up there with static cling as a matter of concern to the 
American people.
  This is a stunningly stupid thing to do, my colleagues. Don't think 
there is anybody out there to save us from this. I am not going to 
embarrass anybody, but I had a lot of frantic discussions over the 
course of the last 2 weeks with my friends on the other side of the 
aisle, hoping somebody, somewhere, somehow was going to keep this from 
happening. There is nobody to come to the rescue. This train is moving 
down the track.
  This is my main point, in asking for your attention--and I thank you 
for being here--this is a candid appraisal. This is not a partisan 
observation. This is a candid and realistic appraisal of life after 
McCain-Feingold. I am sure there are very few of you who will believe 
this is going to improve the political system in America.
  This bill is going to pass later tonight. If I were a betting man, I 
would bet it is going to be signed into law. I just wanted to welcome 
you, my friends, to a 100-percent hard money world.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may I inquire, I believe there was a similar 
request made to respond to the unanimous consent request of the Senator 
from Kentucky.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. There are an 
additional 30 minutes under the control of the Senator from 
Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. The distinguished Senator from Wisconsin or the Senator 
from Arizona, Mr. McCain, I had thought, wanted to be heard on this 
issue.
  Mr. President, let me reserve the time for them. I will take 2 
minutes and say to my friend and colleague from Kentucky, this is a new 
world. I accept that description. I wouldn't call it necessarily a 
perfect world, but I think for those of us who support McCain-Feingold, 
we think this is a far better world than the one we have been engaged 
in over the past number of years, as we have watched the explosion of 
unregulated soft money flow into the political process in this country.
  Senator Bennett of Utah a little while ago said no one can say for 
certain where this is going to go. That is true. I think we do 
appreciate, those of us who have supported this legislation, that a 
system that is devoid of unregulated soft money, and those of us who 
believe that the Snowe-Jeffords provisions and the price we paid by 
increasing modestly the hard money contributions, make this a better 
system than the one we presently are operating under. So, yes, it is a 
new world.
  I happen to believe it is a vastly better world and that the American 
public, who have something to say about this and who have been 
declining, as my colleague and friend from Kentucky has pointed out, 
declining in their checking off on the 1040 forms of moneys to go into 
the public coffers to support Presidential elections is a good poll 
about how the public feels--he says about public financing, I think 
about politics--I am not certain this is going to change entirely the 
public mood. I think we are taking a giant step forward with the 
adoption of McCain-Feingold in improving the climate and improving the 
public's confidence and their respect for the political process in this 
country.
  Yes, it is a new world. I think it is a better world.
  I yield 5 minutes to my colleague from Massachusetts and then reserve 
the remainder for Senator Feingold or Senator McCain.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I listened carefully to the comments of the 
Senator from Kentucky. I respect the very direct, open way in which he 
has stated his opposition, and he has done so on the basis of a belief 
system. I respect that. I think we all do.
  Let me say to my colleagues, there is an analogy that is not 
completely inappropriate in the sense that when you have found a way to 
do things and it works pretty easily and you are sort of swimming in it 
because it is easy, it is hard to give it up. It is not unlike an 
addiction in a sense. There has been an easy addiction to this flow of 
money.
  When you look at the amounts of money, from $100 million up to $244 
billion in a span of 2 years, dozens of times in excess of the rate of 
inflation, you have to ask: What is going on here?
  I say to my colleagues, for those who fear this new world that has 
been defined, there are alternatives. There are other ways to do this. 
I am proud that I can stand as a Senator in the Senate today, having 
gotten elected a different way.
  In 1996, the Governor of our State and I mutually agreed to limit the 
amount of money we would spend--he, a fervent Republican; me, an ardent 
Democrat. We both agreed to spend the same amount of money. We both 
agreed that each of us would subtract from our total the amount of 
money that any independent expenditure ran in favor of the other person 
or that our parties spent on our behalf. We ran a race that was 
absolutely free from soft money, from party money. We had nine 1-hour 
televised debates, and the public knew us both, probably better than 
they wanted to, and made a decision.
  We can all run that way. There is adequate capacity in this new world 
to raise countless amounts of hard dollars.
  Under McCain-Feingold, we have raised the total amounts of money up 
to about $75,000 over 2 years to party and to individual.
  Nothing stops one Senator from going out and raising as much hard 
money as they can access in a 6-year term, in amounts that have now 
been raised to $2,000 a person, which means you can visit one couple, a 
husband and wife, and you can walk out with $8,000. All of us know that 
one-half of 1 percent of the people in America even contribute $1,000 
contributions.

[[Page 5039]]

  So this is not a dire new world, a brave new world. This is a world 
the American people are asking us to live by, and countless business 
people across this country are sick and tired of us coming to them and 
saying I need $150,000 or I need $500,000 for my party. They look at 
the committee you serve on and they feel pressured, whether they say it 
or not. Whether you say it or not, it is an appearance.
  So I say to colleagues, this is a world we can survive in just fine. 
With 6 years of incumbency, with all of the power of the incumbent, 
with all of the times you can return home as a Senator and meet with 
constituents, there isn't one of us who doesn't start with the natural 
advantage, even under McCain-Feingold.
  So I suggest respectfully that this is the right world, the world 
with which we ought to be living. We should not fear the outcome of 
this particular change. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky for 
ensuring that the Senate has a moment to reflect on the implications of 
this bill. I think it is very important that we pause to evaluate this 
legislation, and what it will mean for our parties, and for the voters.
  As my colleagues might imagine, I take a drastically different view 
on effects of this legislation than the Senator from Kentucky. I 
realize that change can be difficult, and even a little scary, but I 
think it is a mistake to try to scare Members out of voting for this 
bill. This reform is about increasing the public's faith in our work. 
This bill doesn't destroy the political parties; it strengthens them by 
ending their reliance on a handful of wealthy donors.
  Parties need money to operate, and under this reform, the national 
parties will be able to raise hard money, just as they have for many 
years. What they won't be able to do is raise the unlimited amounts of 
soft money. Just like the parties didn't have much, if any, soft money 
for much of the 1970s and 1980s.
  Soft money isn't some magic bullet that the parties need to increase 
voter turnout or voter participation in the democratic process. 
Throughout much of the 1970s and 1980s, soft money was mostly absent 
from party fundraising. The parties raised hard money, and ran their 
parties on hard money. It is easy to forget that when we look at 
fundraising today, I know, but it is important to remember as we 
consider this bill. We didn't need soft money then, and we don't need 
it now; that is a myth that has been perpetuated, frankly, on both 
sides of the aisle, and it is time to put that myth to rest once and 
for all.
  Neither party can thrive when they are beholden to the wealthy few. 
Soft money doesn't strengthen the parties, it undermines the spirit 
that keeps our parties strong. We all know that people, not soft money, 
are the heart and soul of our political parties.
  With the soft money system, the parties have been operating outside 
the spirit of the law, and outside the public trust, for too many 
years. With this bill, we can return the parties to the people who 
built them in the first place. Our democracy demands vibrant political 
parties. No one believes that more than I do. But soft money has, 
ironically, cheapened our parties. I feel that is true in my own party, 
and I am deeply saddened to have to say that. Last spring the 
Democratic Party held a fundraiser where soft money donors in the arena 
sat down to dinner at lavishly decorated tables, while those who could 
only afford a cheaper ticket actually sat in the bleachers and watched 
them enjoy their meal. Is that party-building? I think we all know that 
to say that kind of event strengthens the parties is just absurd.
  The parties aren't strengthened when people across the country, 
Republicans and Democrats, pick up the newspaper and read that their 
party is giving access and favors to the wealthy, while they struggle 
to pay for health care coverage, or they worry about how safe their 
drinking water is. They pick up the paper and see the parties take 
unlimited money from HMOs and big polluters, and they wonder how in the 
world could their party really stand up for them when they depend so 
completely on a wealthy few? The assumption that we can be bought, or 
that our parties can be bought, has completely permeated our culture. 
I'd guess that there are few if any Members of this body who haven't 
faced gone home to face the deep skepticism of their constituents on a 
given issue, when people felt like they or their party have been 
``bought off'' by a wealthy interest.
  Soft money, like perhaps no other abuse of our system in history, 
creates an appearance of corruption. To demonstrate that, I want to put 
in the record two items of interest. The first are the results of a 
poll conducted just last week by ABC News and the Washington Post. This 
poll found that 74 percent of the public now support stricter laws 
controlling the way political campaigns raise and spend money. That is 
an 8 percent increase from just a year ago. The poll had a margin of 
error of plus or minus 3 percent.
  More important, however, the same poll found that 80 percent of the 
public thinks that politicians do special favors for people and groups 
who give them campaign contributions. And 67 percent consider this a 
big problem. Seventy-four percent of those who believe that politicians 
do special favors for donors said they think these favors are 
unethical.
  This is the appearance of corruption. The assumption that politicians 
are on the take, and that money purchases favors. The ``Coin-Operated 
Congress,'' as Pat Schroeder used to say.
  I have felt so strongly over the past few years that money is setting 
the agenda that began to speak on the Senate floor during debates on 
substantive legislation about the money flowing from companies and 
groups interested in that legislation. I have called this the ``Calling 
of the Bankroll,'' and since I started this practice in June of 1999, I 
have called the bankroll 30 times. I think it is important for us to 
acknowledge that millions of dollars are given in an attempt to 
influence what we do. The appearance of corruption is rampant in our 
system.
  I have called the bankroll on mining on public lands, the gun show 
loophole, the defense industry's support of the Super Hornet and the F-
22, the Y2 K Liability Act, the Passengers' Bill of Rights, MFN for 
China, PNTR for China, and the tobacco industry. I have talked about 
agriculture interests lobbying on an agriculture appropriations bill, 
telecommunications interests lobbying on a tower-siting bill, and 
railroad interests lobbying on a transportation appropriations bill. 
I've talked about contributions surrounding the Financial Services 
Modernization Act, nuclear waste policy, the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, and the ergonomics issue. I have also called the bankroll on 
the Patients' Bill of Rights, twice, the Africa trade bill, twice, the 
oil royalties amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior Appropriations 
bill, twice, and I have Called the Bankroll on three tax bills, and 
four separate times on bankruptcy reform legislation.
  I think it is safe to say that the public doesn't think much of the 
current system, and that soft money plays a big part in the public's 
lack of faith in us and the work we do.
  One of the most important ways I think this bill can change the 
fundraising culture is not just by stopping soft money fundraising, but 
by stopping soft money fundraising by Members of Congress. Soft money 
fundraising is something that many Members of this body find deeply 
troubling. How many of Members of the Senate enjoy picking up the phone 
and asking a donor for $100,000? How many Senators feel uncomfortable 
exerting pressure on wealthy interests to come through with big 
contributions to fuel the fundraising contest between the parties?
  I have said before that I have had Members tell me they felt like 
taking a shower after asking for a huge contribution. And I recently 
quoted Senator Miller's Washington Post op-ed, where he said that after 
raising soft money, he felt like ``a cheap prostitute who'd had a busy 
day.'' Haven't we had enough? I think we have. When this body voted 60 
to 40 against the Hagel

[[Page 5040]]

amendment, which would have put the Senate's stamp of approval on the 
soft money system, I think we really turned a corner in this debate. We 
joined the rest of the country in recognizing that this system puts our 
integrity at risk, and that soft money simply isn't worth that risk 
anymore.
  This bill will reinvigorate the political process, and it will renew 
faith in the parties, and in each and every one of us. With the passage 
of this bill, we won't have to face the accusations that our parties 
have been bought off by soft money. We won't have to read about million 
dollar donations or getaways for hundred thousand dollar donors with 
party leaders, and neither will our constituents. And that will do 
something to improve the public's attitude toward us, and I think it 
will improve our own feeling about the work that we do. All of us take 
pride in our work, and in this institution. But we all face nagging 
accusations that unlimited money plays a role in the legislative 
process in which all of us play a part. Today we have a rare chance to 
change that, and I believe we will.
  I stand here today before my colleagues to say that soft money isn't 
good for politics. It is time to stop protecting soft money, or 
defending it as something that strengthens our parties, or the 
political life of the nation. Soft money removes people of average 
means from the political process, and replaces them with a handful of 
wealthy interests. So to say that soft money is good for parties is to 
say that people, the party faithful who should be the lifeblood of a 
political party, don't really count anymore. That in the quest for 
unlimited contributions, the parties are willing to forgo the trust of 
the people they purport to serve. I don't accept that point of view. 
And I don't think that most of my colleagues do either. Soft money does 
a disservice to the work of this Senate, it does a disservice to our 
parties, and most of all, it does a grave disservice to the American 
people. So let us come together to end the soft money system, and 
dispel the tired myth that soft money is good for democracy once and 
for all.
  I ask unanimous consent that a chart detailing the times I have 
called the bankroll be included in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                           THE CALLING OF THE BANKROLL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Bankroll of PAC and Soft
   Date              Legislation/Issue               Money Contributions                    Forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  5/20/99  Emergency Supplemental Appropriations  PACs associated with the  Senate floor statement given live,
            Conf. Rpt./Mining rider.               members of the National   CR S5652.
                                                   Mining Association and
                                                   other mining-related
                                                   PACs contributed more
                                                   than $29 million to
                                                   congressional campaigns
                                                   from January 1993 to
                                                   December 1998. Mining
                                                   soft money
                                                   contributions totaled
                                                   $10.6 million during
                                                   the same 6-year period.
  5/20/99  Juvenile Justice (S.254)/ Gun control  Gun rights groups,        Statement for the Record, printed in
            measures.                              including the NRA, gave   CR S5721.
                                                   nearly $9 million to
                                                   candidates, PACs, and
                                                   parties from 1991 to
                                                   1998. The NRA gave $1.6
                                                   million in PAC
                                                   contributions to
                                                   federal candidates last
                                                   cycle. Handgun Control,
                                                   Inc. gave a total of
                                                   $146,614. Those who
                                                   voted against the first
                                                   Lautenberg amendment to
                                                   close the gun show
                                                   loophole received an
                                                   average of over $10,478
                                                   from gun rights groups,
                                                   while those who voted
                                                   for it averaged only
                                                   $297.
  5/27/99  Defense Dept. Authorization/Super      The defense industry      Senate floor statement given live,
            Hornet amendment.                      gave more than $10        CR S6181.
                                                   million dollars in PAC
                                                   money and soft money to
                                                   parties and candidates
                                                   in the last election
                                                   cycle alone. In the
                                                   last ten years, the
                                                   defense industry gave
                                                   almost $40 million to
                                                   candidates and the two
                                                   national political
                                                   parties..
                                                  Boeing, the Super
                                                   Hornet's primary
                                                   contractor, gave more
                                                   than $3 million in PAC
                                                   money and more than
                                                   $1.5 million in soft
                                                   money during that same
                                                   10-year period.
  6/10/99  Y2K Liability Act....................  The computer and          Statement for the Record, printed in
                                                   electronics industry      CR S6853.
                                                   gave close to six
                                                   million dollars in PAC
                                                   and soft money during
                                                   the last election
                                                   cycle--$5,772,146
                                                   dollars to be exact.
                                                   And the Association of
                                                   Trial Lawyers of
                                                   America gave $2,836,350
                                                   in PAC and soft money
                                                   contributions to
                                                   parties and candidates
                                                   in 1997 and 1998.
  6/23/99  Patients' Bill of Rights.............  During the last election  Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   cycle, managed care       CR S7502.
                                                   companies and their
                                                   affiliated groups spent
                                                   more than $3.4 million
                                                   dollars in soft money,
                                                   PAC, and individual
                                                   contributions--roughly
                                                   double what they gave
                                                   during the last mid-
                                                   term election cycle.
                                                  The pharmaceutical and
                                                   medical supplies
                                                   industry gave more than
                                                   $4 million dollars in
                                                   PAC money contributions
                                                   and more than $6.5
                                                   million dollars in soft
                                                   money contributions in
                                                   1997 and 1998.
                                                  The AMA made more than
                                                   $2.4 million dollars in
                                                   contributions in the
                                                   last cycle ($2.3
                                                   million in PAC money,
                                                   approximately $77,000
                                                   in soft money.) The AFL-
                                                   CIO gave parties and
                                                   candidates close to $2
                                                   million dollars in 1997
                                                   and 1998. ($1.1 million
                                                   in PAC money, $777,059
                                                   in soft money.)
  7/14/99  Patients' Bill of Rights.............  During the last election  Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   cycle, managed care       CR S8428.
                                                   companies and their
                                                   affiliated groups spent
                                                   more than $3.4 million
                                                   dollars on soft money
                                                   contributions, PAC, and
                                                   individual
                                                   contributions--roughly
                                                   double what they spent
                                                   during the last mid-
                                                   term elections. Managed
                                                   care giant United
                                                   Health Care Corporation
                                                   gave $305,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties,
                                                   and $65,000 in PAC
                                                   money to candidates.
                                                   Blue Cross/Blue
                                                   Shield's national
                                                   association gave more
                                                   than $200,000 in soft
                                                   money and nearly
                                                   $350,000 in PAC money;
                                                   the managed care
                                                   industry's chief lobby,
                                                   the American
                                                   Association of Health
                                                   Plans, has given nearly
                                                   $60,000 in soft money
                                                   in the last two years..
  7/20/99  China MFN............................  Members of USA Engage, a  Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   major coalition           CR S8845.
                                                   lobbying for MFN status
                                                   for China were big
                                                   contributors in the
                                                   last election cycle.
                                                   Examples include:.
                                                  Defense contractor TRW
                                                   Inc. gave more than
                                                   $195,000 in soft money
                                                   and $236,000 in PAC
                                                   money
                                                  Financial services giant
                                                   BankAmerica gave more
                                                   than $347,000 in soft
                                                   money and more than
                                                   $430,000 in PAC money.
                                                   The U.S. Chamber of
                                                   Commerce gave nearly
                                                   $50,000 in soft money
                                                   and $10,000 in PAC
                                                   money. Exxon, one of
                                                   the world's largest oil
                                                   companies, gave
                                                   $331,000 in soft money
                                                   and nearly half a
                                                   million dollars in PAC
                                                   money
                                                  Communications giant
                                                   Motorola gave more than
                                                   $100,000 in both soft
                                                   money and PAC money.
                                                   This is just the tip of
                                                   the iceberg.
  7/22/99  Commerce-Justice-State Appropriations  The nation's tobacco      Statement for the Record, printed in
            Bill/Report language on DOJ pursuing   companies are some of     CR S9068.
            tobacco suit.                          the most generous
                                                   political donors around
                                                   today, including Philip
                                                   Morris, which reigns as
                                                   the largest single soft
                                                   money donor of all
                                                   time. During the 1997-
                                                   1998 election cycle the
                                                   tobacco companies,
                                                   including Philip
                                                   Morris, RJR Nabisco,
                                                   Brown and Williamson,
                                                   US Tobacco and the
                                                   industry's lobbying
                                                   arm, the Tobacco
                                                   Institute, gave a
                                                   combined $5.5 million
                                                   in soft money to the
                                                   parties, and another
                                                   $2.3 million in PAC
                                                   money contributions to
                                                   candidates.
  7/29/99  Tax Bill.............................  Just a few examples of    Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   what these wealthy        CR S9655.
                                                   interests gave and what
                                                   they got in either this
                                                   bill, the House tax
                                                   measure, or both. The
                                                   Coalition of Service
                                                   Industries, a coalition
                                                   of banks and securities
                                                   firms, won a provision
                                                   to extend for five
                                                   years a temporary tax
                                                   deferral on income
                                                   those industries earn
                                                   abroad. The value of
                                                   this tax deferral: $5
                                                   billion over ten years.
                                                   During the 1997-1998
                                                   election cycle,
                                                   coalition members gave
                                                   the following: Ernst &
                                                   Young--more than half a
                                                   million dollars in soft
                                                   money, and nearly
                                                   $900,000 in PAC money.
                                                   CIGNA Corporation--more
                                                   than $335,000 in soft
                                                   money, and more than
                                                   $210,000 in PAC money.
                                                   American Express--more
                                                   than $275,000 in soft
                                                   money and nearly
                                                   $175,000 in PAC money.
                                                   Deloitte and Touche--
                                                   more than $225,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $710,000 in PAC
                                                   money.
                                                   The utility industry     Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   got a provision           CR S9655.
                                                   affecting utility
                                                   mergers in the House
                                                   measure, which, if it
                                                   survives, is worth more
                                                   than $1 billion to the
                                                   utility industry. The
                                                   provision would excuse
                                                   the payment of taxes on
                                                   the fund that utilities
                                                   set up to cover the
                                                   costs of shutting down
                                                   nuclear power plants.
                                                   Entergy Corporation
                                                   gave $228,000 in soft
                                                   money and nearly
                                                   $250,000 in PAC money;
                                                   Commonwealth Edison
                                                   gave $110,000 in soft
                                                   money and more than
                                                   $106,000 in PAC money;
                                                   and Florida Power and
                                                   Light, gave nearly
                                                   $300,000 in soft money
                                                   and more than $182,000
                                                   in PAC money
   8/4/99  Agriculture Appropriations bill......  Agriculture interests     Statement for the Record, printed in
                                                   have donated nearly $3    CR S10211.
                                                   million $15.6 million
                                                   in PAC money.
                                                  Examples of soft money
                                                   ``double givers'' in
                                                   the agriculture
                                                   industry during the
                                                   last cycle include the
                                                   Archer Daniels Midland
                                                   Company, which donated
                                                   $263,000 to the
                                                   Democrats and $255,000
                                                   to the Republicans;
                                                   United States Sugar
                                                   Corp, which donated
                                                   $157,500 to the
                                                   Democrats and almost
                                                   $250,000 to the
                                                   Republicans; and Ocean
                                                   Spray Cranberries
                                                   Incorporated, which
                                                   donated $156,060 to the
                                                   Democrats and $117,600
                                                   to the Republicans. Not
                                                   everyone is a double
                                                   giver. The top
                                                   agribusiness soft money
                                                   donor to the Democratic
                                                   party, crop producer
                                                   Connell Company, gave
                                                   $435,000, all to the
                                                   Democratic party
                                                   committees. Dole Food
                                                   Company gave more than
                                                   $200,000 in soft money
                                                   in 1997 and 1998, all
                                                   to Republican party
                                                   committees
                                                  An agribusiness donor
                                                   that shares my position
                                                   against the extension
                                                   of the Northeast Dairy
                                                   Compact: The
                                                   International Dairy
                                                   Foods Association,
                                                   which gave more than
                                                   $71,000 in soft money
                                                   during 1997 and 1998
                                                   all to the Republican
                                                   party committees.
   8/5/99  Introduction of Tower Siting Bill, S.  During the last election  Statement for the Record, printed in
            1538.                                  cycle the following       CR S10460.
                                                   telecommunications
                                                   companies with a stake
                                                   in the wireless market
                                                   gave millions upon
                                                   millions of dollars to
                                                   candidates and the
                                                   political parties. Bell
                                                   Atlantic gave more than
                                                   $920,000 in soft money
                                                   and $870,000 in PAC
                                                   money. Wireless
                                                   manufacturer Motorola
                                                   gave $100,000 in soft
                                                   money and nearly
                                                   $110,000 in PAC money.
                                                   The Cellular
                                                   Telecommunications
                                                   Industry Association,
                                                   the lobbying arm of the
                                                   wireless industry, gave
                                                   more than $100,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $85,000 to
                                                   candidates; and AT&T
                                                   gave nearly $825,000 in
                                                   soft money to the
                                                   parties and nearly
                                                   $820,000 in PAC money
                                                   to candidates.
   9/8/99  Interior Appropriations bill/Oil       During the 1997-1998      Floor Colloquy with Sen. Boxer, CR
            royalties Amendment.                   election cycle, oil       S10567.
                                                   companies that favor
                                                   this rider gave the
                                                   following in political
                                                   donations to the
                                                   parties and to federal
                                                   candidates: Exxon gave
                                                   more than $230,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $480,000 in PAC
                                                   money; Chevron gave
                                                   more than $425,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $330,000 in PAC
                                                   money; Atlantic
                                                   Richfield gave more
                                                   than $525,000 in soft
                                                   money and $150,000 in
                                                   PAC money; BP Oil and
                                                   Amoco, two oil
                                                   companies which have
                                                   merged into the newly
                                                   formed petroleum giant,
                                                   BP Amoco, gave a
                                                   combined total of more
                                                   than $480,000 in soft
                                                   money and nearly
                                                   $295,000 in PAC money.
                                                   That's more than $2.9
                                                   million just from those
                                                   four corporations in
                                                   the span of only two
                                                   years.

[[Page 5041]]

 
  9/15/99  Transportation Appropriations bill/    The railroad companies    Statement for the Record, printed in
            Railroad consolidation.                are backing up their      CR S10922.
                                                   point of view with
                                                   almost $4 million
                                                   dollars in PAC and soft
                                                   money contributions in
                                                   the last election cycle
                                                   alone. During 1997 and
                                                   1998, the four Class I
                                                   railroads gave the
                                                   following to political
                                                   parties and candidates:
                                                   CSX Corporation gave
                                                   more than $600,000 in
                                                   unregulated soft money
                                                   to the parties and
                                                   nearly $275,000 in PAC
                                                   money to federal
                                                   candidates; Union
                                                   Pacific gave more than
                                                   $600,000 in soft money
                                                   and more than $830,000
                                                   in PAC money; Norfolk
                                                   Southern gave more than
                                                   $240,000 in unregulated
                                                   money to the parties
                                                   and almost a quarter
                                                   million to candidates;
                                                   Burlington Northern
                                                   Santa Fe gave more than
                                                   $445,000 in soft money
                                                   and nearly $210,000 in
                                                   PAC money.
  9/15/99  Transportation Appropriations bill/    The six largest airlines  Statement for the Record, printed in
            Passengers' Bill of Rights.            in the United States--    CR S10923.
                                                   American, Continental,
                                                   Delta, Northwest,
                                                   United and US Airways--
                                                   and their lobbying
                                                   association, the Air
                                                   Transport Association
                                                   of America, gave a
                                                   total of more than $2
                                                   million dollars in soft
                                                   money and more than $1
                                                   million dollars in PAC
                                                   money in the last
                                                   election cycle alone.
                                                   Northwest was the
                                                   largest soft money
                                                   giver among these
                                                   donors, giving well
                                                   over half a million
                                                   dollars to the
                                                   political parties in
                                                   1997 and 1998.
  9/23/99  Interior Appropriations bill/Oil       During the 1997-1998      Senate floor statement given live,
            royalties Amendment.                   election cycle, the       CR S11284-88 and colloquy with Sen.
                                                   very large oil            Lott on germaneness of debate,
                                                   companies that will       S11347.
                                                   benefit from this
                                                   amendment gave the
                                                   following political
                                                   donations to the
                                                   parties and to Federal
                                                   candidates: Exxon gave
                                                   more than $230,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $480,000 in PAC
                                                   money; Chevron gave
                                                   more than $425,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $330,000 in PAC
                                                   money; Atlantic
                                                   Richfield gave more
                                                   than $525,000 in soft
                                                   money and $150,000 in
                                                   PAC money; BP Oil and
                                                   Amoco, two oil
                                                   companies that have
                                                   merged into the newly
                                                   formed petroleum giant,
                                                   BP Amoco, gave a
                                                   combined total of more
                                                   than $480,000 in soft
                                                   money and $295,000 in
                                                   PAC money. That is more
                                                   than $2.9 million just
                                                   from those four
                                                   corporations in the
                                                   span of only 2 years.
 10/14/99  Defense Appropriation bill/Air Force   Defense contracting       Statement for the Record, printed in
            F-22 program.                          giant Lockheed Martin,    CR S12573.
                                                   the primary developer
                                                   of the F-22, gave
                                                   nearly $300,000 in soft
                                                   money and more than $1
                                                   million in PAC money in
                                                   the last election
                                                   cycle. During that same
                                                   period, Boeing, one of
                                                   the chief developers
                                                   and producers of the F-
                                                   22's airframe, gave
                                                   more than $335,000 in
                                                   soft money to the
                                                   parties and more than
                                                   $850,000 in PAC money
                                                   to candidates. Four of
                                                   the most important
                                                   subcontractors of the
                                                   project, TRW, Raytheon,
                                                   Hughes Electronics and
                                                   Northrop Grumman, also
                                                   happened to be major
                                                   political donors in the
                                                   last election cycle.
                                                   Raytheon tops this list
                                                   with nearly $220,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $465,000 in PAC
                                                   money. Northrop Grumman
                                                   gave more than $100,000
                                                   in soft money to the
                                                   parties and more than
                                                   $450,000 in PAC money
                                                   to candidates. Hughes
                                                   gave nearly $145,000 in
                                                   PAC money during 1997
                                                   and 1998, and TRW gave
                                                   close to $200,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $235,000 in PAC
                                                   money.
 10/27/99  Africa Growth and Opportunity Act      The companies that are    Senate floor statement given live,
            (AGOA).                                members of the Africa     CR S13229.
                                                   Growth and Opportunity
                                                   Act Coalition, Inc., a
                                                   group established
                                                   specifically to
                                                   ``demonstrate public
                                                   support for AGOA, which
                                                   includes Amoco,
                                                   Chevron, Mobil, The
                                                   Gap, Limited Inc.,
                                                   Enron, General
                                                   Electric, SBC
                                                   Communications, Bristol-
                                                   Myers Squibb,
                                                   Caterpillar and
                                                   Motorola, to name just
                                                   a few, gave a total of
                                                   $5,108,735 in soft
                                                   money to the political
                                                   parties in the '98
                                                   election cycle. Two
                                                   major U.S. retailers
                                                   and coalition members,
                                                   Gap Inc. and The
                                                   Limited Inc., have a
                                                   particularly strong
                                                   interest in passing
                                                   AGOA, since they can
                                                   benefit from importing
                                                   cheap textiles. During
                                                   the 1997-1998 election
                                                   cycle, Limited, Inc.
                                                   gave the political
                                                   parties $553,000 in
                                                   soft money donations,
                                                   and in just the first
                                                   six months of 1999,
                                                   Limited Inc. gave the
                                                   parties more than
                                                   $160,000 via the soft
                                                   money loophole. The Gap
                                                   also played the soft
                                                   money game during this
                                                   period, with more than
                                                   $185,000 in the 1998
                                                   election cycle and
                                                   nearly $54,000 already
                                                   during the current
                                                   election cycle.
                                                  Fruit of the Loom, which
                                                   is one of the primary
                                                   beneficiaries of the
                                                   Caribbean Basin
                                                   Initiative (CBI)
                                                   legislation that was
                                                   added to AGOA gave
                                                   nearly $440,000 in soft
                                                   money during the last
                                                   election cycle. On June
                                                   14 of this year, just
                                                   over a month before CBI/
                                                   NAFTA parity
                                                   legislation was
                                                   introduced in the
                                                   Senate on July 16,
                                                   Fruit of the Loom gave
                                                   $20,000 to the
                                                   Republican Senate-House
                                                   Dinner Committee. On
                                                   July 30, 1999, two
                                                   weeks after the bill
                                                   was introduced, the
                                                   company gave the
                                                   National Republican
                                                   Senatorial Committee
                                                   $50,000.
  11/4/99  Financial Services Modernization (S.   The lobbying effort for   Statement for the Record, printed in
            900).                                  so-called financial       CR S13897.
                                                   services modernization
                                                   combined the clout of
                                                   three industries that
                                                   on their own are giants
                                                   in the campaign finance
                                                   system, particularly
                                                   the soft money system.
                                                  One of these industries,
                                                   the securities and
                                                   investment industry is
                                                   a legendary soft money
                                                   donor. Merrill Lynch,
                                                   its subsidiaries and
                                                   executives gave more
                                                   than $310,000 in soft
                                                   money during the 1998
                                                   election cycle. Morgan
                                                   Stanley Dean Witter
                                                   gave more than $145,000
                                                   in soft money in 1997
                                                   and 1998. The
                                                   Washington Post
                                                   reported that the
                                                   company's chairman,
                                                   along with several
                                                   other corporate heads,
                                                   made calls to White
                                                   House officials the
                                                   very night the
                                                   conference hammered out
                                                   an agreement on this
                                                   bill.
                                                  Citigroup from the
                                                   banking industry was
                                                   also there, and so was
                                                   the presence of the
                                                   more than $720,000 that
                                                   Citigroup and its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries gave in
                                                   soft money to the
                                                   political parties in
                                                   the 1998 election
                                                   cycle. And in the
                                                   current election cycle
                                                   Citigroup is off to a
                                                   running start with
                                                   $293,000 in soft money
                                                   from Citigroup, its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries. That's
                                                   more than $1 million
                                                   from Citigroup, it's
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries in just
                                                   two and a half years.
                                                   The powerful banking
                                                   interest BankAmerica,
                                                   its executives and
                                                   subsidiaries also
                                                   weighed in with more
                                                   than $347,000 in soft
                                                   money in the 1998
                                                   election cycle, and
                                                   more than $40,000
                                                   already in the current
                                                   election cycle.
                                                  The insurance industry
                                                   was also well-
                                                   represented. For
                                                   instance there's the
                                                   Chubb Corp and its
                                                   subsidiaries, which
                                                   gave nearly $220,000 in
                                                   soft money
                                                   contributions in 1997
                                                   and 1998, and has given
                                                   more than $60,000
                                                   already in 1999. And
                                                   there's industry lobby
                                                   group the American
                                                   Council of Life
                                                   Insurance, which also
                                                   gave heavily to the
                                                   parties with more than
                                                   $315,000 in soft money
                                                   contributions in 1997
                                                   and 1998, and more than
                                                   $63,000 so far this
                                                   year.
  11/5/99  Bankruptcy Reform Act (S. 625).......  This bill is a poster     Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   child for the `Calling    CR S14066.
                                                   of the Bankroll.' In
                                                   the last election
                                                   cycle, the members of
                                                   the National Consumer
                                                   Bankruptcy Coalition,
                                                   an industry lobbying
                                                   group made up of the
                                                   major credit card
                                                   companies such as Visa
                                                   and MasterCard and
                                                   associations
                                                   representing the
                                                   Nation's big banks and
                                                   retailers, gave nearly
                                                   $4.5 million in
                                                   contributions to
                                                   parties and candidates.
                                                  It is very hard to argue
                                                   that the financial
                                                   largess of this
                                                   industry has nothing to
                                                   do with its interest in
                                                   our consideration of
                                                   bankruptcy legislation.
                                                   For example, on the
                                                   very day that the House
                                                   passed the conference
                                                   report last year and
                                                   sent it to the Senate,
                                                   MBNA Corporation gave a
                                                   $200,000 soft money
                                                   contribution to the
                                                   National Republican
                                                   Senatorial Committee.
                                                   PAC contributions from
                                                   National Consumer
                                                   Bankruptcy Coalition
                                                   members totaled
                                                   $227,000 in March of
                                                   this year alone. That's
                                                   a full 20 months before
                                                   the next election.
                                                   March 1999 was a month
                                                   during which the
                                                   Judiciary Committees of
                                                   both the House and the
                                                   Senate were considering
                                                   the bill. Members of
                                                   the coalition gave
                                                   nearly $1.2 million in
                                                   PAC and soft money
                                                   contributions in the
                                                   first 6 months of 1999.
                                                   During that time
                                                   period, MBNA Corp. gave
                                                   $85,000 in soft money
                                                   to the Republican Party
                                                   committees, while Visa
                                                   USA Inc. gave $30,000.
                                                   During the first 6
                                                   months of 1999, the
                                                   Democratic party
                                                   committees took in more
                                                   than four times the
                                                   soft money from banks
                                                   and lenders than they
                                                   did during the first 6
                                                   months of the last
                                                   presidential election
                                                   cycle in 1995.
   2/9/00  Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act    The Nuclear Energy        Statement for the Record, printed in
            (S. 1287).                             Institute, which is the   CR S534.
                                                   chief lobbyist on
                                                   behalf of companies
                                                   that operate nuclear
                                                   power plants in the
                                                   U.S. and has led the
                                                   fight for the nuclear
                                                   waste legislation, gave
                                                   more than $135,000 in
                                                   soft money to the
                                                   parties and more than
                                                   $70,000 in PAC money to
                                                   candidates in the 1998
                                                   election cycle. In
                                                   addition to NEI, a
                                                   number of utilities
                                                   which operate nuclear
                                                   plants were also
                                                   significant PAC and
                                                   soft money donors in
                                                   the '98 cycle,
                                                   including: Commonwealth
                                                   Edison, which gave
                                                   $110,000 in soft money
                                                   and more than $106,000
                                                   in PAC money, and
                                                   Florida Power and
                                                   Light, which gave
                                                   nearly $300,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties
                                                   and more than $182,000
                                                   in PAC money to
                                                   candidates. NEI already
                                                   reported donating more
                                                   than $66,000 in soft
                                                   money in 1999, and
                                                   Commonwealth Edison
                                                   already reported
                                                   $90,000 in soft money
                                                   donations in 1999.
                                                  On the other side of
                                                   this fight is a
                                                   coalition of
                                                   environmental groups,
                                                   including the Sierra
                                                   Club, which gave more
                                                   than $236,000 in PAC
                                                   money to candidates in
                                                   the '98 cycle, and
                                                   Friends of the Earth,
                                                   which gave just under
                                                   $4,000 during that same
                                                   period. These groups
                                                   also exercise their
                                                   clout through the
                                                   loophole of phony issue
                                                   ads. The Sierra Club
                                                   spent an estimated $1.5
                                                   million on issue ads in
                                                   the '98 election cycle,
                                                   and the Nuclear Energy
                                                   Institute reportedly
                                                   spent $600,000 on issue
                                                   ads in just two Senate
                                                   races in the last
                                                   cycle.
   4/5/00  Arctic National Wildlife Refuge        Oil companies with an     Statement for the Record printed in
            (budget resolution debate).            interest in drilling in   CR S2211.
                                                   the refuge poured
                                                   millions of dollars of
                                                   soft money into the
                                                   coffers of the
                                                   political parties in
                                                   1999. Giant political
                                                   donor Atlantic
                                                   Richfield , its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries, gave more
                                                   than $880,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties.
                                                   The recently merged
                                                   Exxon-Mobil, its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries, gave more
                                                   than $340,000 in soft
                                                   money in 1999. And in
                                                   1999, BP Amoco, the
                                                   result of another oil
                                                   megamerger, gave over
                                                   $361,000 in soft money,
                                                   along with its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries.
  5/10/00  Africa Growth and Opportunity Act      All the figures I am      Senate floor statement given live,
            (AGOA) Conference Report.              about to cite are for     CR S3804.
                                                   the first 15 months of
                                                   the current election
                                                   cycle--all of 1999 and
                                                   the first 3 months of
                                                   this year. I will start
                                                   with Pfizer, which is
                                                   one of several
                                                   pharmaceutical giants
                                                   that rank among the top
                                                   soft money donors in
                                                   1999, and with good
                                                   reason. Pfizer and its
                                                   executives gave more
                                                   than $511,000 in soft
                                                   money during the
                                                   period, including a
                                                   $100,000 contribution
                                                   earlier this year.
                                                   Pfizer was also a top
                                                   PAC money donor in its
                                                   industry during the
                                                   period, with more than
                                                   $242,000 to Federal
                                                   candidates during the
                                                   period.
                                                  Then there's Bristol
                                                   Myers Squibb, another
                                                   top soft money donor,
                                                   which, with its
                                                   executives, gave nearly
                                                   $529,000 in soft money
                                                   to the parties,
                                                   including two $100,000
                                                   contributions during
                                                   the period. Bristol
                                                   Myers Squibb also gave
                                                   more than $146,000 in
                                                   PAC money during the
                                                   period
                                                  Merck and Company gave
                                                   more than $51,000 in
                                                   soft money and nearly
                                                   $168,000 in PAC money
                                                   during the period
                                                  And finally, Glaxo
                                                   Wellcome and its
                                                   executives gave more
                                                   than $272,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties
                                                   and gave more PAC money
                                                   than any other
                                                   pharmaceutical company
                                                   during the period--more
                                                   than $291,000
  5/16/00  Bankruptcy Reform bill...............  Common Cause just put     Senate floor statement given live CR
                                                   out a stunning report     S3969.
                                                   recently on the amount
                                                   of money that the
                                                   credit industry has
                                                   contributed to members
                                                   of Congress and the
                                                   political parties in
                                                   recent years. $7.5
                                                   million in 1999 alone,
                                                   and $23.4 million in
                                                   just the last three
                                                   years. One company that
                                                   has been particularly
                                                   generous is MBNA
                                                   Corporation, one of the
                                                   largest issuers of
                                                   credit cards in the
                                                   country. In 1998, MBNA
                                                   gave a $200,000 soft
                                                   money contribution to
                                                   the Republican
                                                   Senatorial Committee on
                                                   the very day that the
                                                   House passed the
                                                   conference report and
                                                   sent it to the Senate.
                                                  This year, MBNA gave its
                                                   first large soft money
                                                   contribution ever to
                                                   the Democratic party--
                                                   it gave $150,000 to the
                                                   Democratic Senatorial
                                                   Campaign Committee on
                                                   December 22, 1999,
                                                   right in the middle of
                                                   Senate floor
                                                   consideration of the
                                                   bill
  7/12/00  Estate Tax Bill......................  National Federation of    Senate floor statement given live,
                                                   Independent Business'     CR S6433.
                                                   PAC has given more than
                                                   $441,000 in PAC money
                                                   through June 1 of this
                                                   election cycle,
                                                   according to the Center
                                                   for Responsive
                                                   Politics. That is on
                                                   top of the incredible
                                                   $1.2 million in PAC
                                                   contributions NFIB
                                                   doled out during the
                                                   1997-1998 election
                                                   cycle. NFIB has also
                                                   given soft money during
                                                   the first 18 months of
                                                   the current election
                                                   cycle--just over
                                                   $30,000 so far.

[[Page 5042]]

 
                                                  Then there is the Food
                                                   Marketing Institute,
                                                   which represents
                                                   supermarkets. Through
                                                   June 1st of this
                                                   election cycle, the
                                                   Food Marketing
                                                   Institute has given
                                                   more than $241,000 in
                                                   PAC donations to
                                                   candidates, after it
                                                   made more than a half
                                                   million in PAC
                                                   donations during the
                                                   previous cycle. FMI is
                                                   also an active soft
                                                   money donor, with more
                                                   than $156,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties
                                                   since the beginning of
                                                   this cycle through June
                                                   1st of this year. On
                                                   top of these wealthy
                                                   associations, there are
                                                   countless wealthy
                                                   individuals who want to
                                                   see the estate tax
                                                   repealed, and a 527
                                                   group called The
                                                   Committee for New
                                                   American Leadership.
   9/6/00  Permanent Normal Trade Relations with  The Center for            Senate floor statement given live,
            China, H.R. 4444.                      Responsive Politics       CR S8051.
                                                   estimates labor's
                                                   overall soft money, PAC
                                                   and individual
                                                   contributions at
                                                   roughly $31 million so
                                                   far in this election
                                                   cycle in a May 24th
                                                   report. In particular,
                                                   the AFL-CIO and its
                                                   affiliates, which have
                                                   campaigned hard against
                                                   PNTR, have given
                                                   $60,000 in soft money
                                                   through the first 15
                                                   months of this election
                                                   cycle. On the side of
                                                   PNTR we find corporate
                                                   America, which,
                                                   according to a New York
                                                   Times report, engaged
                                                   in its `costliest
                                                   legislative campaign
                                                   ever' to win this
                                                   fight--including an $8
                                                   million advertising
                                                   campaign
                                                  The Center for
                                                   Responsive Politics'
                                                   May 24th report put the
                                                   collective
                                                   contributions of
                                                   Business Roundtable
                                                   members at $58 million
                                                   in soft money, PAC
                                                   money and individual
                                                   contributions so far in
                                                   the election cycle. And
                                                   that is in addition to
                                                   the Roundable's $10
                                                   million dollar
                                                   advertising campaign to
                                                   push PNTR, according to
                                                   the Center.
                                                  Business Roundtable
                                                   members are
                                                   corporations like
                                                   Boeing, Philip Morris,
                                                   UPS and Citigroup.
                                                   Boeing has given more
                                                   than $465,000 in soft
                                                   money through the first
                                                   15 months of the
                                                   election cycle,
                                                   including 10
                                                   contributions of
                                                   $25,000 or more.
                                                  UPS, its subsidiaries
                                                   and executives have
                                                   given more than
                                                   $960,000 in soft money
                                                   through March 31st of
                                                   the current cycle. That
                                                   includes two
                                                   contributions of a
                                                   quarter million
                                                   dollars.
                                                  Citigroup, its
                                                   subsidiaries and
                                                   executives gave more
                                                   than one million
                                                   dollars in soft money
                                                   through the first 15
                                                   months of this election
                                                   cycle, including six
                                                   contributions of
                                                   $50,000 or more.
                                                  Philip Morris and its
                                                   subsidiaries have given
                                                   more than $1.2 million
                                                   in soft money through
                                                   March 31st of the
                                                   election cycle,
                                                   including more than
                                                   eight donations of
                                                   $100,000 or more. China
                                                   is a huge untapped
                                                   market for cigarettes.
                                                   So Philip Morris's soft
                                                   money contributions
                                                   open the doors for its
                                                   lobbyists on this
                                                   issue, just as they
                                                   open the doors for its
                                                   anti-tobacco control
                                                   arguments
 09/28/00   H-1B Visa Bill......................  American Business for     Senate floor statement given live CR
                                                   Legal Immigration, a      S9443.
                                                   coalition which formed
                                                   to fight for an
                                                   increase in H-1B visas,
                                                   offers a glimpse of the
                                                   financial might behind
                                                   proponents of H-1Bs.
                                                   Following are donation
                                                   of ABLI members through
                                                   at least the first 15
                                                   months of the election
                                                   cycle, and in some
                                                   cases include
                                                   contributions given
                                                   more recently in the
                                                   cycle:
                                                     Price Waterhouse
                                                      Coopers, the
                                                      accounting and
                                                      consulting firm, has
                                                      given more than
                                                      $297,000 in soft
                                                      money to the parties
                                                      and more than
                                                      $606,000 in PAC
                                                      money to candidates
                                                      so far in this
                                                      election cycle.
                                                     Telecommunications
                                                      giant Motorola and
                                                      its executives have
                                                      given more than
                                                      $70,000 in soft
                                                      money and more than
                                                      $177,000 in PAC
                                                      money during the
                                                      period.
                                                     The software company
                                                      Oracle and its
                                                      executives have
                                                      given more than
                                                      $536,000 in soft
                                                      money during the
                                                      period, and its PAC
                                                      has given $45,000 to
                                                      federal candidates.
                                                     Executives of Cisco
                                                      Systems have given
                                                      more than $372,000
                                                      in soft money since
                                                      the beginning of
                                                      this election cycle.
                                                     And Microsoft gave
                                                      very generously
                                                      during the period,
                                                      with more than $1.7
                                                      million in soft
                                                      money and more than
                                                      half a million in
                                                      PAC money.
                                                     Many unions are
                                                      lobbying against the
                                                      H-1B bill, including
                                                      the Communication
                                                      Workers of America,
                                                      which gave $1.9
                                                      million in soft
                                                      money during the
                                                      period, including
                                                      two donations of a
                                                      quarter of a million
                                                      dollars last year.
                                                      And CWA's PAC gave
                                                      more than $960,000
                                                      to candidates during
                                                      the period.
                                                     The lobbying group
                                                      Federation for
                                                      American Immigration
                                                      Reform, or `FAIR,'
                                                      has lobbied
                                                      furiously against
                                                      this bill with a
                                                      print, radio and
                                                      television campaign,
                                                      which has cost
                                                      somewhere between
                                                      $500,000 and $1
                                                      million, according
                                                      to an estimate in
                                                      Roll Call.
 10/29/00  Omnibus Tax Bill.....................  These figures include     Senate floor statement given live CR
                                                   contributions through     S11324.
                                                   the first 15 months of
                                                   the election cycle, and
                                                   in some cases include
                                                   contributions given
                                                   more recently in the
                                                   cycle.
                                                  Some of the biggest
                                                   investment and finance
                                                   firms are supporting
                                                   passage of this bill.
                                                   For example, Merrill
                                                   Lynch, its executives
                                                   and subsidiaries, have
                                                   given more than
                                                   $915,000 in soft money,
                                                   according to the Center
                                                   for Responsive
                                                   Politics.
                                                  American Express, its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries have given
                                                   more than $312,000 in
                                                   soft money so far in
                                                   this election cycle.
                                                   And Fidelity
                                                   Investments and its
                                                   executives have given
                                                   at least $258,000 in
                                                   soft money to date.
                                                  The American Benefits
                                                   Council, which is
                                                   strongly supporting
                                                   this bill, sent around
                                                   a list of supporters of
                                                   provisions of the
                                                   legislation. That list
                                                   includes still more big
                                                   donors.
                                                  The American Council of
                                                   Life Insurers and its
                                                   executives have given
                                                   more than $260,000 to
                                                   the parties' soft money
                                                   warchests during the
                                                   period.
                                                  The U.S. Chamber of
                                                   Commerce and affiliated
                                                   chambers of commerce
                                                   have given more than
                                                   $110,000 in soft money
                                                   during the period.
                                                  The list also included
                                                   many of the nation's
                                                   labor unions, which are
                                                   also pushing for some
                                                   of the provisions of
                                                   this bill, including:
                                                   American Federation of
                                                   Teachers, which has
                                                   given at least $820,000
                                                   so far during this
                                                   election cycle; and the
                                                   International
                                                   Brotherhood of
                                                   Electrical Workers,
                                                   which has given more
                                                   than $853,000 in soft
                                                   money during the
                                                   period.
                                                  Many members of the
                                                   Business Roundtable, an
                                                   organization which has
                                                   urged the passage of
                                                   this legislation, are
                                                   some of the biggest
                                                   arms manufacturers in
                                                   the U.S., and some of
                                                   the biggest political
                                                   donors. I'd like to
                                                   review the
                                                   contributions of some
                                                   of these companies.
                                                   These figures are for
                                                   contributions through
                                                   at least the first 15
                                                   months of the election
                                                   cycle, and in some
                                                   cases include
                                                   contributions given
                                                   more recently in the
                                                   cycle.
                                                  Lockheed Martin, its
                                                   executives and
                                                   subsidiaries have given
                                                   more than $861,000 in
                                                   soft money, and more
                                                   than $881,000 in PAC
                                                   money so far during
                                                   this election cycle.
                                                  United Technologies and
                                                   its subsidiaries have
                                                   given more than
                                                   $293,000 in soft money
                                                   and more than $240,000
                                                   in PAC money during the
                                                   period.
                                                  During that period,
                                                   Raytheon has given more
                                                   than $251,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties
                                                   and more than $397,000
                                                   in PAC money to Federal
                                                   candidates.
                                                  Textron has contributed
                                                   more than $173,000 in
                                                   soft money and more
                                                   than $205,000 in PAC
                                                   money
                                                  And last but not least,
                                                   Boeing has given more
                                                   than $583,000 in soft
                                                   money since the
                                                   election cycle began,
                                                   and more than $593,000
                                                   in PAC contributions.
 10/31/00  Embassy Security and Bankruptcy        Common Cause reports      Senate floor statement given live CR
            Conference Report.                     that the credit           S11397.
                                                   industry has
                                                   contributed $7.5
                                                   million in 1999 alone,
                                                   and $23.4 million in
                                                   just the last three
                                                   years, to members of
                                                   Congress and the
                                                   political parties. In
                                                   1998, MBNA gave a
                                                   $200,000 soft money
                                                   contributions to the
                                                   Republican Senatorial
                                                   Committee on the very
                                                   day that the House
                                                   passed the conference
                                                   report and sent it to
                                                   the Senate--not
                                                   terribly subtle.
                                                  In December 1999, MBNA
                                                   gave its first large
                                                   soft money contribution
                                                   ever to the Democratic
                                                   party--it gave $150,000
                                                   to the Democratic
                                                   Senatorial Campaign
                                                   Committee on December
                                                   22, 1999, Mr.
                                                   President, right in the
                                                   middle of Senate floor
                                                   consideration of the
                                                   bankruptcy bill. And
                                                   just a few months ago,
                                                   on June 30, 2000,
                                                   Alfred Lerner, Chairman
                                                   and CEO of MBNA--one
                                                   person, one individual--
                                                   gave $250,000 in soft
                                                   money to the RNC.
                                                  The following figures
                                                   are from the Center for
                                                   Responsive Politics,
                                                   through the first 15
                                                   months of the election
                                                   cycle, and in some
                                                   cases include
                                                   contributions given
                                                   later in the election
                                                   cycle. MBNA and its
                                                   affiliates and
                                                   executives gave a total
                                                   of $710,000 in soft
                                                   money to the parties.
                                                   Visa and its executives
                                                   gave more than $268,000
                                                   in soft money to the
                                                   parties during the
                                                   period. Mastercard gave
                                                   nearly $46,000.
           Disapproval of Department of Labor     Along with its            Senate floor statement given live CR
            Ergonomics Rule.                       affiliates and            S1875.
                                                   executives, the
                                                   American Trucking
                                                   Association gave more
                                                   than $404,000 in soft
                                                   money in the 2000
                                                   cycle. They have
                                                   weighed in against the
                                                   ergonomics rule, and
                                                   they do so with the
                                                   weight of their soft
                                                   money contributions
                                                   behind them. The same
                                                   is true for a host of
                                                   other associations
                                                   fighting to see the
                                                   rule overturned: in the
                                                   last cycle, the
                                                   National Soft Drink
                                                   Association and its
                                                   executives gave more
                                                   than $141,000 in soft
                                                   money, the National
                                                   Retail Federation doled
                                                   out more than $101,000
                                                   in soft money, and the
                                                   National Restaurant
                                                   Association ponied up
                                                   more than $55,000 in
                                                   soft money to the
                                                   parties.
                                                  On the other side of the
                                                   soft money coin, the
                                                   unions that have
                                                   lobbied to keep the
                                                   rule in place. They
                                                   include the AFL-CIO and
                                                   its affiliates, which
                                                   gave more than $827,000
                                                   in soft money in the
                                                   last election cycle,
                                                   and the Teamsters Union
                                                   and its affiliates,
                                                   which gave $161,000
                                                   during the same period.
           Floor Statement in Support of Durbin   Most of the $1.2 million  Senate Floor Statement Submitted for
            Amendment (substitute for the          in soft money that MBNA   the Record.
            bankruptcy reform bill).               gave to the parties in
                                                   the last cycle was
                                                   given in the second
                                                   half of 2000, when a
                                                   ``shadow conference''
                                                   determined what the
                                                   final bankruptcy bill
                                                   would look like, and
                                                   the bill was brought
                                                   back to the House and
                                                   the Senate in an
                                                   extraordinary
                                                   procedural maneuver. In
                                                   particular, MBNA gave
                                                   $100,000 in soft money
                                                   to the National
                                                   Republican Senatorial
                                                   Committee on October
                                                   12, 2000, the very same
                                                   day that the House gave
                                                   final approval to the
                                                   bill.
                                                  MBNA has a habit of
                                                   making well-timed
                                                   contributions. On the
                                                   very day that the House
                                                   passed a bankruptcy
                                                   conference report in
                                                   1998 and sent it to the
                                                   Senate. MBNA gave a
                                                   $200,000 soft money
                                                   contribution to the
                                                   NRSC.
                                                  MBNA Chairman & CEO,
                                                   Alfred J. Lerner, and
                                                   his wife, Norma, each
                                                   made contributions of a
                                                   quarter of a million
                                                   dollars to the
                                                   Republican National
                                                   Committee in the last
                                                   cycle. According to an
                                                   article in the Wall
                                                   Street Journal from
                                                   March 6th, MBNA
                                                   President Charles M.
                                                   Cawley is also an
                                                   active political donor
                                                   and fundraiser who gave
                                                   $100,000 to the Bush-
                                                   Cheney Inaugural
                                                   Committee.
                                                  According to the Center
                                                   for Responsive
                                                   Politics, the nine
                                                   members of the National
                                                   Consumer Bankruptcy
                                                   Coalition contributed
                                                   more than $5 million in
                                                   soft money, PAC money
                                                   and individual
                                                   contributions during
                                                   the 2000 election
                                                   cycle. The Coalition's
                                                   members include Visa
                                                   USA, Mastercard
                                                   International and
                                                   several financial
                                                   industry trade groups,
                                                   including the American
                                                   Bankers Association and
                                                   the American Financial
                                                   Services Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 5043]]

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I will reserve the remainder of that time. 
Let me turn to our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Bingaman, for the 
purpose of offering an amendment.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before that, I believe Senator 
Specter's amendment is pending. He expects to have the next Republican 
amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Specter amendment be temporarily 
laid aside so we can go to Senator Bingaman. Senator Specter will come 
after that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I thank my colleagues very much. I have two amendments, 
the first of which I believe is acceptable to the managers of the bill.
  Mr. DODD. That is correct.


                           Amendment No. 157

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 157.

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

 (Purpose: To require the Presidential Inaugural Committee to disclose 
donations and prohibit foreign nationals from making donations to such 
                               Committee)

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

     SEC. __. DONATIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL INAUGURAL COMMITTEE.

       (a) In General.--Chapter 5 of title 36, United States Code, 
     is amended by--
       (1) redesignating section 510 as section 511; and
       (2) inserting after section 509 the following:

     ``Sec. 510. Disclosure of and prohibition on certain 
       donations.

       ``(a) In general.--A committee shall not be considered to 
     be the Inaugural Committee for purposes of this chapter 
     unless the committee agrees to, and meets, the requirements 
     of subsections (b) and (c).
       ``(b) Disclosure.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than the date that is 90 days 
     after the date of the Presidential inaugural ceremony, the 
     committee shall file a report with the Federal Election 
     Commission disclosing any donation of money or anything of 
     value made to the committee in an aggregate amount equal to 
     or greater than $200.
       ``(2) Contents of report.--A report filed under paragraph 
     (1) shall contain--
       ``(A) the amount of the donation;
       ``(B) the date the donation is received; and
       ``(C) the name and address of the person making the 
     donation.
       ``(c) Limitation.--The committee shall not accept any 
     donation from a foreign national (as defined in section 
     319(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     441e(b))).''.
       (b) Reports Made Available by FEC.--Section 304 of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 434), as 
     amended by sections 103 and 201, is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(g) Reports From Inaugural Committees.--The Federal 
     Election Committee shall make any report filed by an 
     Inaugural Committee under section 510 of title 36, United 
     States Code, accessible to the public at the offices of the 
     Commission and on the Internet not later than 48 hours after 
     the report is received by the Commission.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, this is a noncontroversial amendment 
that would simply require that contributions made to a Presidential 
inaugural committee be publicly disclosed, and also it would require 
that the same rules that govern foreign contributions to our political 
campaigns be applied as well to inaugural events.
  As I understand it, this is an acceptable amendment. At this time, I 
believe we are prepared to go ahead and vote on this by voice vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all time yielded back on the amendment?
  Mr. REID. We yield back our time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Kentucky yield back his 
time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this amendment is acceptable to us. I 
yield back the time on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 157) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has asked that 
he be given permission to speak for 4 or 5 minutes before I offer this 
amendment. I am certainly pleased to do that. I will yield the floor to 
him at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is 
recognized.
  (The remarks of Mr. Warner, Mr. Allen, and Mrs. Boxer, are located in 
today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')


                           Amendment No. 158

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I rise to offer another amendment. I 
send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Specter amendment is 
set aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. Bingaman] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 158.

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

(Purpose: To provide candidates for election to Federal office with the 
 opportunity to respond to negative political advertisements sponsored 
                           by noncandidates)

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

     SEC. __. OPPORTUNITY OF CANDIDATES TO RESPOND TO NEGATIVE 
                   POLITICAL ADVERTISEMENTS SPONSORED BY 
                   NONCANDIDATES.

       Section 315 of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 
     315), as amended by this Act, is amended--
       (1) by redesignating subsections (b), (c), (d), (e), and 
     (f) as subsections (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), respectively; 
     and
       (2) by inserting after subsection (a) the following:
       ``(b) Political Advertisements of Noncandidates.--
       ``(1) In general.--If any licensee permits a person, other 
     than a legally qualified candidate for Federal office (or an 
     authorized committee of that candidate), to use a 
     broadcasting station during the period described in paragraph 
     (2) to attack or oppose (as defined in paragraph (3)) a 
     clearly identified candidate (as defined in section 301 of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) for Federal 
     office, the broadcasting station shall, within a reasonable 
     period of time, make available to such candidate the 
     opportunity to use the broadcasting station, without charge, 
     for the same amount of time during the same period of the day 
     and week as was used by such person.
       ``(2) Period described.--The period described in this 
     paragraph is--
       ``(A) with respect to a general, special, or runoff 
     election for such Federal office, the 60-day period preceding 
     such election; or
       ``(B) with respect to a primary or preference election, or 
     a convention or caucus of a political party that has 
     authority to nominate a candidate for such Federal office, 
     the 30-day period preceding such election, convention, or 
     caucus.
       ``(3) Attack or oppose defined.--The term `attack or 
     oppose' means, with respect to a clearly identified 
     candidate--
       ``(A) any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous 
     opposition to the candidate; or
       ``(B) any communication that contains a phrase such as 
     `vote against', `defeat', or `reject', or a campaign slogan 
     or words that, when taken as a whole, and with limited 
     reference to external events (such as proximity to an 
     election) can have no reasonable meaning other than to 
     advocate the defeat of one or more clearly identified 
     candidates, regardless of whether or not the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote against the candidate.''.

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I am here for two reasons: First, to 
express my strong support for the bill we have been considering this 
week and last, this bipartisan campaign finance reform bill which we 
have come to refer to as the McCain-Feingold bill; second, I am here to 
offer this amendment which I believe will further improve the bill.
  Our colleague from Kentucky said, as he gave his short statement a 
few minutes ago, now that all the important amendments have already 
been offered and dealt with, he wanted to go ahead with his comments. I 
beg to differ with him on that conclusion, that all the important 
amendments have been offered. This amendment I am offering

[[Page 5044]]

today I believe is very important, and I believe it will substantially 
improve this legislation. It will help to address the increasingly 
negative nature of today's campaign advertising, and it will assist 
those candidates, whether they are challengers or incumbents, in 
responding to that negative advertising.
  The debate we are engaged in is long overdue. Congress has not 
revised its campaign finance laws in any meaningful way since I came to 
the Congress in 1983. The last significant reform of campaign finance 
laws was in 1974. Nearly everything about campaigns has changed 
radically since 1974, from the tremendous amount of money that has been 
spent on campaigns to the technologies and methods used to communicate 
with voters.
  I congratulate Senator McCain, my colleague from Arizona, and I 
congratulate Senator Feingold, my colleague from Wisconsin, on their 
determination in finally bringing this bill to the Senate floor. I can 
think of no two individuals in recent memory who have worked harder on 
a bipartisan basis in pursuit of basic reform than these two Senators.
  They have traveled the country, one of them, of course, during the 
time he was running for President. They have taken the campaign finance 
reform message to every corner of this country. We all in this Senate, 
in my view, owe them a debt of gratitude. I hope our effort is worthy 
of their significant effort. It has been a true labor of genuine reform 
in the interest of better and cleaner democracy, and I am very pleased 
to cosponsor this legislation.
  Mr. President, turning to the amendment I have offered, it is a 
relatively simple amendment. It proposes to accomplish a central goal, 
and that is to provide candidates for Federal office who are confronted 
with sham negative issue ads the opportunity to respond to those ads.
  The amendment states that if a broadcast station, whether it is a 
television station or radio station, permits any person or group to 
broadcast material opposing or attacking a legally qualified candidate 
for Federal office, then that station, within a reasonable period of 
time, must provide, at no charge to the candidate who has been 
attacked, an equal opportunity to respond to those attacks.
  This requirement would apply in this same period that is discussed in 
the legislation pending before us in the so-called Snowe-Jeffords 
language; that is, 60 days prior to a general election, 30 days prior 
to a primary election. It is in those two periods of time that the 
requirements apply.
  All of us who have run for Federal office in recent years have been 
in the situation about which I am concerned. As a candidate, you are 
out on the hustings; you are conducting a campaign that you hope is 
addressing the issues voters care about; you are trying to give the 
people in your State, or the people in your congressional district, the 
best vision you can for where this country should go, what should be 
done in the State; and you turn on the television in your hotel room 
and see an ad attacking you for some issue on some basis that you 
probably did not anticipate. You ask yourself the questions: Who is 
paying for the ad? Who is this group? Who do they represent? Where did 
they get the information that they are using in this attack?
  The process leaves the candidate, more often than not, unfairly 
accused of a position. It leaves voters increasingly cynical about the 
growing negative nature of our campaigns.
  Unfortunately, this is the new world of campaigns in which we live. 
This is true whether you are Republican, whether you are Democrat, 
whatever your party affiliation, regardless if you are a challenger or 
incumbent.
  Through the loopholes in our current campaign finance laws, outside 
interest groups and political parties are funding hundreds of thousands 
of dollars worth of political ads in many of our States. Most of those 
are very negative and have minimal issue content. Most of those ads 
flood our airwaves right before the election when they will have the 
biggest impact on the minds of the voters.
  As noted, congressional authority Norm Ornstein said these ads often 
dominate and drown our candidate communications, particularly in the 
last weeks of the campaign. While the ads are often effective in a raw 
and practical sense, they are incredibly corrosive; they are frequently 
unfair; they are sometimes very personal in the attacks they make; and 
they breed voter cynicism and voter apathy toward the electoral 
process.
  We know all too well the gross aspects of the advertising, but now, 
thanks to a number of dedicated reform-minded groups and academicians, 
we have some real data to back up what we have all known as a matter of 
common sense for some time. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU, New 
York University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison have teamed 
up to develop a national database of political television advertising 
from the 2000 election cycle. They monitored political advertising in 
the Nation's top 75 media markets, and researchers, through that 
monitoring, have documented the frequency, the content, and the costs 
of television ads in the 2000 election, which duplicates a similar 
study they conducted in 1998.
  The findings are stunning. Let me give a brief summary of what they 
found. First, the independent groups alone spent, conservatively 
estimated, about $98 million on media buys for political TV commercials 
in the year 2000. That is roughly a sixfold increase from what they 
spent 2 years before. This is not an inflationary increase; this is a 
sixfold increase in spending by the independent groups on these ads.
  Second, in the 2000 Presidential election, voters received the 
largest share of political advertising messages from independent groups 
and party committees, not from the candidates themselves or from the 
candidate's committees.
  Third, while all of the unregulated issue ads produced by the parties 
and independent groups are supposed to theoretically cover issue 
positions, since they do not contain these so-called magic words that 
there has been a lot of discussion about on the Senate floor in the 
last 2 weeks, the words ``noted by the Supreme Court in the Buckley 
decision,'' the public does not see these as issue ads. Virtually all 
ads sponsored by party committees are viewed as electioneering ads. 
Within 60 days of the election, 86 percent of the ads produced by 
independent groups are viewed by voters as electioneering. They are not 
seen as issue ads.
  Fourth, the chart from the Brennan Center dramatically makes the 
point I am trying to make; the sham issue ads that are run by these 
groups become increasingly negative in tone as election day approaches. 
Issue ads by independent groups are far more likely than candidate ads 
or even party ads to attack candidates. Fully 72 percent of the issue 
group ads aired in Federal races last year directly attacked one of the 
candidates in the race in which they were run.
  This chart is entitled ``Growth of Negative Tone of Electioneering 
Issue Ads as Election Day Nears.'' There are three lines on this chart. 
One is the red line which represents the attack ads. This is according 
to the Brennan Center study. The green line is the contrast ads. The 
blue line is the ads to promote a particular candidate, positive 
advertising, ``vote for me, I'm your best candidate,'' on Social 
Security, Medicare, or whatever issue.
  Finally, the Brennan Center notes that issue ads that are targeted at 
candidates are decisively negative in tone and pursue the tact of 
attacking a candidate's character. These ads do not discuss substantive 
issues; they often focus on personal histories of the candidate.
  The dramatic thing about the chart, which covers the period from 
January to the beginning of November of the year 2000, the negative ads 
are virtually nonexistent, very low level negative ads, until June; and 
then in the last couple of months of the campaign, the negative ads 
overwhelm the rest of the advertising. These are the negative ads that 
are being run almost exclusively by the independent groups--not by the 
candidate. The candidates do not want to be associated with negative 
ads, so they stay out of this and

[[Page 5045]]

let the independent groups run the very negative ads.
  I believe this study I have referred to provides the hard data to 
back up what we have all known for some time. That is, that sham issue 
ads are increasing sevenfold each election. They are casting a negative 
and personal tone to campaigns and are particularly effective and 
dominant in the last few weeks before election day. There is not a 
voter in any one of our States who would not validate these findings 
from their personal experience of watching television or listening to 
the radio. I heard this refrain from people in my State of New Mexico 
constantly during the last campaign cycle. They thought the airwaves 
were clogged with ads and that the majority of them were too negative. 
The complaint is constant by the public. It is well justified.
  That brings me back to the amendment I am offering. Again, the 
amendment is straightforward. Let me make it very clear to people what 
the amendment does not do. First of all, the amendment does not in any 
way restrict the ability of any candidate to run any ad they want. It 
does not put on broadcasters, radio or television broadcasters any 
obligation with regard to those ads, except to run the ads, obviously. 
That obligation is already there. The amendment does not affect ads 
sponsored by the candidate or the candidate's committee.
  Second, the amendment does nothing to restrict either the candidate 
or a party or an independent group from running any and all ads they 
want that are positive or that are contrast ads. On the chart, the 
green lines are contrast ads and the blue line is for ads that promote 
the candidate. We are in no way talking about those in this amendment. 
There is no requirement on broadcasters to take any action with regard 
to those. They can take those ads sponsored by anybody they want 
without incurring any obligation.
  In the case of an independent group or a party that wants to run 
attack ads, which they are free to do, there is no prohibition against 
running attack ads, if they want to run attack ads. The broadcasters 
who run those ads then have an obligation to provide the candidate who 
is attacked with an opportunity to respond. This is a level playing 
field kind of amendment. We are saying to broadcasters, if you want to 
accept these attack ads during these short periods of time, 30 days 
prior to a primary, 60 days prior to a general election, you are not 
required to, of course; there is no obligation under the Constitution 
or anything else that you accept ads from noncandidates; but if you 
want to accept these ads, fine, just provide an opportunity for the 
candidate who is attacked to respond.
  That is what the amendment does. I think it is a straightforward 
amendment. The reason I am offering it is because I believe it will 
help improve this bill in a very dramatic way.
  It will say to all candidates, whether they are challengers or 
whether they are incumbents in the office, that there will be an 
opportunity for them to respond when they are unfairly attacked.
  The Brennan Center report--let me quote from that report:

       Candidate ads are much more inclined than group sponsored 
     ads to promote candidates or to compare and contrast 
     candidates on issues. Conversely, issue ads that are 
     sponsored by groups tend to attack candidates and attempt to 
     denigrate their character. These ads tend to be very negative 
     in tone. They do not discuss substantive issues and 
     frequently they focus on personal histories of the candidate. 
     As election day nears, electioneering issue ads become 
     increasingly negative and personal in tone.

  That is what this graph demonstrates. That is why this red line goes 
up and up and up as you get closer to the election.
  I hope very much we can agree to this amendment. While McCain-
Feingold's legislation goes to the very heart of the issue that plagues 
us today, the soft money loophole that has allowed sham issue ads to 
proliferate, I believe outside groups will continue to run those ads 
and this brand of negative issue advocacy is, unfortunately, here to 
stay. In that environment, I believe it is essential we provide a way 
to hold outside groups accountable for the content of the ads they run 
by providing the opportunity for candidates who are the targets of the 
ads to respond no matter how poorly or how well their campaigns may be 
funded.
  That is what the amendment does. I commend it to the consideration of 
my colleagues. I think it will substantially improve the legislation 
before us. I hope it will be favorably voted on.
  Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and 
yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me thank our colleague from New Mexico 
for proposing this amendment. All of us here, and those who pay any 
attention at all to politics in this country and are confronted with 
this, as most Americans are, if you look at this chart by the Senator 
from New Mexico, particularly in that August, September, October period 
of an election year, it is hard not to be confronted with the assault--
that is the only way to describe this--of ads on television from one 
end of the country to the next, on every imaginable radio station, 
television station, now cable stations--this bombardment that occurs.
  What the Senator from New Mexico has graphically demonstrated with 
his chart is that the overwhelming majority of these ads are the so-
called attack ads. Usually, they are very vicious, designed to not 
promote one's ideas nor one's vision, one's agenda--if they are elected 
to Congress or the Senate or the Presidency or some other office--but 
merely to try to convince the rest of us why you ought to be against 
someone; not why you ought to be for me but why you ought to be against 
my opponent.
  The least enlightening part of a campaign is the proliferation of 
these ads. They do nothing, in my view, to contribute to the education, 
the awareness of the American people. We have seen an explosion of them 
over the past few years. I suspect this has probably been in the last 6 
or 7 years, with the explosion of soft money that the McCain-Feingold 
bill seeks to shut down.
  As I understand, we are not talking about ads where candidate X goes 
after candidate Y--an individual candidate making a case, although I 
have problems with that as well, but what the Senator from New Mexico 
is talking about are these issue-based ads where they get away with it 
by merely not putting in a line at the end--they don't say at the end 
``vote for,'' ``vote against,'' but that is hardly a necessary tag line 
after they have proceeded to just destroy your reputation and probably 
that of your families and your neighborhood, and any pets you may have 
as well.
  These are designed to be sort of nuclear bombs on people. We have all 
seen them. Some of them are almost laughable they are so bad, and I 
suspect the damage may be minimal because they are so bad. 
Unfortunately, many of them are very effective.
  The theory works, again, if I can get you to hurt my opponent or hurt 
someone whom I think may be inimicable to my special interest, you are 
more likely to vote for the person you know less about or nothing 
about. So this has become a standard diet to which the American public 
is subjected every late summer and fall of an election year.
  As I understand it, what the Senator from New Mexico attempts to do 
is address these issue-based ads, ads not from a specified opponent 
but, rather, from one of these amorphous organizations that, up to now, 
have had unlimited sources of revenue to come in and destroy a 
reputation without having any fingerprints. You can't find out who 
contributes the money; you can't find out where they come from; usually 
your opponent says I know nothing about them; in many cases the 
opponent will hold a press conference to disavow that ad and say I 
deplore that kind of advertising, while simultaneously winking and 
allowing this process to go forward, distorting the political process.
  The Senator from New Mexico makes a very valid point in his 
amendment. It

[[Page 5046]]

is something we are getting further and further away from, by the way. 
The airwaves in this country belong to the American public. We give 
people the privilege to utilize those air waves for the benefit of the 
American public. It is not a right; it is a privilege. It is a limited 
privilege, based on your sense of responsibility. That privilege or 
that license can be removed if you abuse it.
  There are numerous examples, almost on a daily basis, where that 
happens. What the Senator from New Mexico, as I understand it, is 
suggesting is that if, in your discretion as a radio station or 
television station, you decide to tolerate this kind of political 
advertising, knowing full well how damaging it can be, then we have the 
right to say to that station you must extend to that candidate an 
opportunity to respond to that kind of garbage.
  I think this has value. It will have the net effect of ending these 
issue-based ads that destroy people's reputations and destroy any sense 
of understanding of what that particular campaign may be about. To that 
extent, everyone is benefitted--not the candidate so much, in my view, 
but the voting public who may learn more about what people stand for, 
rather than what some issue group dislikes about a candidate.
  I am attracted to this amendment. I think it contributes to McCain-
Feingold. Obviously, there are questions that will be raised about 
constitutionality. My friend and colleague is a brilliant lawyer. He 
understands it well. He has crafted it about as tightly as you can to 
achieve the desired result. I think it is worthy of our support.
  I look forward at the time this comes up for a vote to support it. I 
urge my colleagues to do so as well. We are all sick and tired of this.
  I go back to the point I made earlier. We are seeing a declining 
level of participation too often in the political life of our country. 
How sad I think all of us are when we see that. There are a myriad of 
reasons for it, but one of the major reasons is this growing disgust 
people have over the low level of debate, the way campaigns are 
conducted. It is all done now on television and radio; most of it in 
negative ads, as this graph so graphically points out.
  We wonder why only one out of every two eligible adult Americans 
participated in the national elections of this past fall. Fifty percent 
of adult eligible Americans stayed home. I know some may have done so 
for legitimate personal reasons. I suspect a significant majority of 
those who stayed home did so because they are fed up. They are fed up 
with the process. They think it is out of control, and one of the 
strongest pieces of evidence of that is this: a deluge of negative ads 
that have swamped the airwaves of this country and have the net effect 
of depressing turnout of the vote and disgusting the American public.
  I think the Senator from New Mexico has offered a very constructive 
suggestion with this amendment, and I urge my colleagues on both sides 
of the aisles to be supportive of it.
  I see my friend from Arizona is still here.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from Kentucky, I 
yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I 
appreciate very much what the Senator from New Mexico is attempting to 
do. He has identified very eloquently an enormous problem that we have 
with these so-called attack ads which we don't know who paid for and 
which are clearly not identified. With passage of McCain-Feingold, I 
think we will make some progress in that area.
  I say that also as a person who supports free television time for 
candidates. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico that when a 
broadcast station obtains a license, they sign a piece of paper that 
says they will act in the public interest. I think that Americans 
believe free television time for candidates can be very helpful.
  But this amendment raises many troublesome issues that I, frankly, 
can't quite fathom.
  First of all, who would determine if an ad was indeed a negative ad? 
Is there going to be a censorship board? Is there going to be a group 
of Americans who say, OK, watch all of these ads and see which one is 
negative and which one is not? Is an ad that says: Call your Senator--
which I have seen many times--and ask him or her to save Social 
Security a negative ad or a positive ad?
  I don't know who makes this determination as to what is indeed a 
negative ad. Is it the argument of every candidate I have ever known 
that says that wasn't a negative ad; I was trying to inform the people 
of my district or State about the fact that my challenger is a baby 
killer?
  It is very difficult to define what a negative ad is. Suppose we had 
some organization that could determine that this is a negative ad. What 
if a broadcaster had already sold all their television time? It is the 
last week of the campaign. It is certainly not unusual that a 
broadcaster has sold all of their television time in the last 2 or 3 
weeks. Do they have to pull ads off the air and replace them with the 
ads that are mandated by this legislation? I am not sure how you do 
that either, especially in a Presidential election year. That is time 
already sold.
  So the night before the election or 3 days before the election, I 
say: Wait a minute. My opponent is running attack ads. Now you have to 
run three times that many on my behalf or against them. However, they 
say: I am sorry. We have sold all of our time.
  What is your option then? Suppose they had some television time. What 
is fair ad placement? Reruns of ``Gilligan's Island'' at 2 a.m. or is 
it the evening news? I don't know exactly. One station maybe has a 
higher rating than the other station. You are going to give me the 
local channel 365 versus the CBS, ABC, NBC, or FOX Network.
  This is very difficult to work out. I am a little surprised that the 
Senator from Connecticut didn't look at some of these problems.
  I want to repeat. I am for free television time for candidates. I 
detest the negative advertising. I think it is one of the worst things 
that has ever happened in American politics, that we have these 
unnamed, unknown groups calling themselves by some attractive name and 
buy millions of dollars of advertising, and they basically viciously 
attack their opponents.
  Who decides that?
  Many years ago, I reminded the Senator from Connecticut they had a 
board in Hollywood that used to make decisions as to what was 
acceptable and not acceptable. They had problems. I don't know who is 
going to be doing that.
  I want to work with the Senator from New Mexico. I think we have to 
do something about these negative ads. I tell you the best way is to 
dry up their money, and what you don't dry up fully disclose.
  I want to work with the Senator from New Mexico. I would like to sit 
down and see how we could work this out. But in its present form, I am 
just not sure how this amendment can possibly be workable.
  Finally, I want to say that we just had a major vote, as we all know. 
We have amendments that are still outstanding.
  I know Senator McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, will be back 
fairly soon. I understand they have a minimal number of amendments. I 
still think we can get done in a relatively short period of time.
  I hope all Senators who have amendments will come over so we can 
start putting these amendments in order and so we can get time 
agreements, and perhaps not just time agreements but agree to 
amendments that are satisfactory to both sides so we can wind up all of 
this.
  It is not that I am getting fatigued, but it is that we are sort of 
at a point now where we should bring this to a closure, and I hope we 
can do that.
  Reluctantly, at the appropriate time I will be moving to table the 
Bingaman amendment.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin.

[[Page 5047]]


  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Kentucky, I 
yield such time as the Senator from Wisconsin may consume.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Wisconsin is 
recognized.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Not only is this amendment well-intentioned, but it is offered by 
somebody who anyone in the Senate knows is not only one of the most 
decent but one of the best Members of this body.
  Since I have been here, no one has been easier to work with and 
kinder to me than the Senator from New Mexico. I really appreciate the 
time which he had for me and Senator McCain. He has been a totally 
stalwart supporter of reform every year, and has been there on every 
key vote in this debate. I thank him also for the amendment which we 
adopted that requires disclosure of Presidential inaugural funds. That 
is exactly the kind of thing we are trying to accomplish in this effort 
so the public can be fully informed of what is going on with all of 
these venues where large amounts of money can have a negative impact on 
some of our most sacred public traditions.
  That was an important addition to the bill and will result in more 
information being available to the public of who is giving large sums 
of money to the inaugural events.
  Reluctantly, I will oppose this amendment.
  The bill addresses a number of problems with our system which the 
Senator from Connecticut correctly pointed out must be addressed. It is 
a problem that deserves more study. I don't think this particular 
approach is one that I am quite ready to accept. I am willing to look 
at it some more.
  So I will be taking the same position as the Senator from Arizona, 
but with a willingness and desire to continue to work on this issue and 
this idea in the future.
  Again, I thank the Senator from New Mexico for all of his support.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was going to respond to some of the things 
the Senator said.
  Let me also in response to my good friend from Arizona say that there 
are a number of amendments that Members have that have been coming over 
with great regularity over the last 2 weeks. I have been sitting here 
for 2 straight weeks. We have had very few quorum calls. I have been 
asking the indulgence of my colleagues to postpone their offering of 
amendments over the past 2 weeks while we considered some of these 
other amendments, such as the ones that we most recently rejected 
dealing with severability. But these are serious amendments.
  Like any other issue, I suppose, depending upon whether it is your 
amendment or someone else's amendment, it becomes more serious or less 
serious.
  But I know my colleagues from Michigan, from Florida, and Illinois, 
also my colleague from Minnesota, among others, have some amendments, 
some of which will probably be agreed to. My hope is that certainly 
will be the case. But others may require a little debate. I apologize 
to them because I don't want them to think this is going to be a rush 
deal. If they want to be heard, they are going to be heard. I bear some 
responsibility for having told them to wait while we considered some of 
these other amendments.
  I promise you, I am not going to then ask you to somehow be on a fast 
track here when you want your amendment considered and debated 
adequately. My hope is you will be able to do it in less amounts of 
time than we have allocated for every amendment. You get 3 hours if you 
want it, unless you yield back time or the opponents do. We ought to 
try to move along if we can. I want you to know, I think your 
amendments are serious and they deserve to be heard, debated, and voted 
upon, if you so desire.
  I apologize for having asked you to wait for a week and a half and 
want you to know that you will have adequate consideration for your 
time.
  I turn to my colleague from New Mexico to respond to any of the 
unfair accusations that have been made about his stunning amendment.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I greatly appreciate the courtesy of all 
Members, particularly the Senator from Connecticut and his statement in 
support of this amendment.
  There were several questions raised. Let me be clear so there is no 
confusion about this. If an independent group or a party committee or 
anybody else wants to run an advertisement endorsing or supporting a 
candidate for office, this amendment does nothing to restrict that, 
prohibit it, impose obligations on broadcasters, or anything else. That 
is perfectly appropriate. If anybody wants to take an ad out for my 
opponent and run ads in favor of my opponent, they should be able to do 
that.
  If they want to run ads that contrast my opponent's position with my 
position, that would be these ads that are reflected by the green line 
on the chart, it is entirely appropriate, no obligation on the part of 
broadcasters. This amendment only deals with advertisements which 
attack or oppose a legally qualified candidate.
  The question has been raised by the Senator from Arizona, who will 
decide whether this is a negative ad, whether this is an ad that 
attacks or opposes a candidate for public office. My initial reaction 
is to refer to Justice Stewart's great comment when he was told that he 
could not define ``pornography.'' He said: I may not be able to define 
it, but I know it when I see it. Government can regulate pornography 
because of that. The American people know a negative television ad or a 
negative radio ad when they see it or hear it. The answer to who will 
decide initially, the person who will decide is the candidate who is 
being attacked or the candidate's campaign who is being attacked; they 
would detect an advertisement that is attacking them by a group as 
being run by a broadcasting station and they would presumably go to 
that broadcasting station and say, this is an advertisement that falls 
within the definition of this statute and we would like our time to 
respond. That is how it would work.
  We have been very specific about what kinds of ads they would be 
entitled to respond to, what kinds of ads they would reply to. The term 
``attacked'' or ``opposed'' means, with respect to a clearly identified 
candidate, first, A, any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous 
opposition to the candidate. So that is pretty easy to determine. You 
can listen to an advertisement on radio. You can see an advertisement 
on television and determine whether it is, in fact, an unmistakable and 
unambiguous statement in opposition to the candidate. Or, B, if it does 
not fall within that description, it would be any communication that 
contains a phrase such as ``vote against,'' ``defeat'' or ``reject'' or 
campaign slogan or words that when taken as a whole and with limited 
reference to external events, such as proximity to the election, can 
have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the defeat of one or 
more clearly identified candidates, regardless of whether or not the 
communication expressly advocates a vote against the candidate.
  If it could have no reasonable meaning other than to advocate the 
defeat of the candidate, then it is an advertisement that would entitle 
the candidate who is being attacked or being opposed the opportunity to 
respond. That is, we have given a tight definition. It would be up to 
the candidate or his campaign, first of all, to identify that such an 
ad is running, and then they would presumably go to the broadcast 
station and say: Look, this is what this advertisement is. I should get 
equal time to respond.
  Of course, the broadcast station at that point has to either say yes 
or no. If they say no, then of course it goes, as all other matters in 
our society, to some judge, presumably. If the candidate wants to push 
the issue, the judge will decide whether the candidate should have the 
right to respond on that station.
  A second objection that was raised is, what if the station in 
question has already sold all their time. If they have sold all their 
time, and some of it, of course, to the organization that is running 
the attack ads, they would have

[[Page 5048]]

to make room for the candidate to respond during the time period 
between then and the election on a basis that would be considered 
equal. He asked: What is fair in ad placement? And we have used general 
language here that the candidate would be entitled to respond for the 
same amount of time during the same period of the day and week as was 
used by the person who is doing the attack.
  I am sure there are details of this that will be debated and 
discussed, if this becomes law, as there always is in every piece of 
legislation we pass. It is pretty clear what we are talking about. We 
are talking about a limited time period, 30 days before a primary, 60 
days before a general election. We are talking about ads that involve 
attacking or opposing a candidate for Federal office, and we are 
providing a pretty precise definition of what ``attack'' or ``oppose'' 
means for purposes of this statute applying.
  I believe this would be an enforceable provision. It would be an 
understandable provision. I think it would add greatly to the quality 
of the campaigns that we run in this country. It would be fair to the 
candidates in the sense that they would have the opportunity to 
respond. That is all we are saying.
  In this country, we used to have a fairness doctrine. I know that has 
become something of a dead letter, but there used to be an obligation 
on the part of broadcasters to provide equal time for people to respond 
when there were particularly controversial positions taken and attacks. 
This is not a fairness doctrine, but this is the same basic concept.
  When a candidate has been qualified to run for Federal office, 
clearly that candidate is fair game for any attack that the candidate's 
opponent or opponents want to make. There is no obligation on any 
broadcaster who wants to take those ads by opponents of that candidate. 
But if the candidate is attacked or opposed by people who are not in 
the race, by organizations that are not part of the campaign, then that 
is where the candidate should, once again, be given a chance to 
respond.
  I believe it is a good amendment. I hope very much we can get a 
favorable vote on it. I know my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, 
had indicated earlier he might want to make some comments in reference 
to this amendment. I don't know if he is prepared to do that at this 
point or if I should yield back my time. I will withhold at this point 
and yield the floor so my colleague from Nevada can speak on the issue.
  Mr. REID. I say to the Senator from New Mexico, everything that I 
could have said, he said. Anything that I wanted to say, he has said, 
and has done it much better than I could have. Based upon that, I think 
we should vote.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Kentucky, I 
yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am in 
total sympathy of what the Senator's intent is. Let's go back into the 
language of his amendment:

       The term ``attack or oppose'' means, with respect to a 
     clearly identified candidate--
       (A) any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous 
     opposition to the candidate.

  Does that mean if I took out an ad and I say I am a better candidate 
than Mr. Smith and I am opposed to him, is that an attack ad? That is 
the first definition.

       Any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous opposition 
     to the candidate.

  If I am running and I am a better candidate and I oppose him, we are 
not going to be able to run an ad that says I oppose Senator Smith or 
Senator Bingaman.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. McCAIN. Yes.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. I just point out to the Senator that this legislation 
would not apply at all to any candidate who wanted to run an ad such as 
the Senator has proposed.
  Mr. McCAIN. Suppose it is the Sierra Club that says we oppose Senator 
McCain. That is an attack ad? They can't say that?
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, again, if the Senator will yield, they 
would certainly be able to run that ad. But if they say we oppose 
Senator McCain, then Senator McCain should have an opportunity to come 
on and say, ``I believe people should still vote for me'' in spite of 
the fact that the Sierra Club, or whoever, opposes him.
  Mr. McCAIN. So any organization in America that opposes me, no matter 
if it is in the mildest terms, and supports my opponent, therefore, I 
have the right to go get free television time. I don't quite understand 
that, frankly. I think what you are doing, probably--the effect would 
be, one, that the broadcast stations probably would not sell time 
because of the requirement to respond, which is, by the way, what 
happened in the fairness doctrine. What happened in the fairness 
doctrine, which was a good idea, was that broadcast stations decided 
not to air any controversial opinion because somebody was going to say, 
``I have another opinion and I have to have free time.'' That led to 
the demise of the fairness doctrine.
  If someone runs an ad and says, ``I oppose Senator McCain,'' I don't 
think that should necessarily trigger free television commercial time 
for me.
  Let me just continue, if I might. The Senator said this is not unlike 
the ability of the State to control pornography. The reason the Court 
decided that we had a right, as far as child pornography was concerned, 
is that it was a compelling State interest. I don't think you can make 
the same argument in respect to television time or attack ads.
  Part B says:

       Any communication that contains a phrase such as ``vote 
     against,'' ``defeat,'' or ``reject--

  Boy, we better get out the dictionary because there is a great deal 
of ambiguity of words. I have ``concerns'' about the candidacy of 
Senator Smith. Well, is that in opposition to? Words ``such as,'' I 
think, are hard. Again, I get back to my fundamental point. It says in 
the amendment:

       (Such as proximity to an election) can have no reasonable 
     meaning other than to advocate the defeat of one or more 
     clearly identified candidates.

  Who decides that? The Senator says you go to the station and get free 
time and, if not, you go to a judge. Now you are asking a judge to look 
at every commercial, or you are asking the broadcast station to look at 
every commercial and make some decision as to whether it is an attack 
ad or not. I will tell you if I were on the station, I would say never 
mind; why should I take a risk when I am not sure this ad is an attack 
ad or not.
  This is the problem we had when we have gone over and over and over 
this issue. How do you stop these attack ads without infringing on 
freedom of speech and not being so vague that it is very difficult to 
stand constitutional muster? The difference between Snowe-Jeffords and 
this amendment is that Snowe-Jeffords draws a very bright line and it 
says:

       Show the likeness or mention the name of a candidate.

  That is a very bright line. This is a campaign slogan or words that, 
when taken as a whole and with limited reference to external events, 
such as ``proximity to an election''--these words--I admit to the 
Senator from New Mexico, I am not a lawyer, but I have been involved so 
long and so engaged in these issues that words do have meaning, and 
this amendment is very vague.
  I am sure we can make a judgment on a lot of ads we have seen and the 
same ads the Senator and I find disgusting and distasteful and should 
be rejected. But at the same time, I don't know how we can say, OK, if 
this station doesn't run my ads, I am going to go to a judge and have 
the judge make them run my ads. It just is something that would be very 
difficult.
  I would love to work with the Senator from New Mexico. He has been a 
steadfast stalwart for campaign finance reform. I would love to work 
with him to try to achieve this goal. Frankly, after going around and 
around on this issue, identifying who paid for the ad, full disclosure 
and, frankly, not allowing corporations and

[[Page 5049]]

unions to contribute to paying for these things in the last 60, 90 
days, which is part of our legislation, is about the only 
constitutional way that we thought we could address the issue.
  I thank the Senator from New Mexico. He is addressing an issue that 
has demeaned and degraded all of us because people don't think very 
much of you when they see the kinds of attack ads that are broadcast on 
a routine basis.
  As the Senator pointed out, they are dramatically on the increase. I 
will tell you what. You cut off the soft money, you are going to see a 
lot less of that. Prohibit unions and corporations, and you will see a 
lot less of that. If you demand full disclosure for those who pay for 
those ads, you are going to see a lot less of that because people who 
can remain anonymous or organizations that can remain anonymous are 
obviously much more likely to be a lot looser with the facts than those 
whose names and identity have to be fully disclosed to the people once 
a certain level of investment is made.
  I thank the Senator and I regret having to oppose his amendment. I 
yield the floor.
  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Arizona for his 
comments. I understand the concerns he has raised. Let me make one 
thing very clear. Snowe-Jeffords is a prohibition against certain acts 
by certain groups. Now, that is a very different kettle of fish than 
what I am proposing.
  My amendment does not in any way prohibit anyone from running ads. 
All my amendment says is that if an independent group wants to run an 
ad that attacks or opposes a candidate, then the candidate is entitled 
to an opportunity to respond to the ad.
  That is a very different thing than saying, during certain periods of 
time, groups cannot run ads. So I think the constitutional problem that 
people have raised with regard to Snowe-Jeffords is much less of a 
concern than the kind of amendment that I have proposed.
  This amendment is designed to deal with a particular type of 
advertisement run by groups other than the candidate and the 
candidate's committee during certain periods of time. I think we have 
clearly defined what we are talking about. There are many 
advertisements that would not fall within the definition of attacking 
or opposing a candidate. Certainly, there is nothing here that would in 
any way obligate broadcasters, when they take those kinds of ads. But 
when they are running ads that do attack or oppose a candidate, then 
they would be under an obligation to provide an opportunity to respond. 
I think that is eminently fair, constitutional, and consistent with the 
general obligation that I believe broadcast stations ought to have to 
present both sides of an issue during a campaign when a candidate has 
become qualified for a Federal office. For that reason, I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, unless the Senator from Arizona has more 
time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, may I be recognized?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, again I thank the Senator from New Mexico. 
He has identified a very serious issue. I want to work with him on this 
issue. It is important because his graph dramatically illustrates the 
magnitude of the problem.
  The Senator from New Mexico is trying to address one of the most 
serious issues that affects American politics today and makes us much 
diminished in the eyes of our constituents and the people around the 
country.
  I really do applaud the Senator from New Mexico on this issue. At the 
appropriate time, I will move to table the amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, if I may have the attention of my colleague 
from Arizona, Senator McCain, we are in the process of hotlining the 
vote. If it is all right with my friend from Arizona, the vote on or in 
relation to the Bingaman amendment can begin at 5 of 6. A couple of 
people are having meals, and this will give them a chance to get 
online.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on or in relation to the 
Bingaman amendment commence at 5 of 6.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the amendment, to take 
place at 5:55 p.m.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, may we ask for the yeas and nays at this 
time? Is it an appropriate request?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. It is an appropriate request.
  Mr. DODD. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to table 
commencing at 5 of 6.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I wish to make a statement and engage 
in a colloquy with my colleague, Senator McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. May we ask unanimous consent to engage in a colloquy?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I spoke about this amendment last week 
that I had introduced to try to correct an inequity in the law we 
passed last year that required State and local candidates to file with 
the IRS as a 527 political organization. I think the purpose of this 
was not to affect State and local candidates who have no involvement in 
a Federal election. I think we did intend to include any PAC that might 
have an influence on a Federal election.
  I worked with Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and others who were 
interested in trying to fix this problem. But I did give the commitment 
that we would not allow the bill to be blue-slipped in the House 
because of this amendment. The fact is, we came to an agreement among 
all the parties who worked together on the Senate side that would 
correct the problem. Senator Lieberman, Senator McConnell, Senator 
Dodd, Senator McCain, and I, all agreed that the language would do the 
job, but I could not get the commitment from the Ways and Means 
Committee on the House side not to blue-slip the bill even though I 
think a blue slip was not warranted. I made the commitment on the floor 
I would not do anything to jeopardize the bill procedurally with a 
blue-slip question.
  This is my question to my colleague from Arizona. I will not pursue 
the amendment, but I think since everyone has agreed this needs to be 
fixed and we have the language to fix it, I ask the Senator from 
Arizona if he would agree to work with me to get this fixed in another 
bill.
  Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Texas, we established a 
$100,000 threshold so those who went above that would be disclosed; 
that is the outline of the agreement. Senator Lieberman agrees, I 
agree, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I would like to clarify that the $100,000 threshold 
is not on State and local candidate committees but on State and local 
PACs.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

[[Page 5050]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the motion to 
table the amendment of the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Bingaman. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 72, nays 28, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 60 Leg.]

                                YEAS--72

     Allard
     Allen
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--28

     Akaka
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Byrd
     Carper
     Clinton
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Durbin
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Mikulski
     Nelson (FL)
     Reed
     Reid
     Sarbanes
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
  The motion was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, a number of Senators are inquiring about how 
we will proceed for the balance of the evening and when we can expect 
to complete this bill, how long we will go tonight and also, of course, 
will it be necessary for us to go over until tomorrow and beyond.
  All along, the commitment and the understanding have been, I believe 
by all parties, that we would spend 2 legislative weeks on this issue 
and we would have a full debate and votes on amendments, and that we 
would bring to it a conclusion at about this time so we could be 
prepared to move on to other very critical national issues. I am not 
sure exactly how many amendments are still remaining.
  I know Senator Reid has been working to try to identify exactly what 
amendments remain and to move those by consent agreement or voice vote, 
where it was possible. I know Senator McConnell has been doing the same 
thing on our side, working with Senator Dodd.
  I think we are ready to complete action on this legislation. We have 
no more than four amendments on our side, and we think we could be 
prepared to work through those very quickly. I am not sure exactly what 
remains on the Democratic side, but I believe that the opponents and 
proponents are ready to vote. We have been through this. We have not 
moved toward a filibuster or cloture on either side. Although, in 
talking to Senator McCain a moment ago, he was saying that, if it were 
necessary, he hopes that I would file cloture on this bill. Can you 
believe those words came from his mouth? If I had to, of course, the 
cloture would ripen on Saturday. I don't think we should end this 
process that way.
  We do need to keep going. I know some Senators have commitments 
tonight they would like to go to. Some Senators have commitments they 
would like not to have to go to. I have heard--more of the latter, yes.
  So I would like to propose a unanimous consent request. I haven't 
precleared this with Senator Daschle. He looked over it. We talked 
about it. I am not exactly sure what his thinking is. I would be 
willing to consider other ideas if somebody has a good idea about how 
we can complete it. This is the fairest way.
  I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to S. 
27 be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and all other provisions of 
the consent agreement of February 6, 2001, remain in order.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I inquire of the managers, how do we wish to 
proceed? I yield to Senator Daschle.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I have not had a chance yet to consult 
with our colleagues. We have 10 remaining amendments on this side. I 
know Senator Specter has been waiting patiently to offer his amendment.
  Throughout the week, I have promised our colleagues that if they 
played by the rules and waited patiently for their opportunity to offer 
their amendments, we would accord them the same opportunity other 
Senators have had throughout the duration of this debate, as the 
majority leader indicated.
  This has been a very good debate. No one has talked about the need to 
file cloture. I hope we will not have any reason to do that in the 
future. I believe Senators ought to have an opportunity to have their 
amendments considered and have a vote. So until I have had the 
opportunity to consult more carefully with those colleagues who still 
have outstanding amendments, I have to object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, then, let me say to colleagues, we will 
continue on into the night. We will be having votes. If necessary, to 
have those votes in a reasonable period of time, we will move to table 
them. But we will continue as long as it takes to get this bill done.
  When we know more about what we could agree to, we will let you know. 
You should expect a vote within the next couple of hours.
  Mr. GRAHAM. If the majority leader will yield.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield.
  Mr. GRAHAM. For those who do want to make commitments, would it be 
possible to have a window of a couple of hours with assurance that we 
not vote within that window?
  Mr. LOTT. I think the majority of those who had talked to me were 
hoping we would not have a window. I think we need to keep our nose to 
the grindstone and try to complete this legislation. I am not saying it 
won't happen. I don't think we should make a commitment of a window. My 
wife will be waiting for me to come home and have supper. When we 
complete our work, I will go home and have supper with her. She may be 
hungry, but she waits.
  Mr. GRAHAM. That commitment is important above all.
  Mr. LEAHY. If the leader will yield, will it be safe to say that in 
the next hour or so those who show up on the floor with a tuxedo or 
evening dress are those who want to fulfill their commitments, and 
those who are not would like to keep voting?
  Mr. LOTT. Those who show up with a tuxedo, that will count as having 
fulfilled your commitment to the dinner because it would show intent to 
be there, but a higher calling prevented your presence. You might want 
to don your evening attire and come to the floor and wait for an 
opportunity to vote.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will change within the hour.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.


                     Amendment No. 140, As Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

       On page 7, line 24, strike ``and'', and insert the 
     following:
       ``or
       ``(iv) alternatively, if (iii) is held to be 
     constitutionally insufficient by itself to support the 
     regulation provided herein, which also is suggestive of no 
     plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or 
     against a specific candidate; and''
       On page 8, line 1, by striking ``(iv)'' and replacing with 
     ``(v)''.

[[Page 5051]]

       On page 15, line 19, strike ``election, convention or 
     caucus.'' and insert the following:

     ``election, convention, or caucus; or alternatively, if 
     subclauses (i) through (iii) of subsection (3)(A) are held to 
     be constitutionally insufficient to support the regulation 
     provided herein, which also
       ``(iv) promotes or supports a candidate for that office, or 
     attacks or opposes a candidate for that office (regardless of 
     whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or 
     against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no 
     plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or 
     against a specific candidate.''
       On page 2, after the matter preceding line 1, insert:

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) In the twenty-five years since the 1976 Supreme Court 
     decision in Buckley v. Valeo, the number and frequency of 
     advertisements increased dramatically which clearly advocate 
     for or against a specific candidate for Federal office 
     without magic words such as ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' 
     as prescribed in the Buckley decision.
       (2) The absence of the magic words from the Buckley 
     decision has allowed these advertisements to be viewed as 
     issue advertisements, despite their clear advocacy for or 
     against the election of a specific candidate for Federal 
     office.
       (3) By avoiding the use of such terms as ``vote for'' and 
     ``vote against,'' special interest groups promote their views 
     and issue positions in reference to particular elected 
     officials without triggering the disclosure and source 
     restrictions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
       (4) In 1996, an estimated $135 million was spent on such 
     issue advertisements; the estimate for 1998 ranged from $275-
     $340 million; and, for the 2000 election the estimate for 
     spending on such advertisements exceeded $340 million.
       (5) If left unchecked, the explosive growth in the number 
     and frequency of advertisements that are clearly intended to 
     influence the outcome of Federal elections yet are 
     masquerading as issue advocacy has the potential to undermine 
     the integrity of the electoral process.
       (6) The Supreme Court in Buckley reviewed the legislative 
     history and purpose of the Federal Election Campaign Act and 
     found that the authorized or requested standard of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act operated to treat all 
     expenditures placed in cooperation with or with the consent 
     of a candidate, an agent of the candidate, or an authorized 
     committee of the candidate as contributions subject to the 
     limitations set forth in the Act.
       (7) During the 1996 Presidential primary campaign, 
     candidates of both major parties spent millions of dollars in 
     excess of the overall Presidential primary spending limit 
     that applied to each of their campaigns, and in doing so, 
     used millions of dollars in soft money contributions that 
     could not legally be used directly to support a Presidential 
     campaign.
       (8) These candidates made these campaign expenditures 
     through their respective national political party committees, 
     using these party committees as conduits to run multi-million 
     dollar television ad campaigns to support their candidacies.
       (9) These television ad campaigns were in each case 
     prepared, directed, and controlled by the campaign committees 
     of these candidates.
       (10) The television ads by campaign committees forcefully 
     advocated the election of their candidate and the defeat of 
     their opponent and those television ads were suggestive of no 
     plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or 
     against a specific candidate; however, in the absence of a 
     specific statement to ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' those 
     television ads were deemed issued ads and not advocacy ads 
     under Buckley v. Valeo.
       (11) Television ads were coordinated between the candidate 
     committees and the relevant national party committees.
       (12) Agents of the candidate committees raised the money 
     used to pay for these so-called issue ads supporting their 
     respective candidacies.
       (13) These television advertising campaigns, run in the 
     guise of being national party issue ad campaigns, were in 
     fact Clinton and Dole ad campaigns, and accordingly should 
     have been subject to the contribution and spending limits 
     that apply to Presidential campaigns.
       (14) After reviewing spending in the 1996 Presidential 
     election campaign, auditors for the Federal Election 
     Commission recommended that both the 1996 candidate 
     committees repay millions of dollars because the national 
     political parties had closely coordinated their soft money 
     issue ads with the respective presidential candidates and, 
     accordingly, the expenditures would be counted against the 
     candidates' spending limits.
       (15) On December 10, 1998, in a 6-0 vote, the Federal 
     Election Commission rejected its auditors' recommendation 
     that either of these campaigns repay the money.
       (16) The pattern of close coordination between candidates' 
     campaign committees and national party committees continued 
     in the 2000 Presidential election.
       (17) The television ads by the 2000 presidential campaigns 
     forcefully advocated the election of their candidate and the 
     defeat of their opponent and those television ads were 
     suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation 
     to vote for or against a specific candidate; however, in the 
     absence of a specific statement to ``vote for'' or ``vote 
     against,'' those television ads were deemed issue
       ads and not advocacy ads under Buckley v. Valeo.
       (18) Television ads in the 2000 presidential election were 
     coordinated between the candidate committees and the relevant 
     national party committees.
       (19) On January 21, 2000, the Supreme Court in Nixon v. 
     Shrink Missouri Government PAC noted, ``In speaking of 
     `improper influence' and `opportunities for abuse' in 
     addition to `quid pro quo arrangements,' we recognized a 
     concern to the broader threat from politicians too compliant 
     with the wishes of large contributors.''
       (20) The details of corruption and the public perception of 
     the appearance of corruption have been documented in a flood 
     of books, newspapers and public documents.

  Mr. McCONNELL. It is my understanding that the Senator from 
Pennsylvania believes he might be able to wrap up his remarks in 15 
minutes or so?
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, it is my hope to be able to do it within 
a brief period of time--perhaps as little as 15 minutes, in that range.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, seeks to 
accomplish two objectives. One objective is to set forth findings to 
provide a factual basis to uphold the constitutionality of the statute, 
and the second objective is to insert a definition so that the bill 
will survive constitutional challenge under the Buckley v. Valeo 
decision, which has language that required specifically saying ``vote 
for,'' ``support,'' with ads being deemed to be issue advertisements 
where the obvious intent is to extol the virtues of one candidate and 
to comment extensively on the deficiencies of another candidate; and 
notwithstanding the clear purpose of these ads in the 1996 Presidential 
election and the Presidential election of 2000, those ads were deemed 
to be issue ads and, therefore, could be paid for with soft money.
  The bill as presently written endeavors to provide a bright-line test 
with the provision of identifying a specific candidate. The reason I am 
able to abbreviate the argument this evening, or the contentions this 
evening, is that we had about 2 hours of debate last Thursday.
  The critical language in the bill is the reference to a clearly 
identified candidate for Federal office. Now this may or may not be a 
sufficiently bright line to satisfy the requirements of Buckley v. 
Valeo, or in fact it may not be because it does not deal with the kind 
of specific urging of a candidate to ``vote for'' or ``support,'' which 
Buckley has talked about.
  In Buckley, in a very lengthy opinion, the Supreme Court of the 
United States said that in order to avoid the constitutional challenge 
for vagueness, those specific words of support--``vote for'' or ``vote 
against''--had to be used in order to avoid the vagueness standard of 
the due process clause of the fifth amendment.
  What this amendment seeks to do is to provide an alternative test, 
which is derived from the decision of the court of appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit in the Furgatch case, and this definition is really 
Furgatch streamlined. The original amendment that was offered provided 
that the context of the advertisement was ``unmistakable, unambiguous, 
and suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to 
vote for or against a specific candidate.''
  In our debate last Thursday, there were arguments made that the 
language of ``unmistakable'' and ``unambiguous'' left latitude for a 
challenge.
  In the amendment which has been modified, it is deemed to be 
sufficient to have the language be ``suggestive of no plausible meaning 
other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific 
candidate.''
  This really sharpens up Furgatch, really streamlines Furgatch in 
order to pass constitutional muster.
  The findings which have been set forth in the modified amendment seek 
to characterize events which have occurred in the intervening 25 years 
since

[[Page 5052]]

the decision of Buckley v. Valeo, reciting how much money has been 
paid, the very heavy impact of funding, the ads really, in effect, 
urging the election of one candidate and the defeat of another so that, 
by any logical definition, they would be deemed advocacy ads and not 
issue ads, but they do not meet the magic words test of Buckley v. 
Valeo.
  The expanded test of having ``no plausible meaning other than an 
exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate'' would make it 
plain that the kinds of ads which have been viewed as being issue ads 
are really advocacy ads.
  We had an extended debate last Thursday about the impact of this 
language on the balance of what is in the bill at the present time on a 
clearly identified candidate. This modified amendment has been very 
carefully crafted to meet the concerns that if the Supreme Court of the 
United States determines that the language in the underlying bill is 
sufficient, and the language added in this modified amendment is 
insufficient, that one or the other will be stricken so that there is a 
severability clause within this amendment as modified.
  We have already legislated, we have already adopted an amendment to 
provide for severability. So it may be this is surplusage or it may be 
that it is necessary, but it does not do any harm to have this 
language.
  I believe that most, if not all, of the objections which were raised 
last Thursday have been satisfied in this modified amendment. I urge my 
colleagues to adopt it.
  I am not yet asking for the yeas and nays to see if the arguments 
which may be presented here are suggestive of some further modification 
which would require consent after asking for the yeas and nays, but it 
is my intention, as I have notified the managers, to seek a rollcall 
vote. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if I can be yielded 5 minutes, 
2\1/2\ minutes from either side, because I am not sure if I am for or 
against it because I don't have a copy of the final product. May I ask 
the Senator to yield me 2\1/2\ minutes from his side?
  Mr. SPECTER. I do.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes from our side. We are trying 
to determine which version of the amendment is pending. I ask the 
Senator from Pennsylvania, are the references in the findings to--we 
now have a modified amendment. Are there any references to the specific 
candidates in the 1996 Presidential campaign left in here?
  Mr. President, I wonder if I can have the attention perhaps of all of 
my colleagues on this question. It may be a question in which we are 
all interested. It relates to the findings. For instance, one of the 
findings here says that both the Clinton and Dole ad campaigns should 
have been subject to the limits, implying that, in fact, they had 
somehow or other violated the limits of the campaign despite the 6-0 
vote of the Federal Election Commission which rejected the 
recommendation that either of the campaigns repay the money.
  I happen to agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania on the thrust of 
his amendment, by the way, because I have always liked the Furgatch 
test myself. I cannot speak for the floor manager on this side. I do 
not know where he is. But I do think these findings should be reviewed 
because I do not think we want to reach any conclusion that any of the 
expenditures of the Presidential campaigns violated that law in 1996.
  The problem was the law was so full of loopholes and we need to close 
those loopholes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from Michigan perhaps call for a quorum 
call for 5 minutes to see if we cannot sort this out. I thought we had 
an agreement, but perhaps we do not.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to 
speak as if in morning business for about 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mrs. Lincoln are located in today's Record under 
``Morning Business.'')
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allen). The clerk will please call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded and that I be allowed to speak 
briefly as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (The remarks of Mr. Smith of Oregon are located in today's Record 
under ``Morning Business.'')
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and yield the 
floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I thank the Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.


                 Amendment No. 140, As Further Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send to the desk a further modification 
of amendment No. 140.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the modification?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment as further modified, is as follows:

       On page 7, line 24, strike ``and'', and insert the 
     following:
       ``or
       ``(iv) alternatively, if subclauses (i) through (iii) are 
     held to be constitutionally insufficient by final judicial 
     decision to support the regulation provided herein, which is 
     also in the aggregate found to be suggestive of no plausible 
     meaning other than an extortion to vote for or against a 
     specific candidate; and''.
       On page 8, line 1, by striking ``(iv)'' and replacing with 
     ``(v)''.
       On page 15, line 19, strike lines 3 through 19 and insert 
     the following:
       ``(A)(i) In general.--The term `electioneering 
     communication means any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication which--
       ``(I) refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
     office;
       ``(II) is made within--
       ``(a) 60 days before a general, special, or runoff election 
     for such Federal office: or
       ``(b) 30 days before a primary or preference election, or a 
     convention or caucus of a political party that has authority 
     to nominate a candidate for such Federal office: and
       ``(III) is made to an audience that includes members of the 
     electorate for such election, convention, or caucus.
       ``(ii) If subclause (i) of subsection (3)(A) is held to be 
     constitutionally insufficient by final judicial decision to 
     support the regulation provided herein, then the term 
     `electioneering communication' means any broadcast, cable, or 
     satellite communication which promotes or supports a 
     candidate for that office, or attacks or opposes a candidate 
     for that office (regardless of whether the communication 
     expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and 
     which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than 
     an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate.''
       Further, nothing in the subsection shall be construed to 
     affect the interpretation or application of 11 CFR 100.22(b).

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the further modification has been made to 
satisfy some concerns about drafting. I believe the language had been 
definitive, but it was faster to make some changes than it was to 
debate that proposition. And where we are now--if I may have the 
attention of the Senator from Michigan--where we are now is to satisfy 
all the parties that what we are accomplishing on this amendment is 
that if the Snowe-Jeffords test is held to be unconstitutional by a 
final judicial decision, then the modified Furgatch test will be 
applied to define an advocacy advertisement which will satisfy Buckley 
v. Valeo that the advertisement ``is suggestive of no plausible meaning 
other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific 
candidate.''
  The additional sentence has been made: ``Further, nothing in this 
subsection shall be construed to affect the interpretation or 
application of 11 CFR, 100.22(b),'' which is the current FEC regulation 
on an electioneering communication which follows Furgatch.

[[Page 5053]]

  Then the further modified amendment strikes the findings, and they 
will be supplemented at a later time because to call through and 
satisfy all the parties as to the findings would take longer than we 
can accomplish it simply by full striking, which this further 
modification does.
  I believe at this juncture that we have satisfied all the concerns of 
the varieties of cooks who have been added to the stew.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRAMM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time to the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. GRAMM. I ask the Senator from Kentucky to yield me 20 minutes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from 
Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, we are in the process of rapidly completing 
this bill. I would not have come over to speak, except that it was 
clear to me that, for the moment, nothing was happening. I have not yet 
spoken on it. And while I think it is clear what the outcome will be, I 
at least want to go on record on this issue.
  Free speech in America is a very funny thing. If a person goes out 
and burns the American flag and they say they are exercising free 
speech or they dance naked in a nightclub and say that that was 
personal expression, a league of defenders springs up in America to 
defend the first amendment of the Constitution. Yet when someone 
proposes that we preserve free speech about the election of our 
Government and the election of the men and women who serve the greatest 
country in the history of the world, when such a motion is made, it 
dies from a lack of a second.
  It is astounding to me that free speech in America has come to 
protect flag burning and nude dancing but yet the greatest deliberative 
body in the history of the world feels perfectly comfortable in denying 
the ability of free men and women to put up their time and their talent 
and their money to support the candidates of their choice.
  I can't help but say a little something about the protagonists in 
this debate. I would like to begin by saying of my dear friend Senator 
McCain, with whom I profoundly differ on this issue, I have the highest 
respect for him. In fact, he has reminded me in this debate of an 
ancient god, Antaeus, whose mother was the earth, and every time he was 
thrown to the ground, he became stronger than he had been when he was 
cast down.
  Having said that, having admired his diligence and his determination, 
I would say that seldom has a more noble effort been made on behalf of 
a poorer cause in the history of the U.S. Senate.
  I would like to say of our colleague from Kentucky that he has again 
won our admiration and our respect. He has been vilified in every media 
outlet in the Nation. Yet his sin is to stand up and defend freedom.
  You ask yourself: Why do people want to influence the Government? Why 
do people want to influence the Government of the United States of 
America? It seems to me there are really two reasons: One, they have 
strong feelings about something. They love their country. They have 
strong passions and they want to express them. And who would want to 
prevent them from expressing themselves? I say nobody should.
  The second reason they want to influence the Government is that the 
Government spends $2 trillion a year, most of it on a noncompetitive 
basis. The Government sets the price of milk. The Government grants 
numerous favors. If we were serious about campaign reform, we would try 
to change the things that lead people to want to influence the 
Government for their advantage, and we would want to leave in place a 
system where people could express their love and their passions. Yet 
there is no proposal here to end the Government setting the price of 
milk. There is no proposal here that would have competitive bidding on 
contracts. Instead, we single out one source of influence, and that 
source of influence is money. Our problem is not bad money corrupting 
good men, our problem is bad men corrupting good money.
  When I listen to my colleagues talk about this corrupting influence, 
let me say they apparently have lived a different political life than I 
have lived. I have never in my 22 years in public office and in the 2 
years prior to that, when I ran unsuccessfully for the Senate and lost, 
had anyone come up to me and say: If you will vote the way I want you 
to vote, I will contribute to your campaign. I am proud that 84,000 
people contribute to my campaign, and I believe they contribute to me 
because they believe in the things I believe in. I am proud to have 
their support. I don't apologize for it.
  Remember this, and this is what is lost in this whole debate: This is 
an Alice in Wonderland debate where black is white and wrong is right. 
It is a debate that ignores the fundamental nature of the American 
political system. Government has power and people want to influence it. 
If we limit the power of people to spend their money, we strengthen the 
power of people who exert influence in other ways. We don't reduce 
power. We don't reduce whatever corruptive influence may exist among 
the people who want to influence government. We simply take power away 
from some people and, by the very nature of the system, we give it to 
somebody else.
  Why should the New York Times have more to say in my election than 
the New York Stock Exchange? Is the New York Times not a for-profit 
company? Why should they have the right to run editorials and write 
front-page articles that can have a profound impact on your election, 
and they are a for-profit corporation, publicly traded, and yet we say 
in this bill, they, but not others, have freedom of speech? They can 
say whatever they want to say. But yet the New York Stock Exchange is 
denied the same freedom. How can that be rational? How can that be 
just?
  Who says that freedom of speech should belong only to people who own 
radio stations and television stations and newspapers? I reject it.
  What makes this debate an Alice in Wonderland debate is that the 
people who support this bill are the very people who will benefit from 
taking the American people out of the debate by limiting the ability of 
people to put up their time and their talent and their money.
  The very groups, the so-called public interest groups, the media, the 
very people who preach endlessly about this issue and about this bill 
being in the public interest, they are the very people who win an 
enhancement of their political power from this bill. What we are 
hearing identified as public interest is greedy, selfish, special 
interest. The amazing thing is that the voice of freedom and the right 
of people to be heard is not represented to any substantial degree on 
the floor of the Senate.
  If I should believe, as a free person, that the Senator from Virginia 
is the new Thomas Jefferson and I believe the future of my children 
will be affected by his political success, don't I have the right to 
sell my house, to sell my car and to use that money to help him be 
elected? Why shouldn't I have that right? Who has the right to take 
that away from me? No one has the right to take it away from me. But 
this bill does take it away from me.
  This distinction between soft money and hard money is a fraud. What 
we are seeing here is an effort to collect political power and to 
concentrate it. Our Founders understood special interests. The Senator 
from Arizona and the Senator from Wisconsin are not the first people in 
the history of this country who have ever been concerned about special 
interests. James Madison understood special interests. He understood 
that the way you deal with them is to allow many special interests to 
be created and have them compete against each other.
  The editorial proponents of this bill see it as somehow corrupting 
when somebody contributes money to my campaign. But I wonder if really 
they support the bill because they know that the contributors of such 
money, with that participation and interest, offset the influence of 
their editorials and their political power. Why should

[[Page 5054]]

some people have freedom and not others? That is the profound issue 
that is being debated here.
  I suspect this bill is going to pass, but this is not a bright hour 
in American history, in my opinion. The amazing thing--I never cease to 
be amazed by our system--is there is no constituency for this bill.
  This is a total fabrication. The constituency for this bill is a 
group of special interests who cloak themselves as public interest 
advocates and it is they who will have their power enhanced by limiting 
the ability of people to put up their time, talent, and money in 
support of candidates. The so-called public interest promotion of the 
bill in editorials across America is coming from the very people who 
will become more powerful if this bill is adopted.
  So what we have is an incredible example, cloaked in great self-
righteousness, of special interest triumphing over public interest 
through the power of the same groups that will have their power 
enhanced if this bill is adopted.
  If editorialists in America, if Common Cause, and all these similar 
groups, can induce the Congress to limit freedom of speech to enhance 
their power, what strength will those who oppose their views have when 
freedom of speech has been, in fact, limited? I think that is something 
that should give us all pause, though I have no doubt there will be no 
pause tonight.
  It is as if we look at the Constitution and we say that what is at 
stake is either protection of the first amendment of the Constitution, 
or whether we are going to get a good editorial in tomorrow morning's 
newspaper, and the judgement is made that tomorrow morning's newspaper 
is much more important than the first amendment of the Constitution.
  Let me conclude by quoting, because I never think it hurts to read 
from the greatest document in history, other than the Bible--the 
Constitution. Let me read amendment No. 1 of the Constitution, and I 
will read the relevant points:

       Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

  If I believe the Senator from Virginia is the next Thomas Jefferson 
and I want to sell my house to support his candidacy, who has the right 
under the Constitution to deny me that right? No one has that right. 
Yet we are about to vote on the floor of the Senate to keep me from 
doing that.
  The Constitution says that:

       The right of the people peaceably to assemble and to 
     petition the government for a redress of grievances shall not 
     be abridged.

  If I am not permitted to spend my money to present my grievances to 
my Government, how am I going to be heard? In modern society, the 
ability to communicate depends on the ability to have funds to amplify 
your voice so it can be heard in a nation of 285 million people.
  If I don't have the right to use my time and my talent and my money 
to enhance my voice, how can I be heard? Well, what the advocates of 
this bill are really saying is we don't want you to be heard because we 
might not like what you have to say.
  We have a bill before us that says you can't run ads. If I wanted to 
run ads supporting you, or give you money to spend, I can't do it. We 
are all unhappy that these special interest groups run ads. It hurts my 
feelings. When people tell my mama that I am this terrible, bad person, 
that I have sold out to the special interests, my mama asks me, ``Why 
can they say that?'' How can they say it? You know why they can say it? 
Because they have the right to say it because of the first amendment of 
the Constitution. It is not true, but it doesn't have to be true.
  It amazes me--and I will conclude on this remark--I hear colleagues 
talk about corruption, corruption, corruption. I wonder if people back 
home know that there has never been a Congress in American history less 
corrupt than this Congress. I don't agree with many of the people in 
this body, but I don't believe there is a person in this body who is 
dishonest.
  I can only speak for myself, but I have never, ever felt compromised 
because somebody supported me. I have felt honored, I have felt 
grateful, but I have always believed they supported me because of what 
I believed. In fact, on many occasions, when people have supported me--
the AMA is a perfect example. When I was a young man running for 
Congress, the American Medical Association supported me and just 
thought I was wonderful. Now they don't like me. What changed? They 
changed; I didn't change. I have always been for freedom. When I stood 
right at this desk and helped lead the effort to kill the Clinton 
health care bill, I did it because I believed in freedom, and they 
loved it. Now that they want to kill HMOs, they don't think so much of 
freedom anymore.
  But I didn't feel corrupted by them giving me money. They supported 
me because of what I believed in. When they didn't believe it anymore, 
they changed; I didn't change. So I don't know what is in the hearts of 
those who feel this corruption. I do not feel it. I think corruption, 
as it is portrayed in the media, has increasingly become a codeword for 
anybody who can speak for themselves and, therefore, doesn't have to be 
too concerned about the commentary of some special interest group or 
the media.
  I love the Dallas Morning News, especially when they write good 
things about me. When they endorse me and support me, I like it. But I 
have 84,000 contributors. The newspaper can go ahead and say whatever 
they want to say about me because my contributors and supporters have 
ensured that I will get to respond and tell my side of the story.


  What this bill is going to do, and the terrible effect of it if it 
does become law, is that it is going to limit the ability of people to 
tell their side of the story. I think that is fundamentally wrong. I 
still do not understand how someone can burn a flag, and that is 
freedom of speech; someone can dance naked in a night club, and that is 
freedom of public expression; but if I want to sell my house and 
support somebody that I believe in with all my heart, that is 
fundamentally wrong; that is corrupt.
  I believe there is salvation. I believe we are going to get salvation 
from this bill. I think the salvation is going to come from this 
ancient document, our Constitution, because I believe this bill is 
going to be struck down by the courts, and that is ultimately going to 
be our salvation.
  I want to say to my dear colleague from Kentucky that I admire him, 
and I want to thank him for the great sacrifice he has made to stand up 
on behalf of freedom, when very few people are offering compliments, 
and very few pundits are applauding. I am one person who is applauding, 
and I will never, ever forget what you have done. It may not be in an 
editorial, but it will be enshrined in my heart.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from Texas 
how much I appreciate what he had to say. There is no question that he 
gets it. It is all about the first amendment. It is all about the first 
amendment and the rights of Americans to have their say.
  This bill, as the Senator from Texas pointed out, is simply trying to 
pick winners and losers. It takes the parties and it crushes them. And 
the irony of it all is there will be way more money spent in the next 
election than there was in the last one. It just won't be spent by the 
parties.
  So we have taken resources away from the parties, which will be spent 
otherwise because of all of these other efforts, as the Senator from 
Texas pointed out. And I assure him I will be in court. I will be the 
plaintiff, and we will win if we have to go to court. Efforts to 
restrict the voices of outside groups will be struck down.
  I hope we will be able to save the ability of parties to engage in 
speech that isn't federally regulated, which is what soft money is. It 
is everything that isn't hard money. I thank the Senator from Texas for 
always being there on so many issues, and especially for the kind 
things he said tonight about this struggle. It isn't a lot of fun being 
the national pinata. But there are some rewards.

[[Page 5055]]

  I say to my friend from Texas my reward is that I really could not 
think of a group of enemies I would rather have than the ones I have 
made in this debate. I can't think of a single set of friends I would 
rather be associated with than people such as the Senator from Texas, 
who understand what freedom is all about and understand what this 
debate is all about.
  I say to my colleague, we may lose tonight, but we will ultimately 
win this no matter how long it takes; we will win it. I thank him so 
much for being there when it counts.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Nelson 
from Florida be allowed to proceed to offer his amendment, 5 minutes 
equally divided, and then there be a voice vote on that amendment, and 
that we lay aside the Specter amendment in order to permit that to 
happen; then we immediately vote on the Specter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Florida is recognized.


                           Amendment No. 159

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Nelson] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 159.

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

        (Purpose: To prohibit fraudulent solicitation of funds)

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

     SEC. __. PROHIBITION ON FRAUDULENT SOLICITATION OF FUNDS.

       Section 322 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441h) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a) In General.--'' before ``No 
     person'';
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) Fraudulent Solicitation of Funds.--No person shall--
       ``(1) fraudulently misrepresent the person as speaking, 
     writing, or otherwise acting for or on behalf of any 
     candidate or political party or employee or agent thereof for 
     the purpose of soliciting contributions or donations; or
       ``(2) willfully and knowingly participate in or conspire to 
     participate in any plan, scheme, or design to violate 
     paragraph (1).''.

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, the Federal Election Commission 
reports receiving a number of complaints that people have fraudulently 
raised donations by posing as political committees or candidates and 
that the current law does not allow the Commission to pursue such 
cases.
  For example, one newspaper reported that after last November's 
Presidential election, both Democrats and Republicans were victims in a 
scam in which phony fundraising letters began popping up in mailboxes 
in Washington, Connecticut, Michigan, and elsewhere. Those letters 
urged $1,000 contributions to seemingly prestigious Pennsylvania Avenue 
addresses on behalf of lawyers purportedly for both George W. Bush and 
Al Gore. About the same time, thousands of similar letters offering 
coffee mugs for contributions of between $1,000 and $5,000 were sent to 
Democratic donors from New York to San Francisco.
  Clearly, one can see the potential for harm to citizens who are 
targeted in such fraudulent schemes. Unfortunately, the Federal 
Election Campaign Act does not grant specific authority to the Federal 
Election Commission to investigate this type of activity, nor does it 
specifically prohibit persons from fraudulently soliciting 
contributions.
  The FEC has asked Congress to remedy this, and the amendment I offer 
today is in response to this request. This amendment makes it illegal 
to fraudulently misrepresent any candidate or political party or party 
employee in soliciting contributions or donations.
  I thank my Senate colleagues for their consideration of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this is a very important amendment. It is 
going to protect our citizens from fraudulent solicitation of their 
funds. It will give the Federal Election Commission the tools it needs 
to address these fraudulent acts which take advantage of our citizens. 
It implements an important recommendation of the Federal Election 
Commission. I hope our colleagues will all support this amendment.
  I also congratulate the Senator from Florida. I believe this may be 
his first amendment. It is a very important amendment. He has made an 
important contribution to this Senate in many ways already. It is 
important for all of us to recognize the first amendment of the Senator 
from Florida that is being accepted, hopefully, tonight, and I 
congratulate him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
159.
  The amendment (No. 159) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


             Vote on Amendment No. 140, As Further Modified

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 140, as further 
modified. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Ohio (Mr. Voinovich) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 82, nays 17, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 61 Leg.]

                                YEAS--82

     Akaka
     Allard
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Corzine
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     Dayton
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Ensign
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--17

     Allen
     Brownback
     Bunning
     DeWine
     Enzi
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Kyl
     McConnell
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Smith (NH)
     Thomas

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Voinovich
       
  The amendment (No. 140), as further modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, 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.


                          Statement of Intent

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I concur with the statement of supporters 
of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001, with respect to the 
discussion of the intent of the Specter amendment.


                      Unanimous Consent Agreement

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I know Senators are interested in how we 
proceed for the remainder of tonight and tomorrow. I believe we have 
come up with the best possible arrangement of how we can complete 
action on this bill and be prepared to move on to other legislation.
  Senator Daschle and I have talked about it and have talked to the 
managers and the proponents of the legislation. I think everybody is 
satisfied that

[[Page 5056]]

this is a fair way to bring this to a conclusion.
  I ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments in order to S. 
27 be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and that all provisions of 
the consent agreement of February 6, 2001, remain in order, except for 
this change:
  I further ask unanimous consent that all remaining amendments must be 
offered either tonight or between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. tomorrow and that 
any votes ordered with respect to those amendments occur in a stacked 
sequence beginning at 11 a.m. on Friday, with 2 minutes prior to each 
vote for explanation.
  I further ask unanimous consent that following the stacked votes the 
bill be immediately read for the third time and passage occur at 5:30 
p.m. on Monday, all without intervening action or debate, and that 
paragraph 4 of rule XII be waived.
  Also, it has been suggested that we include in this consent, if 
necessary, a technical amendment that is agreed to by both managers may 
be in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I just covered this with the manager. I want 
to make sure Senator Daschle is aware. A technical amendment may not be 
necessary. But we want to make sure, if there is a need for a technical 
amendment, that there be a way to deal with that but that a technical 
amendment would have to be identified and agreed to tomorrow along with 
other amendments before we complete action.
  The problem is, if we wait until Monday, there is a lot of 
opportunity for mischief to develop.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it is 
suggested that perhaps having a weekend for the staff to go through 
whatever screening or final review may be helpful. Obviously, I think 
both managers would have to agree to any technical amendments. So there 
is that assurance. But this would give the weekend to the staff to 
assure that if there is any inadvertent mistake, it be caught prior to 
the time we vote on final passage on Monday.
  I also note that it was suggested we may want to include in this 
unanimous consent agreement any second-degree amendments. I don't think 
that will be necessary because I don't anticipate second-degree 
amendments.
  Mr. LOTT. Wouldn't that be in order under the earlier agreement? I 
think that would be covered by the underlying unanimous consent 
agreement because other than what is specified here----
  Mr. DASCHLE. As long as we make it clear it includes amendments in 
the second degree.
  Mr. DODD. The Democratic leader said it well. Any technical 
amendments would have to be amendments agreed to by both managers. So 
that the idea of something coming up late--I make it plural because the 
staff is apt to encounter more than one. Any technical amendments would 
have to have the concurrence of both managers.
  Mr. LOTT. I can understand how the managers might want to obviously 
have that opportunity. But also we want to have a chance to review it. 
I also see how maybe the Senator from Arizona would want to be included 
in reviewing that.
  But, again, there is no intent on anybody's part to try to snucker 
anybody. I think the way I worded it, where both managers have to agree 
to it, takes care of the problem. I can understand how the managers 
would prefer not being dragged around by our very capable staff for 2 
or 3 hours on Monday, arguing over a technical amendment. However, I 
think this does give us a way to correct legitimate problems.
  I say to Senator McConnell, do you want to comment on this?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Is the leader then confirming no technical amendments 
could be offered after tomorrow without the consent of both managers?
  Mr. LOTT. Absolutely.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the leader yield further?
  Mr. LOTT. Certainly, I yield to Senator Nickles.
  Mr. NICKLES. One of the remaining issues is--some people would call 
it technical, but I think it is major, and that deals with 
coordination. A lot of us recognize that the underlying bill needs some 
improvement on coordination or else we are going to have a lot of 
people who are going to be crooks who want to participate in the 
political process. And they should have the opportunity to participate. 
I have been trying to get language, and I have not seen it. But that is 
not insignificant and not technical; that is a major concern.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe that would have to be one of the regular 
amendments, not a technical amendment.
  Mr. DODD. Yes. That will be up tonight.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will it be possible for us to see language tonight?
  Mr. DODD. Probably not.
  No. We will get you some.
  Mr. LOTT. Senator McCain.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank both leaders for their cooperation on this. I am 
confident after tomorrow, if there are technical amendments, they will 
only be allowed if we are in agreement.
  On the issue of coordination, we are ready to consider amendments and 
votes on that issue.
  Mr. LOTT. I say to Senator Wellstone, did you get wet?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I did.
  Mr. LOTT. I mean that literally now, not figuratively. I saw you 
drenched.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Because of you, I tried to run all the way up to 
Connecticut Avenue, and I got wet on the way.
  I want to ask the majority leader--I am sorry; Mike Epstein, who used 
to work with me, is no longer here or I would have asked him this--but 
on technical amendments, is the definition of that that there would not 
be an up-or-down vote automatically?
  Mr. LOTT. After the vote tomorrow on the sequence of amendments, 
there would not be a vote on the technical amendment. It would have to 
be agreed to. So it would be handled in that way.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I think I would object to a technical amendment unless 
there is an understanding to this effect: If this affected the work of 
any one Senator, that we would be consulted before an agreement.
  Mr. DODD. Yes, we would provide that.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Is that implicit?
  Mr. LOTT. That is implicit. Also, it would certainly be the proper 
way to proceed.
  Are we ready to get this consent?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank all Senators. I urge those of you who have 
amendments, stay and do them tonight, because the 2 hours tomorrow will 
go very fast. And if you are ready, I hope you will be prepared to 
offer your amendment tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, we have an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 160

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator 
Kerry, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. DODD], for Mr. Kerry, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 160.

  Mr. DODD. 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 provide a study of the effects of State laws that provide 
                     public financing of elections)

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

     SEC. 305. STUDY AND REPORT ON CLEAN MONEY CLEAN ELECTIONS 
                   LAWS.

       (a) Clean Money Clean Elections Defined.--In this section, 
     the term ``clean money clean elections'' means funds received 
     under State laws that provide in whole or in part for the 
     public financing of election campaigns.
       (b) Study.--

[[Page 5057]]

       (1) In general.--The Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall conduct a study of the clean money clean 
     elections of Arizona and Maine.
       (2) Matters studied.--
       (A) Statistics on clean money clean elections candidates.--
     The Comptroller General of the United States shall 
     determine--
       (i) the number of candidates who have chosen to run for 
     public office with clean money clean elections including--

       (I) the office for which they were candidates;
       (II) whether the candidate was an incumbent or a 
     challenger; and
       (III) whether the candidate was successful in the 
     candidate's bid for public office; and

       (ii) the number of races in which at least one candidate 
     ran an election with clean money clean elections.
       (B) Effects of clean money clean elections.--The 
     Comptroller General of the United States shall describe the 
     effects of public financing under the clean money clean 
     elections laws on the 2000 elections in Arizona and Maine.
       (c) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General of the United 
     States shall submit a report to the Congress detailing the 
     results of the study conducted under subsection (b).

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, this is an amendment that has been agreed to 
by both sides. It is one of these amendments we can move out of the way 
very quickly. I gather the majority has seen it and approves as well.
  Mr. McCONNELL. We have no objection to it.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 160) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the next amendment will be by Senator 
Levin and Senator Ensign.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.


                           Amendment No. 161

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration on behalf of myself and Senators Ensign, 
Clinton, Dorgan, and Ben Nelson.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     Ensign, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dorgan, and Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 161.

  Mr. LEVIN. 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 definition of Federal election activity as it 
 applies to State, district, or local committees of political parties)

       Beginning on page 3, strike line 12 and all that follows 
     through page 4, line 4, and insert the following:
       ``(b) State, District, and Local Committees.--
       ``(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an 
     amount that is expended or disbursed for Federal election 
     activity by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party (including an entity that is directly or 
     indirectly established, financed, maintained, or controlled 
     by a State, district, or local committee of a political party 
     and an officer or agent acting on behalf of such committee or 
     entity), or by an entity directly or indirectly established, 
     financed, maintained, or controlled by or acting on behalf of 
     1 or more candidates for State or local office, or 
     individuals holding State or local office, shall be made from 
     funds subject to the limitations, prohibitions, and reporting 
     requirements of this Act. Nothing in this subsection shall 
     prevent a principal campaign committee of a candidate for 
     State or local office from raising and spending funds 
     permitted under applicable State law other than for a Federal 
     election activity that refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for election to Federal office.
       ``(2) Applicability.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding clause (i) or (ii) of 
     section 301(20)(A), and subject to subparagraph (B), 
     paragraph (1) shall not apply to any amount expended or 
     disbursed by a State, district, or local committee of a 
     political party for an activity described in either such 
     clause to the extent the costs of such activity are allocated 
     under regulations prescribed by the Commission as costs that 
     may be paid from funds not subject to the limitations, 
     prohibitions, and reporting requirements of this Act.
       ``(B) Conditions.--Subparagraph (A) shall only apply if--
       ``(i) the activity does not refer to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office; and
       ``(ii) the costs described in subparagraph (A) are paid 
     directly or indirectly from amounts donated in accordance 
     with State law, except that no person (and any person 
     established, financed, maintained, or controlled by such 
     person) may donate more than $10,000 to a State, district or 
     local committee of a political party in a calendar year to be 
     used for the costs described in subparagraph (A).

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, this amendment will allow the use of some 
non-Federal dollars by State parties for voter registration and get out 
the vote, where the contributions are allowed by State law, where there 
is no reference to Federal candidates, where limited to $10,000 of the 
contribution which is allowed by State law, and where the allocation 
between Federal and non-Federal dollars is set by the Federal Election 
Commission.
  This bill that is before us is about limits. We have set limits on 
contributions by individuals, by PACs, by national parties to State 
parties. It is all about trying to restore some limits to a law where 
that law has really been completely subverted in terms of contribution 
limits by the so-called soft money loophole.
  I think it is perfectly appropriate that the bill set limits. The 
bill has also put some restrictions which are excessive on the use of 
non-Federal dollars by State parties for voter registration and get out 
the vote.
  I think in our efforts over the last couple weeks we have really done 
the right thing in establishing the limits that we have. We have 
focused on trying to restore something which was always intended, which 
is contribution limits, but we have also, in our review, done some fine 
tuning. We have done some adjustments.
  This amendment provides some fine tuning in an area where State 
parties are using non-Federal dollars, dollars allowed by State law, 
for some of the most core activities that State parties are involved 
in; that is, voter registration and get out the vote.
  Now the bill does not restrict State parties when it comes to using 
non-Federal dollars for things such as salaries and rent and utilities, 
nor should it. But it does prohibit altogether--unless this amendment 
is adopted--the use by State parties of non-Federal dollars. These are 
dollars not raised through any effort on the part of Federal 
officeholders, Federal candidates, or national parties. These are non-
Federal dollars allowed by State law.
  The bill, as it is currently written, would prohibit the use of any 
of those dollars for those core activities of State parties that we all 
know and call by get out the vote, registration activities, and voter 
identification.
  In this regard, I believe and our cosponsors believe that the bill 
has gone too far, that we ought to allow State parties using non-
Federal dollars, under very clear limits, where there is not an 
identification of a Federal candidate, where there is a limit as to how 
much of those contributions they can use, and where the contributions 
are allowed by State law--that we ought to allow, with the proper 
Federal match, determined by the Federal Election Commission, State 
parties to use these non-Federal dollars in some of the most core 
activities in which State parties are involved.
  There is nothing much more basic to State parties than identifying 
voters who agree with their causes and to try to get those voters to 
the polls.
  That is about as core an effort as you can get. Yet unless we make 
this modification in the bill, we would tell State parties they can't 
use the non-Federal dollars in any year where there is a Federal 
election, which is every other year, for those core activities.
  This amendment, I believe, now has the support of the managers of the 
bill. They will speak for themselves, of course. But we have worked 
very hard to make sure there are still some limits. We are not 
eliminating the limits on this spending, nor should we, because if it 
is unlimited, we then have a

[[Page 5058]]

huge loophole again where State parties would become the funnel for the 
Federal campaign money to be poured into. So we keep reasonable 
restrictions, but what we do is, we pull back from the total 
elimination of the use of these non-Federal dollars by State parties 
for their fundamental basic activity.
  Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Michigan yield for a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DORGAN. I am pleased to support this with Senator Levin, Senator 
Clinton, and others.
  I ask the Senator from Michigan, isn't it the case that, as currently 
written, a Governor and a mayor could not use non-Federal money to 
conduct their own activities for get out the vote, for example, in an 
election in which there might have been a Federal candidate, and would 
that not be the case?
  Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Secondly, there are roughly 160 democracies in the world. 
I wonder if the Senator knows--I didn't know until a few minutes ago--
where we rank in the democracies around the world in voter 
participation. Before asking whether he knows the right answer, I will 
say we rank 139th among the democracies in the world in voter 
participation. It seems to me we ought to encourage in every 
conceivable way activities that get out the vote, that encourage voter 
participation. Is it not the case, that is exactly what this amendment 
does?
  Mr. LEVIN. This amendment is aimed at restoring the appropriate use 
by parties of non-Federal funds which are obtained by those parties in 
compliance with their own State laws in those very activities which the 
Senator has identified. These are the fundamental activities in a 
democracy. We want State parties to be involved in those activities, as 
the Senator pointed out. We don't want that to become the loophole, 
however, for unlimited Federal dollars. That is why this amendment is 
crafted the way it is.
  Mr. DORGAN. Finally, if the Senator from Michigan will yield one 
additional time, let me say the proposal of the Senator from Michigan 
is a modest one. We could have done more, perhaps should have done 
more. This represents a compromise, a modest compromise, however. It 
does the right thing. We don't want to pass campaign finance reform and 
then produce impediments to those very activities that would encourage 
voter participation. That would be a step in the wrong direction.
  I, again, say how pleased I am at the effort tonight and the 
sponsorship by Senator Levin. I am very proud to be a cosponsor. I am 
pleased this is going to be accepted.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank Senator Dorgan for his cosponsorship, all of our 
cosponsors. I acknowledge the principal cosponsorship of the Senator 
from Nevada. I wasn't going to yield the floor to him, but I was going 
to acknowledge him as my principal cosponsor. I am happy to yield to 
the Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. Let me say to Senator Levin and Senator Ensign and others, 
I want to be considered a cosponsor as well, Mr. President. I 
appreciate the efforts of Senator Levin and Senator Ensign to work this 
out. This is an important provision that is going to make a difference. 
It is done in a very thoughtful way, a very responsible way. I think it 
adds again to the value of this piece of legislation. I thank our 
colleagues for their efforts.
  Mr. LEVIN. Before I yield the floor, I want to add as a cosponsor 
Senator Harry Reid and to thank him for the efforts behind the scenes, 
as is so often true with Senator Reid, making things happen in the 
Senate which otherwise simply would not happen, but doing it in a very 
self-effacing way, a very critically important way. I thank him as we 
ask unanimous consent that he be added as a cosponsor, and Senator 
Corzine as well.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I first thank the Senator from Michigan 
for the work we have done together. He started this work and I joined 
him in it some time ago. We had a few differences on the amendment, but 
we were able to work those out. I thank the managers of the bill for 
also working with us to make sure we would be able to include this 
amendment in the bill. It is a very important amendment.
  We look at our turnout of voters today, and we see a continual 
decline each and every year. The people who have brought the underlying 
bill to the floor are doing it partially because of that decreasing 
turnout. People out there in America are increasingly turned off from 
elections because of negative ads. A lot of those negative ads have 
been funded by some of the independent expenditures as well as some of 
the soft money that has been run through the parties.
  What this bill, I don't think, intended to do, however, was to limit 
the activities of actually getting people to the polls, of first 
signing people up to register to vote and then encouraging them to go 
to the polls.
  When I was running against Senator Harry Reid back in 1998, the labor 
unions put about 300 people on the ground to get out the vote for 
Senator Reid. It was perfectly within their right to do that. This bill 
would have limited, though, State parties from doing similar 
activities. We want to encourage more people to go to the polls, not 
discourage people from going to the polls. Let's face it, if more 
people are not interested in our government, if they are not 
participating in this form of government we call a Republic, then our 
Republic will be doomed. We have to encourage people to go to the 
polls, and part of that is through the State parties.
  This amendment is going to allow State parties to be funded to the 
point where they will have the resources to be able to get people to 
the polls on election day because they will be allowed to spend money 
for voter ID, for voter registration, and then for what is called get-
out-the-vote efforts, things that are very important for increasing the 
number of people who get to the polls.
  I thank the Senator from Michigan for working together on this 
amendment. It is a very important amendment. I also thank Senator 
McConnell for allowing us to bring this amendment up.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I think it is a good amendment. We should move to 
final passage, unless there are others who want to speak on it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I add my words of support and thank 
Senator Levin and the other cosponsors who have worked hard on this 
matter.
  I wish to reiterate the point that, while we are working so hard to 
reform our campaign finance system, we cannot undermine our ability to 
reform the way elections are conducted. For all of the reasons Senator 
Levin and Senator Ensign and others have pointed out, registering 
voters, getting voters out to the polls is a critical role of parties. 
From my perspective, we need to be doing even more to try to promote 
what parties used to do, which was that kind of grassroots outreach 
activity.
  In reforming the way campaigns are financed, we must not hurt out 
ability to reform the way elections are conducted. This amendment would 
ensure that State, district or local committees of a political party 
would be able to continue to provide vital services to our citizenry 
during Federal elections, from voter registration activities to 
assisting individuals in getting out to vote on Election Day.
  The 2000 election taught us many things. One of the most important 
was the significance of having an informed electorate. Too many 
citizens in the last election were provided with too little information 
about where and how to vote. Too many citizens experienced unwarranted 
obstacles to registration and voting. As a result, fewer votes were 
counted, and in the next election fewer people may turn out to vote.
  The solution to these problems cannot be in the province of 
Government

[[Page 5059]]

alone. America's political parties must play an important role in 
helping people register to vote, helping them learn more about the 
voting process and helping them turn out at the polls on election day. 
It is vital to the health of our democratic process. Leading up to an 
election, both parties provide voters with information on how and where 
to register to vote. On Election Day, both parties use their resources 
to drive elderly voters to the polls, provide answers to questions 
about where and how to vote, and give voters information about where 
the candidates stand on issues.
  In the State of New York over the past 2 years, the State Democratic 
Party has conducted an intensive voter education drive in predominantly 
African-American and Latino communities, often our most disenfranchised 
citizens. This education drive resulted in a surge in voter 
registration and voter activity in both of these communities throughout 
the state. Republican parties around the country are also active in 
voter registration and get out the vote efforts. This type of activity 
should continue to be supported by our State parties for all elections 
so that all of our citizens fully participate in our democracy.
  Some will claim that this amendment will bring soft money back into 
federal campaigns. Let me be very clear, this amendment does not bring 
soft money back into campaigns. Rather, it allows State and local 
parties to use money that is regulated by States and is capped at 
$10,000 for single contributions in order to support vital election 
services. That represents an improvement over the status quo, because 
under current law there is no national cap on such contributions at the 
local and State level.
  I ask my colleagues to rise in support of an amendment that will 
ensure that our political parties can continue to use State regulated 
funds to provide voter education, registration and get out the vote 
services that we know work. Because helping voters register to vote, 
helping them to learn how and where to vote, and helping them get out 
to vote are American values we should encourage, not inhibit.
  It is imperative this amendment pass so we are able to make a very 
clear distinction between the kind of roles and activities that should 
be conducted by parties and that we look forward to a time when we are 
going to be able to take up electoral reform with the same intensity 
that we have taken up campaign finance reform, which will give us a 
chance to go into more detail as to what our parties could and should 
be doing in order to promote democracy.
  I thank our colleague from North Dakota for pointing out where we 
stand when it comes to voter participation. I hope all of our 
colleagues will support the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do the Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. DODD. We do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
161.
  The amendment (No. 161) was agreed to.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.


                           Amendment No. 162

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself and Senator Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin], for himself and Mr. 
     Cochran, proposes an amendment numbered 162.

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

(Purpose: To establish clarity standards for identification of sponsors 
                in certain election-related advertising)

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

     SEC.  . CLARITY STANDARDS FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SPONSORS OF 
                   ELECTION-RELATED ADVERTISING.

       Section 318 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 441d) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)--
       (A) in the matter preceding paragraph (1)--
       (i) by striking `Whenever' and inserting `Whenever a 
     political committee makes a disbursement for the purpose of 
     financing any communication through any broadcasting station, 
     newspaper, magazine, outdoor advertising facility, mailing, 
     or any other type of general public political advertising, or 
     whenever';
       (ii) by striking `an expenditure' and inserting `a 
     disbursement'; and
       (iii) by striking `direct'; and
       (iv) by inserting `or makes a disbursement for an 
     electioneering communication (as defined in section 
     304(d)(3))'' after ``public political advertising''
       (B) in paragraph (3), by inserting `and permanent street 
     address, telephone number, or World Wide Web address'' after 
     `name''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       `(c) Specification.--Any printed communication described in 
     subsection (a) shall--
       `(1) be of sufficient type size to be clearly readable by 
     the recipient of the communication;
       `(2) be contained in a printed box set apart from the other 
     contents of the communication; and
       `(3) be printed with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement.
       `(d) Additional Requirements.--
       `(1) Audio statement.--
       (A) Candidate.--Any communication described in paragraphs 
     (1) or (2) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio or television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, an audio statement by the 
     candidate that identifies the candidate and states that the 
     candidate has approved the communication.
       `(B) Other persons.--Any communication described in 
     paragraph (3) of subsection (a) which is transmitted through 
     radio or television shall include, in addition to the 
     requirements of that paragraph, in a clearly spoken manner, 
     the following statement: `XXXXXXXX is responsible for the 
     content of this advertising.' (with the blank to be filled in 
     with the name of the political committee or other person 
     paying for the communication and the name of any connected 
     organization of the payor). If transmitted through 
     television, the statement shall also appear in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds.'.
       `(2) Television.--If a communication described in paragraph 
     (1)(A) is transmitted through television, the communication 
     shall include, in addition to the audio statement under 
     paragraph (1), a written statement that--
       `(A) appears at the end of the communication in a clearly 
     readable manner with a reasonable degree of color contrast 
     between the background and the printed statement, for a 
     period of at least 4 seconds; and
       `(B) is accompanied by a clearly identifiable photographic 
     or similar image of the candidate.'.

     SEC.  . SEVERABILITY.

       If this amendment or the application of this amendment to 
     any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, 
     the remainder of this Act and amendments made by this Act, 
     and the application of the provisions and amendments to any 
     person or circumstance, shall not be affected by the holding.

  Mr. DURBIN. I have given a copy of the amendment to Senator McConnell 
and I will make copies available to any other Members who would like to 
read it. The amendment is very straightforward. If I can have just a 
moment or two, I will describe it for those who are interested.
  It is an amendment relating to disclaimers on television and radio 
ads, as well as in print media. It requires of those electioneering 
communications--the so-called Snowe-Jeffords ads--that they abide by 
the same requirements for disclaimer and disclosure as ads for 
candidates themselves and ads authorized by candidates, and independent 
express advocacy ads. It requires, when it comes to these ads, that 
they also show on the screen, for example, not only the name of the 
organization that is sponsoring the ad, paying for the ad, but also 
either an address, phone number, or Internet Web site.
  I can give a very inspired speech as to why this is necessary. But I 
think the concept is very basic. It is that we do not want to restrict 
freedom of expression, nor in fact do we restrict freedom of deception. 
If somebody wants to put an ad on that is categorically wrong, whether 
it is a candidate, a party, or any other group, I guess there is an 
American right to that. But we

[[Page 5060]]

do, I hope, insist on accountability. At least identify who you are. If 
you are going to be part of our political process, tell us who you are. 
That is exactly all this does in terms of disclaimer. Whether it is a 
candidate, whether an ad authorized by a candidate, or so-called 
electioneering communication, that is what will happen. It applies to 
printed communications as well.
  For those keeping track, this was part of McCain-Feingold in both the 
105th and 106th Congress--a large portion of it was. It is something 
that many of us believe, and it was adopted by the House, would 
complement the work we have done thus far in the debate.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I commend our colleague from Illinois. This 
is a very worthwhile amendment. We can all relate to this. We have seen 
these ads come on and you have to freeze frame it and get a magnifying 
glass to even read the source, where they are coming from. Usually, it 
is a name that has no identification other than something that sounds 
very good and hardly revealing as to who is responsible for it, let 
alone any address or telephone number that would allow the kind of 
disclosure that ought to be associated with this kind of advertising.
  This is a very commonsensical. I think everybody ought to appreciate 
the effort. I commend my colleague for offering it. I am happy to be a 
cosponsor of it and urge its adoption.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, the amendment of the Senator from 
Illinois is a clear violation of the Supreme Court decision of McIntyre 
v. Ohio Elections Commission, handed down in 1995, in which the Supreme 
Court made it abundantly clear that you cannot require disclaimers on 
issue ads.
  Having said that, I think everybody knows that the Senator from 
Kentucky would like to hang as many barnacles as possible on the hull 
of this bill, and I look forward to having one more argument to make 
before the courts. Therefore, I have no objection to this being adopted 
on a voice vote.
  Mr. DODD. Who said politics makes strange bedfellows?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Do all Senators yield back their time?
  Mr. DURBIN. I yield back my time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield back my time.
  Mr. DURBIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 162) was agreed to.
  Mr. McCONNELL. 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. 163

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd), for himself, Mr. 
     Thompson, Mr. Lieberman, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, and Mr. 
     Jeffords, proposes an amendment numbered 163.

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 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 enhance 
 criminal penalties for election law violations and for other purposes)

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

     SEC. __. INCREASE IN PENALTIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 309(d)(1) of 
     the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
     437g(d)(1)(A)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(A) Any person who knowingly and willfully commits a 
     violation of any provision of this Act which involves the 
     making, receiving, or reporting of any contribution, 
     donation, or expenditure--
       ``(i) aggregating $25,000 or more during a calendar year 
     shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or 
     imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both; or
       ``(ii) aggregating $2,000 or more (but less than $25,000) 
     during a calendar year shall be fined under such title, or 
     imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. __. STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 406(a) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 455(a)) is amended by striking 
     ``3'' and inserting ``5''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to violations occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. __. SENTENCING GUIDELINES.

       (a) In General.--The United States Sentencing Commission 
     shall--
       (1) promulgate a guideline, or amend an existing guideline 
     under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, in 
     accordance with paragraph (2), for penalties for violations 
     of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related 
     election laws; and
       (2) submit to Congress an explanation of any guidelines 
     promulgated under paragraph (1) and any legislative or 
     administrative recommendations regarding enforcement of the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 and related election 
     laws.
       (b) Considerations.--The Commission shall provide 
     guidelines under subsection (a) taking into account the 
     following considerations:
       (1) Ensure that the sentencing guidelines and policy 
     statements reflect the serious nature of such violations and 
     the need for aggressive and appropriate law enforcement 
     action to prevent such violations.
       (2) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any person 
     convicted of such violation if such violation involves--
       (A) a contribution, donation, or expenditure from a foreign 
     source;
       (B) a large number of illegal transactions;
       (C) a large aggregate amount of illegal contributions, 
     donations, or expenditures;
       (D) the receipt or disbursement of governmental funds; and
       (E) an intent to achieve a benefit from the Government.
       (3) Provide a sentencing enhancement for any violation by a 
     person who is a candidate or a high-ranking campaign official 
     for such candidate.
       (4) Assure reasonable consistency with other relevant 
     directives and guidelines of the Commission.
       (5) Account for aggravating or mitigating circumstances 
     that might justify exceptions, including circumstances for 
     which the sentencing guidelines currently provide sentencing 
     enhancements.
       (6) Assure the guidelines adequately meet the purposes of 
     sentencing under section 3553(a)(2) of title 18, United 
     States Code.
       (c) Effective Date; Emergency Authority To Promulgate 
     Guidelines.--
       (1) Effective date.--Notwithstanding section 402, the 
     United States Sentencing Commission shall promulgate 
     guidelines under this section not later than the later of--
       (A) 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) 90 days after the date on which at least a majority of 
     the members of the Commission are appointed and holding 
     office.
       (2) Emergency authority to promulgate guidelines.--The 
     Commission shall promulgate guidelines under this section in 
     accordance with the procedures set forth in section 21(a) of 
     the Sentencing Reform Act of 1987, as though the authority 
     under such Act has not expired.

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment on behalf 
of Senator Lieberman, Senator Collins, Senator Leahy, and Senator 
Jeffords. It is designed to strengthen the enforcement of the criminal 
provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act.
  Four years ago, the Governmental Affairs Committee held hearings on 
illegal and improper activity in the 1996 presidential campaign. As a 
result of that investigation, we learned about a wide-ranging effort to 
circumvent the federal election laws by funneling campaign 
contributions, sometimes from foreign sources, through American 
citizens to benefit presidential campaigns.
  While I have voiced my concerns about the quality of the Department 
of Justice's investigation and prosecution of these violators, today I 
am addressing structural flaws in the statute that make it difficult 
for the more conscientious prosecutors to adequately pursue their 
cases. Specifically: FECA fails to provide for felony prosecutions 
regardless of the severity of the offense. Its three year statute of 
limitations is too short--for instance, only the administration that 
wins the election can enforce the law prior to the running of the 
statute of limitations. Finally, there is no sentencing guideline for 
FECA violations. Because of these deficiencies in the statute, our 
amendment would make the following changes.
  First, in the 1996 presidential campaign, the Special Investigation 
of the

[[Page 5061]]

Governmental Affairs Committee identified at least $2,825,600 in 
illegal contributions to the DNC. Yet, regardless of the extent to 
which the laws were broken, all the violations under FECA were still 
misdemeanors. Our amendment would remedy this problem for the future by 
authorizing felony prosecutions of FECA violations, but only if (1) the 
offender committed the existing federal offense ``knowingly and 
willfully'' and (2) the offense involved more than $25,000.
  Second, criminal violations of FECA are the only federal crimes 
outside of the Internal Revenue Code that have a statute of limitations 
shorter than 5 years. Our amendment conforms FECA's statute of 
limitations to those of virtually all other federal crimes.
  Third, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which govern federal 
judges' sentencing decisions, do not currently have a guideline 
specifically directed at campaign finance violations. As a result, 
judges must use guidelines for other offenses, preventing them from 
considering factors which should enhance the punishment for FECA 
violations such as the size of a contribution or its origin. Our 
amendment would require the Sentencing Commission to promulgate a 
guideline specifically for violations of FECA and provide for 
enhancement of sentences if the violation involves (i) a contribution, 
donation or expenditure from a foreign source; (ii) a large number of 
illegal transactions; (iii) a large aggregate amount of illegal 
contributions, donations or expenditures; (iv) the receipt or 
disbursement of government funds; or (v) an intent to achieve a benefit 
from the government.
  The changes made in this amendment will provide conscientious 
prosecutors with the tools they need to investigate and prosecute those 
who violate our campaign finance laws and attack the integrity of our 
electoral process. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from 
Tennessee in offering this amendment, and I am delighted to be joined 
by Senators Leahy, Collins and Jeffords as cosponsors. Senators 
Thompson, Collins and I spent the better part of a year working on the 
Governmental Affairs Committee's investigation into fundraising 
improprieties in the 1996 federal election campaigns. That 
investigation sparked a lot of discussion about whether many things 
that happened in 1996 were illegal or just wrong--things like big soft 
money donations, attack ads run by tax-exempt organizations, 
fundraising in federal buildings and the like.
  But one thing I never heard argument about is whether it was illegal 
to knowingly infuse foreign money into a political campaign or to use 
unwitting straw donors to hide the true source of money that was going 
to candidates or parties. I, for one, had no doubt that the people who 
did those things in 1996 would be prosecuted and appropriately 
punished.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, many of them were prosecuted, but I 
have grave doubts about whether they were appropriately punished. I 
know that there are many who blame the Justice Department for this, but 
when I first looked into it a couple of years ago, I was frankly 
surprised by what I learned--and that is that prosecutors just don't 
have the tools they need to effectively investigate, prosecute and 
punish people who egregiously violate our campaign finance laws. I 
think Charles LaBella, the former head of the Justice Department's 
Campaign Finance Task Force, put it best in a memo he wrote assessing 
the Department's campaign finance investigation. According to press 
reports, LaBella wrote that ``The fact is that the so-called 
enforcement system is nothing more than a bad joke.'' Unfortunately, 
it's a bad joke that has real consequences for the integrity of our 
campaigns and our democracy.
  Let me give you one example. Many people are understandably upset 
that Charlie Trie and John Huang didn't go to jail for what they did in 
'96. But the Federal Election Campaign Act, or FECA, doesn't authorize 
felony prosecutions. No matter how egregiously someone violates FECA, 
all they can be charged with is a misdemeanor. And people rarely go to 
jail for misdemeanors.
  To get around FECA's limits, prosecutors often charge campaign 
finance abusers with other federal crimes that are felonies, which is 
what they did with Trie and Huang. But that still often doesn't solve 
the problem. That's because when it comes time for sentencing, judges 
have to turn to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which still often 
bring light sentences because there is no guideline on campaign finance 
violations.
  The guidelines assign what's called a ``base offense level'' for each 
crime, and then they give a number of factors that, if present, tell 
the judge either to increase or decrease the offense level. The higher 
the offense level, the higher the sentence.
  Because the Guidelines don't have a provision on campaign finance 
violations, judges have to look for the next closest offense, and they 
often end up using the fraud guideline. But that guideline doesn't take 
into account the factors that make campaign finance violations so 
harmful, and the factors that are there often aren't particularly 
relevant to campaign finance violations. For example, there is nothing 
in the guideline that makes judges distinguish between a campaign 
finance violation involving $2,000 and one involving $2,000,000. So, 
when judges calculate the offense level of a defendant who funneled 
millions of foreign dollars into a US campaign, they don't end up with 
a high offense level, meaning that the defendant doesn't get a lengthy 
sentence. The prosecutors know this and the defendants know this, and 
that must be one of the reasons why prosecutors accepted plea bargains 
from John Huang and Charlie Trie--because they knew they wouldn't do 
much better even if they won convictions at trial.
  Our amendment would solve these problems, by putting a felony 
provision into FECA and by directing the Sentencing Commission to 
promulgate a campaign finance guideline. If those two things happen, we 
will have greater confidence that those who violate the law will be 
appropriately punished.
  I understand that some may worry that we are criminalizing 
participating in the political process. That is neither the intent nor 
the effect of this amendment. Our amendment would allow felony 
prosecutions only if, first, the defendant knowingly and willfully 
violated the law, and second, if the offense involved at least $25,000. 
So, it would not punish the donor who inadvertently goes over his 
contribution limits, nor would it go after the Party Committee clerk 
who makes a record-keeping mistake. Instead, our amendment aims at the 
opportunistic hustlers who come up with broad conspiracies to violate 
the election laws usually for personal gain by funneling foreign money 
into our campaigns or using large numbers of straw donors to hide their 
identity or make contributions they aren't allowed to make the people 
everyone says should be going to jail.
  Our amendment contains one other provision--one extending FECA's 
statute of limitations from three to five years. As of now, FECA has 
the only statute of limitations outside the Internal Revenue Code of 
less than five years. We need to change that so that prosecutors are 
denied the time they need to pursue complex crimes.
  Mr. President, this amendment is about something that we all should 
be able to agree upon, which is that actions that are already criminal 
and that we all agree are wrong should be punished. None of our 
amendment's provisions should be controversial, and I hope that we can 
see them enacted into law, so that we can go into the next election 
cycle with confidence that prosecutors have the tools necessary to 
deter and to punish those who would violate our election laws. I thank 
my colleagues, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I understand this amendment has been cleared 
by both sides. The amendment enhances the criminal enforcement 
provisions of the FECA legislation by authorizing felony prosecutions 
of willful and knowing violations of that law

[[Page 5062]]

over $25,000, directs the Sentencing Commission to promulgate 
guidelines on campaign finance violations, and extends the FECA statute 
of limitations for criminal violations from 3 to 5 years.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I am sure this must be a wonderful idea 
if it was offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Thompson. Therefore, 
I am happy for the amendment to be adopted.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 163) was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I move to lay that on the table.
  The motion to table was agreed to.
  Mr. DODD. While we are waiting for Senator Hatch, Senator Reed from 
Rhode Island has an amendment he would like to have considered.


                           Amendment No. 164

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Reed] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 164.

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

 (Purpose: To make amendments regarding the enforcement authority and 
             procedures of the Federal Election Commission)

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

     SEC. __. AUDITS.

       (a) Random Audits.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election 
     Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The Commission''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(2) Random audits.--
       ``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the 
     Commission may conduct random audits and investigations to 
     ensure voluntary compliance with this Act.
       ``(B) Limitation.--The Commission shall not institute an 
     audit or investigation of a candidate's authorized committee 
     under subparagraph (A) until the candidate is no longer an 
     active candidate for the office sought by the candidate in 
     that election cycle.
       ``(C) Applicability.--This paragraph does not apply to an 
     authorized committee of a candidate for President or Vice 
     President subject to audit under section 9007 or 9038 of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986.''.
       (b) Extension of Period During Which Campaign Audits May Be 
     Begun.--Section 311(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 438(b)) is amended by striking ``6 months'' 
     and inserting ``12 months''.

     SEC. __. AUTHORITY TO SEEK INJUNCTION.

       Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)) is amended--
       (1) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(13) Authority to seek injunction.--
       ``(A) In general.--If, at any time in a proceeding 
     described in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4), the Commission 
     believes that--
       ``(i) there is a substantial likelihood that a violation of 
     this Act is occurring or is about to occur;
       ``(ii) the failure to act expeditiously will result in 
     irreparable harm to a party affected by the potential 
     violation;
       ``(iii) expeditious action will not cause undue harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of others; and
       ``(iv) the public interest would be best served by the 
     issuance of an injunction;

     the Commission may initiate a civil action for a temporary 
     restraining order or a preliminary injunction pending the 
     outcome of the proceedings described in paragraphs (1), (2), 
     (3), and (4).
       ``(B) Venue.--An action under subparagraph (A) shall be 
     brought in the United States district court for the district 
     in which the defendant resides, transacts business, or may be 
     found, or in which the violation is occurring, has occurred, 
     or is about to occur.'';
       (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ``(5) or (6)'' and 
     inserting ``(5), (6), or (13)''; and
       (3) in paragraph (11), by striking ``(6)'' and inserting 
     ``(6) or (13)''.

     SEC. __. INCREASE IN PENALTY FOR KNOWING AND WILLFUL 
                   VIOLATIONS.

       Section 309(a)(5)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act 
     of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)(B)) is amended by striking ``the 
     greater of $10,000 or an amount equal to 200 percent'' and 
     inserting ``the greater of $15,000 or an amount equal to 300 
     percent''.

     SEC. __. USE OF CANDIDATES' NAMES.

       Section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 432(e)) is amended by striking paragraph (4) and 
     inserting the following:
       ``(4)(A) The name of each authorized committee shall 
     include the name of the candidate who authorized the 
     committee under paragraph (1).
       ``(B) A political committee that is not an authorized 
     committee shall not--
       ``(i) include the name of any candidate in its name, or
       ``(ii) except in the case of a national, State, or local 
     committee of a political party, use the name of any candidate 
     in any activity on behalf of such committee in such a context 
     as to suggest that the committee is an authorized committee 
     of the candidate or that the use of the candidate's name has 
     been authorized by the candidate.''.

     SEC. __. EXPEDITED PROCEDURES.

       Section 309(a) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
     (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)), as amended by this Act, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following:
       ``(14) Expedited procedure.--
       ``(A) 60 days preceding an election.--If the complaint in a 
     proceeding is filed within 60 days immediately preceding a 
     general election, the Commission may take action described in 
     this paragraph.
       ``(B) Resolution before election.--If the Commission 
     determines, on the basis of facts alleged in the complaint 
     and other facts available to the Commission, that there is 
     clear and convincing evidence that a violation of this Act 
     has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur and it 
     appears that the requirements for relief stated in clauses 
     (ii), (iii), and (iv) of paragraph (13)(A) are met, the 
     Commission may--
       ``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time 
     periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
     (4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in 
     sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is 
     insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election, 
     immediately seek relief under paragraph (13)(A).
       ``(C) Complaint without merit.--If the Commission 
     determines, on the basis of facts alleged in the complaint 
     and other facts available to the Commission, that the 
     complaint is clearly without merit, the Commission may--
       ``(i) order expedited proceedings, shortening the time 
     periods for proceedings under paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and 
     (4) as necessary to allow the matter to be resolved in 
     sufficient time before the election to avoid harm or 
     prejudice to the interests of the parties; or
       ``(ii) if the Commission determines that there is 
     insufficient time to conduct proceedings before the election, 
     summarily dismiss the complaint.''.

     SEC. __. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FEDERAL ELECTION 
                   COMMISSION.

       Section 314 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 
     U.S.C. 439c) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(a)'' before ``There'';
       (2) in the second sentence--
       (A) by striking ``and'' after ``1978,''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, and $80,000,000 (as adjusted under subsection 
     (b)) for each fiscal year beginning after September 30, 
     2001.''; and
       (3) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(b) The $80,000,000 under subsection (a) shall be 
     increased with respect to each fiscal year based on the 
     increase in the price index determined under section 315(c) 
     for the calendar year in which such fiscal year begins, 
     except that the base period shall be calendar year 2000.''.

     SEC. __. EXPEDITED REFERRALS TO ATTORNEY GENERAL.

       Section 309(a)(5) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 
     1971 (2 U.S.C. 437g(a)(5)) is amended by striking 
     subparagraph (C) and inserting the following:
       ``(C) The Commission may at any time, by an affirmative 
     vote of at least 4 of its members, refer a possible violation 
     of this Act or chapter 95 or 96 of the Internal Revenue Code 
     of 1986, to the Attorney General of the United States, 
     without regard to any limitation set forth in this 
     section.''.

  Mr. REED. Mr. President, I commend Senator McCain and Senator 
Feingold for their extraordinary efforts over the last several weeks, 
together with all of our colleagues, in trying to create a system of 
campaign finance reform that will be truly reflective of elections in 
the United States--elections about ideas and not just about money 
flowing in from everywhere.
  Their efforts will be for naught if we don't have the adequate 
enforcement of the laws that we are adopting today and on succeeding 
days.
  My amendment would specifically strengthen the Federal Election 
Commission, which is the organization that is charged with enforcing 
all the laws we have been discussing for the last 2 weeks. Observers 
have called the FEC ``beleaguered,'' a ``toothless watchdog,'' a 
``dithering nanny,'' and a ``lapdog,'' indicating that the state of

[[Page 5063]]

the FEC is rather moribund because they don't have the resources 
necessary or some of the tools necessary to do the job of effectively 
enforcing our campaign finance laws.
  All of this effort over these several weeks and several years will 
amount to very little if we don't give the FEC the resources and tools 
to effectively enforce our campaign finance laws. If we are serious 
about reform, we need to be serious about giving the FEC these 
resources.
  My amendment is based upon recommendations made by the FEC 
Commissioners over many years with respect to improving the performance 
of the FEC. As we all know, the FEC is composed of six Commissioners--
three Republicans and three Democrats. These recommendations represent 
a bipartisan response to the observed inadequacies of the Federal 
Election Commission. First and foremost, my amendment would reauthorize 
the Federal Election Commission, which hasn't been technically 
reauthorized since 1980. It would also increase the authorized 
appropriations for this Commission. Over the past 2 weeks, we have 
talked about doubling and tripling money going to candidates. Again, if 
we are serious about campaign finance reform, we should also talk about 
increasing the budget of the FEC. Senator Thompson mentioned yesterday 
that the average amount spent by a winning Senate campaign went from 
approximately $1.2 million in 1980, to $7.2 million in the year 2000.
  According to the FEC, total campaign spending has increased 1,000 
percent since 1976. Total campaign finance disbursement activity was 
$300 million in 1976 and exploded to $3.5 billion in the year 2000 
election cycle. But the agency responsible for administering these 
campaign finance laws, the Federal Election Commission, has seen very 
little increase in their operating budget over these many years. We 
have had an explosion of activity, we have had an explosion of 
contributions, but nothing to keep the FEC in league or in sync with 
this explosion of campaign spending.
  Despite all the increased activity, the FEC staff is virtually the 
same as it was almost 20 years ago. In 1980, the FEC had 270 full-time 
equivalent staff. In 1998, the level was about 303, a very small 
increase, and at the same time there has been an explosion of 
donations, an explosion of reports, and increased in activity.
  It is obvious with all of these activities, with all of these 
transactions that were reported that the FEC needs to do more and needs 
more resources to do the job it has been commissioned to do. The FEC is 
expected to review these financial reports. They are expected to 
enforce the laws, and unless we give them the resources to do that, we 
are going to be in a very sorry state and, indeed, we are in a very 
sorry state today. Because of the onslaught of cases before the FEC, it 
has to prioritize its enforcement work.
  It turns out they give certain cases priority status. That means when 
there is an available attorney, they will put that attorney on the 
case, but there are so many cases that they eventually become stale. In 
fact, the FEC had to dismiss about half of its enforcement caseload in 
fiscal year 1998 and in fiscal year 1999 due to lack of resources. Due 
to the limited resources they have, they simply cannot keep up with the 
work. Once again, if we are serious about reform, we should be serious 
about giving the FEC the resources to do it.
  Let me move forward and suggest other aspects of the legislation 
which is before us today in my amendment. In addition to increasing the 
resources to meet this obvious need, the amendment would also authorize 
the Commission to conduct random audits in order to ensure voluntary 
compliance with the campaign act.
  It is based upon the same premise we use with the Internal Revenue 
Service. The idea that somebody would show up and look at your records 
encourages you to keep good records and to follow the law. That same 
principle would be effective with respect to the Federal Election 
Commission.
  In addition to giving authority for random audits, it also would give 
the Commission the authority to seek an injunction from a Federal judge 
under specific circumstances.
  First, there would have to be a substantial likelihood that a 
violation of campaign finance laws is occurring or is about to occur. 
There has to be a showing that the failure to act expeditiously will 
result in irreparable harm to a party affected by the potential 
violation, and that expeditious action would not cause undue harm to a 
party affected by the potential violation, and finally, the public 
interest would be best served by such an injunction.
  I point out that in order to seek such an injunction, the Commission 
would have to have a majority vote, 4 out of 6, and since there are 
three Republicans and three Democrats, this process of injunction would 
necessarily have to include votes from both Republicans and Democrats. 
I think it is a way to ensure fairness and not abuse this injunctive 
power.
  In addition to providing these aspects, the amendment would do 
something else. It would also increase the penalties for willful 
violations and knowing violations of the Federal Election Campaign Act. 
The violations would be increased from $10,000 to $15,000 or an amount 
equal to 300 percent of the violation amount, the greater of those two 
sums.
  The amendment also includes a provision that would restrict the 
misuse of a candidate's name. It would require that a candidate's 
committee include the name of the candidate, but it also would prohibit 
the use of that candidate's name by an unauthorized committee or any 
other committee except the party committee.
  This would, I hope, correct a situation in which committees or 
organizations unrelated to the candidate use the name of the candidate 
and misuse the name of the candidate.
  Also, the amendment would expedite procedures used by the FEC to 
enforce violations or investigate violations of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act.
  It would also allow an expedited referral to the Attorney General in 
the case of a perceived criminal violation of the Federal Election 
Campaign Act. Once again, such a referral would require a majority vote 
of the Commissioners, so it would be inherently bipartisan and could 
not be abused by a partisan faction of the Federal Election Commission.
  We have for the last several weeks been working diligently, 
creatively to fashion stronger Federal election campaign laws. But 
without my amendment, all of our work might be for nought because 
unless we strengthen the Federal Election Commission, we will not have 
the enforcement capability to take this legislative design which we 
have worked over so many days, and make it effective to regulate the 
campaigns for Federal office in the United States.
  I urge adoption of this amendment. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ensign). The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, Senator Reed seeks to reverse a 
decision taken in 1979. Back in 1979, under pressure from House 
Democrats, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate passed the 
amendment, signed into law by a Democratic President, which eliminated 
random audits.
  The catalyst was a large number of audits that were commenced 
consuming enormous amounts of time and money and done in a manner which 
was viewed as unfair.
  This provision may present the same problem. I say to my friend from 
Rhode Island, we are going to need to look at it overnight. My 
inclination is to oppose it, in which case we will need a rollcall 
vote. At least we can look at it overnight.
  It is unclear who authorizes the audits, the six appointed members of 
the Commission or the general counsel appointed by those members? The 
period commencing these random audits is extended from 6 months to 12 
months. Campaigns will have to wait 1 year before they even know if an 
audit will begin and if they need to raise additional funds to cover 
the cost.
  There is no time limit for commencing audits of PACs or party 
committees. The 1979 amendment allowed

[[Page 5064]]

the Commission to continue audits for cause where the FEC reviews the 
reports to determine if they meet the threshold for substantial 
compliance.
  After the review, it takes an affirmative vote of four Commissioners 
to conduct an audit. The only other agency I know that conducts random 
audits is the IRS, and even they are scaling back.
  Practically speaking, an audit by the FEC takes years, costs tens, 
even hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawyers and accountants. For 
instance, the audit of the 1996 Republican Convention concluded just 
months before the 2000 convention.
  To carry out this provision, the FEC will have to double or even 
triple its audit staff. This is wrong for the FEC to review the record 
before commencing an audit, which precisely will no longer be the case 
under the Reed amendment.
  We will have more to say about it tomorrow. Suffice it to say, I say 
to my friend from Rhode Island, he gets the drift. I think this is a 
step in the wrong direction, and I think Members of the Senate need to 
be apprised of the fact that they may be subjected to these lengthy and 
costly audits under the Senator's amendment.
  Maybe we will wake up and see the light and conclude the amendment of 
the Senator from Rhode Island is a good idea. In any event, we will 
have to carry it over until tomorrow.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Rhode Island for bringing this 
up. These were provisions we proposed as well over the last number of 
years.
  There are very good concepts here. The random audit races issues can 
be very expensive. If there is no cause for doing it randomly, there is 
a legitimate concern this can be abused by those who would like to 
become a policing action, without any rationale for doing it, other 
than for the sake of doing it.
  I would like to sleep on this and take a look at it and see if we can 
maybe get some agreement to accept it tomorrow, maybe make some 
modification; rather than dealing with it this evening, see if the 
staff can work on it, the majority and the minority, to see if we can 
come up with a proposal to be accepted before we can bring it up for 
consideration between 9 o'clock and 11 o'clock in the morning. If the 
Senator would agree, that would help.
  Mr. REED. I have no opposition to working in a purposeful manner.
  I reassure the Senator of concerns expressed. First, the random audit 
would have to be approved by the majority of commissioners. This is not 
something that would be inherently abusive, since it requires four 
commissioners, at least one of whom has to be from the opposing party.
  In addition, the audits would be subject to strict confidentiality 
rules and only when the audits are completed would they be published, 
and not try to insinuate an audit into the newspapers for political 
campaign purposes.
  I do believe this is a good way to reach compliance, and it is 
something that has been suggested by those people who look closely at 
the Federal Election Commission.
  With respect to the lengthening of the time period for audit, the 
length is increased from 6 months to 12 months for those audits for 
cause. I think that is a reasonable amendment to the current practice. 
I hope it is accepted.
  As the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kentucky 
suggest, I have no opposition to thinking on this overnight and coming 
back.
  Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.
  I have an amendment I may offer tomorrow, but we will have the staff 
look at it and get their thoughts on it. We have done a lot of work. 
There are outstanding amendments, including the amendment of Senator 
Reed of Rhode Island, an amendment of Senator Hatch and Senator 
Specter, and one I want to offer tomorrow morning, if necessary, with 
half an hour equally divided. That will be between 9 o'clock and 11 
o'clock and we should be able to wrap this up.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I would like to read into the Record 
excerpts from the cogent analysis of S. 27 that was prepared by James 
Bopp, Jr., General Counsel of the James Madison Center for Free Speech, 
entitled ``Analysis of S. 27, `McCain-Feingold 2001.' '' In this 
analysis, Mr. Bopp thoroughly demonstrates why this bill violates the 
free speech and associational rights of individuals, political parties, 
labor unions, corporations, and ``issue advocacy'' groups.
  Mr. Bopp begins his analysis by noting whom S. 27 will hurt--the 
``little guy'', as he puts it--and whom it will help, chiefly the 
wealthy and the news corporations:

       McCain-Feingold 2001 is a broad-based and pernicious attack 
     on the rights of average citizens to participate in the 
     democratic process, thereby enhancing the power of already 
     powerful wealthy individuals, millionaire candidates, and 
     large news corporations--the archetypal story of big guys 
     enhancing their power to dominate the little guy.
       McCain-Feingold 2001 is a major assault on the average 
     citizen's ability to participate in the political process 
     because it targets and imposes severe restrictions on two key 
     citizen groups, which serve as the only effective vehicles 
     through which average citizens may pool their money to 
     express themselves effectively: issue advocacy groups and 
     political parties. However, McCain-Feingold 2001 leaves 
     wealthy individuals and candidates and powerful news 
     corporations unscathed, thereby enhancing their relative 
     power in the marketplace of ideas.
       Both issue advocacy groups and political parties are 
     private organizations that provide a vehicle for average 
     citizens to effectively participate in the political process 
     by pooling their resources to enhance their individual 
     voices. These organizations participate broadly in our 
     democratic process by advocating issues of public concern, 
     lobbying for legislation, and directly promoting the election 
     of candidates.
       Issue advocacy groups and political parties enhance 
     individual efforts by association. One individual of average 
     means can accomplish little alone in the public arena, but 
     thousands of average citizens who pool their resources with 
     like-minded individuals can accomplish great things by 
     working together. The right to associate, therefore, is so 
     fundamental to our democratic Republic and the ability of 
     average citizens to affect public policy so important that 
     the United States Supreme Court has recognized it as a 
     fundamental right with powerful constitutional protection.
       Furthermore, political parties are not just about electing 
     candidates, particularly federal ones. Political parties 
     constitute a vital way by which citizens come together around 
     issues and values expressed in the planks of their party 
     platforms--at all levels of government. Parties advocate 
     these issues in the public forum in addition to lobbying for 
     legislation and engaging in efforts to elect candidates. 
     Parties are just as focused on the promotion of issues as are 
     ideological corporations, such as the National Right to Life 
     Committee or The Christian Coalition of America, and labor 
     unions, such as the American Federation of Labor and Congress 
     of Industrial Organizations, although with a broader spectrum 
     of issues. McCain-Feingold 2001 ignores this reality and 
     treats political parties as simply federal candidate election 
     machines.
       McCain-Feingold 2001 attacks the abilities of ordinary 
     citizens to participate in the political process in two ways: 
     (1) by focusing restrictive efforts on issue advocacy 
     corporations, labor unions, and political parties--three 
     organizations vital to the ability of average citizens to 
     pool their resources to make their opinions heard, and (2) by 
     imposing sweeping restrictions that reach broadly beyond 
     direct participation in elections to restrict issue advocacy 
     (limiting discussion of issues of public concern, the views 
     of candidates on issues, and grassroots lobbying for favored 
     legislation).
       If McCain-Feingold 2001 succeeds, the influence of the 
     average citizen would be drastically reduced because 
     association with like-minded individuals is essential to 
     effective participation in the public policy arena. With the 
     little guys locked in the dungeon of nonparticipation, the 
     rich and powerful will run politics, much as they did before 
     the first and foremost campaign reform adopted by our Nation, 
     the First Amendment, which protects the right of association 
     and demands that ``Congress . . . make no law . . . abridging 
     the freedom of speech''--especially speech about those in 
     power and on the critical issues of the day.
       Campaign finance ``reform'' proposals, notably McCain-
     Feingold 2001, do not, and could not, eliminate the power of 
     the giant news media corporations, which are protected by the 
     First Amendment from regulation of editorial content and news 
     coverage. Neither may the wealthy be prohibited from spending 
     their own money--either to express their views on public 
     issues and candidates or to advocate their own election. But 
     the wealthy don't need to pool their resources to be 
     effective, they have all the money they need to pay for 
     communications about the issues they care about. Furthermore, 
     millionaire candidates remain unaffected by

[[Page 5065]]

     proposed campaign ``reforms'' because they need not rely on 
     contributions from others--they can spend their own money to 
     campaign--and officeholders of all stripes have the 
     incredible power of incumbency to support their candidacy. 
     Thus, campaign finance ``reform,'' as proposed by McCain-
     Feingold 2001, strips power from the People and gives it to 
     the already wealthy and powerful.
       So there are winners and losers under McCain-Feingold 2001. 
     The losers are citizens of average means, citizens groups, 
     advocacy organizations, labor unions, and political parties. 
     The winners are the wealthy, major news corporations, and 
     incumbent politicians. It is small wonder then that the 
     wealthiest foundations and individuals are prime supporters 
     of so-called campaign finance ``reform,'' that the mainstream 
     media is the primary cheerleader for it, and that incumbent 
     politicians are so attracted to it.
       But in our Republic, founded by the People for the People, 
     the right of the People to speak out on the most critical 
     issues of the day in the political arena through issue 
     advocacy and the right of the people to come together to pool 
     their resources through associations may not be infringed 
     without violating the Constitution. The United States Supreme 
     Court and other federal courts have been stalwart in defense 
     of the citizens' rights of free speech and association. Be 
     assured that if these unconstitutional measures pass, we 
     stand ready to promptly challenge them in the courts with a 
     high probability of success.

  Mr. Bopp then goes on to layout the general principles that the 
Supreme Court has set forth for analyzing government restrictions on 
political speech and political association. He states that:

       ``Many of the so-called reforms floating around Washington 
     are in fact nothing more than incumbent protection acts. Many 
     politicians feel threatened by negative advertisements and 
     want to control what is said during campaigns.'' Others want 
     to reduce spending on campaigns.
       Chief among these proposals is McCain-Feingold 2001, the 
     self-styled ``Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001'' (S. 
     27), sponsored principally by Senators John McCain and 
     Russell Feingold. Though announced with the promise of 
     reducing the corrupting influence of big money, McCain-
     Feingold 2001 is instead a broad attack on citizen 
     participation in our democratic Republic. This bill shakes a 
     fist at the First Amendment; if passed, it is destined for a 
     court-ordered funeral. The most egregious provisions and 
     their infirmities are discussed below.
       As noted in the introduction, average citizens must pool 
     their resources to have an effect in the political sphere of 
     issue advocacy, lobbying, and electoral activity. The wealthy 
     and powerful have no such need. So ordinary people band 
     together in ideological corporations, labor unions, and 
     political parties to amplify their voices. This right to 
     associate is a bedrock principle of our democratic Republic, 
     powerfully protected by the U.S. Constitution. McCain-
     Feingold 2001, however, would suppress this ability, along 
     with the foundational constitutional right to free speech.
       It should be noted at the outset of this analysis that 
     political speech and association are at the heart of the 
     First Amendment protections. As the United States Supreme 
     Court has declared, ``the constitutional guarantee [of the 
     First Amendment] has its fullest and most urgent application 
     precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office.'' 
     Free expression in connection with elections is no second-
     class citizen, rather political expression is ``at the core 
     of our electoral process and of the First Amendment 
     freedoms.'' Thus, ``there is practically universal agreement 
     that a major purpose of [the First] Amendment was to protect 
     the free discussion of governmental affairs, . . . of course 
     includ[ing] discussions of candidates.''
       Furthermore, the fundamental right of association was well 
     articulated by the United States Supreme Court in the case of 
     NAACP v. Alabama, when the Court reviewed a suit against the 
     National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
     brought by the State of Alabama seeking disclosure of all its 
     members.
       The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court strongly affirmed the 
     constitutional protection for the freedom of association:
       ``Effective advocacy of both public and private points of 
     view, particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced 
     by group association, as this Court has more than once 
     recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between the 
     freedoms of speech and assembly. It is beyond debate that 
     freedom in association for the advancement of beliefs and 
     ideas is an inseparable aspect of the ``liberty'' assured by 
     the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which 
     embraces freedom of speech. Of course, it is immaterial 
     whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association 
     pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural 
     matters, and state action which may have the effect of 
     curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest 
     scrutiny.''

     Thus, the Court held that ``[i]nviolability of privacy in 
     group association may in many circumstances be indispensable 
     to preservation of freedom of association, particularly where 
     a group espouses dissident beliefs,'' and it, therefore, 
     protected the identity of members of the NAACP form 
     disclosure.
       In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the 
     constitutional protection for association. `[E]ffective 
     advocacy of both public and private points of view, 
     particularly controversial ones, is undeniably enhanced by 
     group association. [Consequently,] the First and Fourteenth 
     Amendments guarantee freedom to associate with others for the 
     common advancement of political beliefs and ideas.' The Court 
     then noted that `action which may have the effect of 
     curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest 
     scrutiny.' This highest level of constitutional protection, 
     of course, flows from the essential function of associations 
     in allowing effective participation in our democratic 
     Republic. Organizations, from political action committees 
     (`PACs') to ideological corporations to labor unions to 
     political parties, exist to permit `amplified individual 
     speech.'

  Mr. President, Mr. Bopp next explains how S. 27 unconstitutionally 
prohibits and restricts the abilities of outside groups to exercise 
their rights to freedom of speech and of association. He first 
discusses how the bill's ``electioneering communication'' standard 
sweeps in issue speech and then shows how that standard violates 
Supreme Court precedent:

       McCain-Feingold 2001 prohibits political participation by 
     citizens of average means by broadly defining `electioneering 
     communication' so that issue advocacy expenditures currently 
     permitted become forbidden under federal law for corporations 
     and labor unions.
       McCain-Feingold 2001 restricts the issue advocacy of 
     ideological, nonprofit corporations and labor unions by first 
     defining `electioneering communication' to include issue 
     advocacy, i.e., `any broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication' to `members of the electorate' that `refers to 
     a clearly identified [federal] candidate' `within 60 days 
     before a general . . . election (30 days before primaries),' 
     and then adding it to the list of prohibited activities by 
     corporations and labor unions.
       The broad definition of `electioneering communication' 
     plainly sweeps in and prohibits a wide variety of issue 
     advocacy communications traditionally engaged in by such 
     organizations. First, Congress is often in session within 60 
     days before a general election and 30 days before a primary. 
     As a result, grass-roots lobbying regarding a bill to be 
     voted on during this 60 period would be prohibited if the 
     broadcast communication named a candidate by referring to the 
     bill in question (`the McCain-Feingold bill') or by asking a 
     constituent to lobby their Congressman or Senator.
       With corporations and labor unions prohibited from making 
     such communications, McCain-Feingold 2001 then requires those 
     that may still do so, individuals and PACs, that spend over 
     $10,000 per year, to file reports with the FEC. Among other 
     things, the reports must list every disbursement over $200 
     and to whom it was made, the candidate(s) to be identified, 
     and the identity of all contributors aggregating $1,000 or 
     more during the year. The $10,000 triggering expenditure 
     occurs when a contract is made to disburse the funds, which 
     might be months in advance--allowing ample time for incumbent 
     politicians, who object to the general public being informed 
     of their voting record or positions on issues, to attempt to 
     discourage the broadcast medium, or to intimidate the person 
     or PAC paying for the ad, from actually running the ad.
       In sum, the issue advocacy communications of nonprofit 
     corporations and labor unions, are treated like express 
     advocacy communications and organizations doing such issue 
     advocacy are treated like PACs. However, as seen next, there 
     is no constitutional warrant for Congress to regulate issue 
     advocacy or the organizations that primarily engage in it. 
     Period.
       To protect First Amendment freedom, the Supreme Court has 
     created a bright line between permitted and proscribed 
     regulation of political speech. Government may only regulate 
     a communication that `expressly advocates the election or 
     defeat of a clearly identified candidate' (`express 
     advocacy'), by `explicit words' or `in express terms,' such 
     as `vote for,' `support,' or `defeat.' Election-related 
     speech that discusses candidates' views on issues is known by 
     the legal term of art `issue advocacy.' Although issue 
     advocacy undoubtedly influences elections, it is absolutely 
     protected from regulation--even if done by corporations, 
     labor unions, or political parties.
       Although the First Amendment says that `Congress shall make 
     no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech', the 
     `reformers,' and the incumbent politicians that their efforts 
     would protect, have refused to take ``no'' as an answer. But 
     the federal courts have consistently enforced the First 
     Amendment against all attempts to regulate issue advocacy.
       The Supreme Court has recognized that the freedom of speech 
     is both an inherent liberty and a necessary instrument for 
     limited

[[Page 5066]]

     representative government. The Court observed that `[i]n a 
     republic where the people[, not their legislators,] are 
     sovereign, the ability of the citizenry to make informed 
     choices among candidates for office is essential, for the 
     identities of those elected will inevitably shape the course 
     that we follow as a nation.' As a result, `it can hardly be 
     doubted that the constitutional guarantee [of the freedom of 
     speech] has its fullest and most urgent application precisely 
     to the conduct of campaigns for political office.'
       The seminal case is the 1976 decision of Buckley v. Valeo, 
     where the Supreme Court was faced with constitutional 
     questions regarding the post-Watergate amendments to the 
     Federal Election Campaign Act (`FECA')--which was by far the 
     most comprehensive attempt to regulate election-related 
     communications and spending to date. One of the more 
     nettlesome problems with which the Court struggled was the 
     question of what speech could be constitutionally subject to 
     government regulation. The post-Watergate FECA was written 
     broadly, subjecting any speech to regulation that was made 
     `relative to a clearly identified candidate' or `for the 
     purpose of . . . influencing' the nomination or election of 
     candidates for public office.
       In considering this question, the Court recognized that the 
     difference between issue and candidate advocacy often 
     dissipated in the real world:
       ``[T]he distinction between discussion of issues and 
     candidates and advocacy of the election or defeat of 
     candidates may often dissolve in practical application. 
     Candidates, especially incumbents, are intimately tied to 
     public issues involving legislative proposals and 
     governmental actions. Not only do candidates campaign on the 
     basis of their positions on various public issues, but 
     campaigns themselves generate issues of public interest.''
       Thus, the Court was faced with a dilemma whether to allow 
     regulation of issue advocacy because it might influence an 
     election or to protect issue advocacy because it is vital to 
     the conduct of our representative democracy, even though it 
     would influence elections.
       The Court resolved this dilemma decisively in favor of 
     protection of issue advocacy. First, the Court recognized 
     that `a major purpose of [the First Amendment] was to protect 
     the free discussion of governmental affairs . . . of course 
     includ[ing] discussions of candidates.' Thus, the Court 
     concluded that issue advocacy was constitutionally 
     sacrosanct:
       ``Discussion of public issues and debate on the 
     qualifications of candidates are integral to the operation of 
     the system of government established by our Constitution. The 
     First Amendment affords the broadest protection to such 
     political expression in order `to assure [the] unfettered 
     interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and 
     social changes desired by the people.' ''
       Second, in order to provide this broad protection to issue 
     advocacy, the Court adopted the bright-line `express 
     advocacy' test which limited government regulation to only 
     those communications which `expressly advocate the election 
     or defeat of a clearly identified candidate,' in `explicit 
     words' or by `express terms.' In so doing, the Court narrowed 
     the reach of the FECA's disclosure provisions to cover only 
     `express advocacy.' A decade later, the Court reaffirmed the 
     express advocacy standard and applied it to the ban on 
     corporate and labor union contributions and expenditures in 
     connection with federal elections.
       Finally, not even the interest in preventing actual or 
     apparent corruption of candidates, which was found 
     sufficiently compelling to justify contribution limits, was 
     deemed adequate to regulate issue advocacy. The Court 
     rejected this interest even though it recognized that issue 
     advocacy could potentially be abused to obtain improper 
     benefits from candidates.
       In adopting a test that focused on the words actually 
     spoken by the speaker, the Court expressly rejected the 
     argument that the test should focus on the intent of the 
     speaker or whether the effect of the message would be to 
     influence an election:
       ``[W]hether words intended and designed to fall short of 
     invitation [to vote for or against a candidate] would miss 
     the mark is a question both of intent and of effect. No 
     speaker, in such circumstances, safely could assume that 
     anything he might say upon the general subject would not be 
     understood by some as an invitation. In short, the supposedly 
     clear-cut distinction between discussion, laudation, general 
     advocacy, and solicitation puts the speaker in these 
     circumstances wholly at the mercy of the varied understanding 
     of his hearers and consequently of whatever inference may be 
     drawn as to his intent and meaning.
       ``Such a distinction offers no security for free 
     discussion. In these conditions it blankets with uncertainty 
     whatever may be said. It compels the speaker to hedge and 
     trim.''
       Some `reformers' claim that the Court was not sufficiently 
     farsighted to see the effect that issue advocacy would 
     eventually have in influencing elections and, if we only 
     bring this to their attention, then the Court will allow 
     government regulation of it. However, the Court made clear 
     that it was not so naive:
       ``Public discussion of public issues which also are 
     campaign issues readily and often unavoidably draws in 
     candidates and their positions, their voting records and 
     other official conduct. Discussions of those issues, as well 
     as more positive efforts to influence public opinion on them, 
     tend naturally and inexorably to exert some influence on 
     voting at elections.''

     As a result, the Court explicitly endorsed the use of issue 
     advocacy to influence elections:

       ``So long as persons and groups eschew expenditures that in 
     express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly 
     identified candidate, they are free to spend as much as they 
     want to promote the candidate and his views.''
       The several lower federal courts and state courts that have 
     been faced with restrictions on issue advocacy have 
     faithfully adhered to the `explicit' or `express' words of 
     advocacy test according to its plain terms.
       For example, in Michigan, the Secretary of State 
     promulgated a rule that banned corporate and labor union 
     communications made within 45 days of an election that merely 
     contained the `name or likeness of a candidate.' Two 
     traditional adversaries, Right To Life of Michigan and 
     Planned Parenthood, challenged the rule in separate federal 
     courts and had the rule declared unconstitutional. 
     Consequently, if passed, McCain-Feingold 2001's materially 
     identical `electioneering communication' definition is dead 
     on arrival in the federal courts.
       The weight of authority is indeed heavy; the express 
     advocacy test means exactly what it says. Campaign finance 
     statutes regulating more than explicit words of advocacy of 
     the election or defeat of clearly identified candidates are 
     `impermissibly broad' under the First Amendment.''

  Mr. President, Mr. Bopp then notes that while S. 27 has an exception 
for not-for-profit corporations so that they would not be banned from 
engaging in core political speech, issue advocacy, the price that the 
bill extorts from these groups from doing so--the disclosure of 
confidential donor information--is unconstitutional. I will quote Mr. 
Bopp's analysis of this part of S. 27, Mr. President, but I should note 
that because this body has adopted Senator Wellstone's amendment to 
this bill, not-for-profit corporations now cannot engage in issue 
advocacy at all within 60 days of an election, even if they divulge to 
the federal government their confidential donor information. Mr. Bopp 
observes that:

       McCain-Feingold 2001 makes a very minor exception for 
     nonprofits that (1) permits expenditures for ``electioneering 
     communication,'' (2) applies only to those organizations tax 
     exempt under Sec. Sec. 501(c)(4) or 527 of the Internal 
     Revenue Code, and (3) applies only if they are made by a 
     quasi-PAC established by the corporation, to which 
     contributions can only be made by individuals and with 
     respect to which all receipts and disbursements must be 
     reported.
       The first thing to be noted about this minor exception is 
     that it only applies to 501(c)(4) and 527 organizations. That 
     means all other nonprofits are excluded from engaging in 
     issue advocacy for a couple of months before an election, 
     including 501(c)(3)s, veterans groups, trade associations, 
     and labor unions.
       Furthermore, this quasi-PAC is required to report all of 
     its contributors of $1,000 or more. This is a very 
     substantial burden because it exposes contributors to 
     harassment and intimidation by ideological foes. The United 
     States Supreme Court in Buckley held that such burdens could 
     not be applied to issue-oriented groups, as McCain-Feingold 
     2001 does, because disclosure of private associations is an 
     unconstitutional burden.''

  Next, Mr. President, Mr. Bopp explains how the ``coordination'' 
provisions of McCain-Feingold effectively prohibits persons from 
exercising their First Amendment right to petition the government for 
redress of grievances, as well as their free speech and associational 
rights. Mr. Bopp notes that:

       McCain-Feingold 2001 also prohibits corporations and labor 
     unions for funding any ``coordinated activity.'' 
     ``Coordinated activity'' is so broadly defined and uses such 
     vague terms that it would ban nearly everything of any 
     conceivable value to a candidate by converting it into a 
     forbidden ``contribution.''
       ``Coordinated activity'' is ``anything of value provided by 
     a person [including corporations and labor unions] in 
     connection with a Federal candidate's election who is or 
     previously has been within the same election cycle acting in 
     coordination with that candidate . . . (regardless of whether 
     the value being provided is in the form of a communication 
     that expressly advocates a vote for or against a 
     candidate).'' Thus, there are two key concepts to this 
     prohibition: (1) ``anything of value'' and (2) 
     ``coordination.''

  Mr. Bopp first discusses why ``anything of value'' is both vague and

[[Page 5067]]

broad, and he then explains why a ``coordinated activity'' is also 
extremely sweeping:

       A ``coordinated activity'' includes ``anything of value 
     provided by a person in connection with a Federal candidates' 
     election.'' ``Anything of value'' is breathtakingly broad and 
     vague and any such thing is subject to being coordinated. It 
     provides no limit or notice to organizations subject to civil 
     and criminal sanctions for coordinating it with a candidate.
       Furthermore, with respect to communications, it is not 
     limited to express advocacy and thus clearly encompasses 
     issue advocacy by an organization. While the courts are 
     currently divided on whether a coordinated communication must 
     contain express advocacy to be subject to regulation or 
     prohibition, no court has suggested that any and all 
     communications are so subject.
       Under current law, coordination between a candidate and a 
     citizen group exists only when there is actually prior 
     communication about a specific expenditure for a specific 
     project that effectively puts the expenditure under the 
     candidate's control or is made based on information provided 
     by the candidate about the candidate's needs or plans. 
     However, McCain-Feingold 2001 expands ``coordination'' to 
     include, inter alia, mere discussion of a candidate's 
     ``message'' any time during ``the same election cycle,'' 
     i.e., a two-year period or, perhaps, a four-year period, if 
     it relates to a President, or a six-year period if it relates 
     to a Senator.
       For example, if an incorporated ideological organization 
     praised Sen. McCain for his work on campaign finance 
     ``reform'' early in a session of Congress and worked with him 
     on promoting such ``reform'' legislation, then 
     ``coordination'' would be established and anything of value 
     to Sen. McCain's candidacy would be deemed coordinated, would 
     be a contribution to his campaign, and would be illegal 
     because corporations cannot make contributions to candidates.
       However, the very notion that American citizens should be 
     punished for communicating, or even working, with their 
     elected officials on a wide range of public issues important 
     to the official and his constituency by having any subsequent 
     efforts to praise the candidate's issue position or to 
     support the candidate in his or her campaign considered a 
     coordinated activity is repugnant to our constitutional 
     scheme of participatory government in a democratic Republic 
     run by and answerable to the People. In a conceptually 
     related context, in Clifton v. FEC, the First Circuit struck 
     down the FEC's voter guide regulations which prohibited any 
     oral communications with candidates in preparation of voter 
     guides. The court held that this rule is ``patently offensive 
     to the First Amendment'' and that it is ``beyond reasonable 
     belief that, to prevent corruption or illicit coordination, 
     the government could prohibit voluntary discussions between 
     citizens and their legislators and candidates on public 
     issues.''
       And coordination would also be presumed, under McCain-
     Feingold 2001, if the ideological corporation used the same 
     vendor of ``professional services,'' including ``polling, 
     media advice, fundraising, campaign research, political 
     advice, or direct mail services (except for mailhouse 
     services)'' if the vendor had worked for a candidate and if 
     the vendor is retained to do work related to that candidate's 
     election. Under this scheme, a vendor's decision to do work 
     for a candidate could unilaterally lock an ideological 
     corporation out of otherwise permitted issue advocacy at 
     election time. And even if the corporation has a connected 
     PAC, the PAC would be prohibited from making an independent 
     expenditures of more than $5,000, since that expenditure 
     would also be deemed to be a contribution.
       This presumption is also fatally infirm as coordination 
     must be proven. In Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Comm. 
     v. FEC, the FEC took the position that party expenditures 
     were presumed to be coordinated with their candidates as a 
     matter of law. The Supreme Court rejected this view: ``An 
     agency's simply calling an independent expenditure a 
     `coordinated expenditure' cannot (for constitutional 
     purposes) make it one. . . . [T]he government cannot 
     foreclose the exercise of constitutional rights by mere 
     labels.'' The Court held that there must be ``actual 
     coordination as a matter of fact.'' Congress, therefore, 
     cannot merely recite some factual scenarios wherein it might 
     be possible, or even probable, that coordination with 
     candidates takes place and then presume as a matter of law 
     that it has occurred in such instances. To do so, would allow 
     the government to drastically curtail independent 
     expenditures by mere labels, which cannot be constitutionally 
     limited.
       Finally, McCain-Feingold finds ``coordination'' if there is 
     any ``general understanding'' with the candidate about the 
     expenditure. This general catchall goes way beyond the narrow 
     understanding that the courts have on what ``coordination'' 
     is. Consistent with other federal courts, the District Court 
     in FEC v. Christian Coalition held that a communication
       ``becomes `coordinated' where the candidate or her agents 
     can exercise control over, or where there has been 
     substantial discussion or negotiation between the campaign 
     and the spender over a communication's: (1) Contents; (2) 
     timing; (3) location, mode, or intended audience (e.g., 
     choice between newspaper or radio advertisement); or (4) 
     `volume' (e.g., number of copies of printed materials or 
     frequency of media spots). `Substantial discussion' or 
     `negotiation' is such that the candidate and spender emerge 
     as partners or joint venturers in the expressive expenditure, 
     but the candidate and spender need not be equal partners.''

     This is a far cry from a `general understanding.'

  Mr. President, at this point in Mr. Bopp's analysis, he explains that 
the citizenry needs a bright line not only to protect them from 
prosecution, but to protect them from a punitive investigation simply 
because they exercised their First Amendment rights.

       While it may be theoretically possible to do issue advocacy 
     without running afoul of it being a prohibited 
     `electioneering communication' or `coordinated activity,' 
     only the reckless, foolish, or wealthy and powerful are 
     likely to try. Particularly in Washington, D.C., the 
     punishment is in the process. Any organization that does 
     something that could be deemed of value to a candidate can 
     expect to be the subject of an FEC complaint and 
     investigation to ferret out whether the activity was 
     `coordinated.' Thus, publicly praising an officeholder for 
     her vote on a bill invites investigation by the FEC. Daring 
     to tell constituents to get an incumbent to change his 
     position on an upcoming vote could provoke an FEC 
     investigation. This is the world of ubiquitous FEC 
     investigations that all advocacy groups can expect.
       And these `mere' investigations themselves violate the 
     First Amendment. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained when 
     Congress was busy investigating Communist influence in the 
     1940's and 50's, `[t]he mere summoning of a witness and 
     compelling him to testify, against his will, about his 
     beliefs, expressions or associations is a measure of 
     government interference' with First Amendment freedoms.

  Mr. President, Mr. Bopp then notes another major impediment to 
individuals and citizens' groups exercising their First Amendment 
rights, and that is how the bill's coordination provisions interplay 
with contribution limits. He notes that ``[f]or any individual, and for 
any organization that can actually do a `coordinate activity,' which 
seems to be only a federal PAC, the `coordinated activity' would be 
limited by contribution limits. So a substantial amount of traditional 
`independent expenditures' by PACs are now swept under the control of 
McCain-Feingold 2001 and limited because a multi-candidate PAC can only 
make a contribution of $5,000 per election to a candidate.''
  Of course, Mr. President, this is only part of the story. As Mr. Bopp 
explains, S. 27 also violates the free speech and associational rights 
of our political parties in its effort to regulate non-federal money. 
Specifically, he states that ``[i]n its effort to regulate `soft 
money,' McCain-Feingold 2001 has two dramatic adverse effects on 
political party activity: (1) it imposes federal election law limits on 
the state and local activities of national political parties, and (2) 
it dramatically limits the issue advocacy, legislative, and 
organizational activities of political parties. But first it is 
important to recall the U.S. Supreme Court's comment that `[w]e are not 
aware of any special dangers of corruption associated with political 
parties. . . .' Political parties are merely the People associating 
with others who share their values to advance issues, legislation, and 
candidates that further those values. When they do these things, they 
are just doing their historic job as good citizens. The notion that 
they are somehow corrupt for doing so is both strange and 
constitutionally infirm.''
  Mr. President, Mr. Bopp next notes that this bill federalizes state 
and local parties and totally federalizes national parties, which 
engage in a multitude of activities besides federal elections. He 
observes that ``[a]lthough national parties care about local, state, 
and federal elections, they are treated by McCain-Feingold 2001 as if 
they only care about federal elections. As to state and local political 
parties, if there is a federal candidate on the ballot, they too are 
treated as if only the federal candidate matters. In short, McCain-
Feingold 2001 federalizes the state and local election activities of 
national, state, and local political parties.''
  Mr. Bopp then explains how this federalization occurs: ``As to 
national political parties, this happens as a result

[[Page 5068]]

of the total ban on national political parties receiving `soft money.' 
This happens to state and local political parties as a result of the 
definition of `federal election activity,' which governs political 
party expenditures if any federal candidate is on the general election 
ballot, and which includes `voter registration' during the 120 days 
before an election, `voter identification, get-out-the-vote activity, 
or [any activity promoting a political party].' Therefore, if state and 
local political parties do `federal election activity,' they must use 
`hard money,' i.e., money subject to FECA restrictions, for such 
activity if a federal candidate is on the ballot. These activities are 
traditional activities that state and local parties have always done 
and the national political parties have supported. The fact that there 
is a federal candidate on the ballot, along with the state and local 
candidates for whom state and local parties have the greater concern, 
does not justify federalizing and limiting these activities.''
  Mr. Bopp concludes his analysis of S. 27 by explaining the 
constitutional problem with the bill's prohibition on the parties' use 
of non-federal dollars to engage in issue discussion. He first notes 
that under the bill `` `federal election activity' includes `a public 
communication that refers to a clearly identified [federal] candidate .  
.  . and that promotes or supports a candidate or opposes a candidate .  
.  . (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a 
vote for or against a candidate) .  .  .' Presently, political parties, 
like any other entity, may receive and spend an unlimited amount of 
money on issue advocacy. McCain-Feingold 2001 would virtually eliminate 
this basic constitutional freedom for national political parties, by 
prohibiting the receipt of all `soft money,' and severely limit it for 
state and local political parties, by requiring only hard money to be 
used if a federal candidate is involved. Because McCain-Feingold 2001 
prohibits the raising of `soft money' by national political parties, 
they have no such money available for issue advocacy, legislative, and 
organizational activities. It treats political parties as if they were 
just federal-candidate election machines. As a result, McCain-Feingold 
2001 has effectively amputated these other important, historical 
activities of political parties.''
  Mr. President, the constitutional problems with such restrictions on 
parties are explained in detail by Mr. Bopp as follows:

       [T]hese restrictions fail constitutional muster. Political 
     parties enjoy the same unfettered right to issue advocacy as 
     other entities, which is especially appropriate because 
     advancing a broad range of issues is their raison d'etre. 
     `Reforms' banning political parties from receiving and 
     spending so-called `soft money' cannot be justified as 
     preventing corruption, since the Supreme Court has already 
     held that interest insufficient for restricting issue 
     advocacy in Buckley.
       If individuals and narrow interest groups enjoy the basic 
     First Amendment freedom to discuss issues and the position of 
     candidates on those issues, how can political parties, which 
     have wide bases of interests that are necessarily tempered 
     and diffused, be deprived of the right to engage in such 
     issue advocacy?
       However, proponents of abolishing `soft money' argue that 
     this is simply a `contribution limit.' The fallacy of that 
     argument, of course, is that the Supreme Court has justified 
     contribution limits only on the ground that large 
     contributions create the reality or appearance of quid pro 
     quo corruption, which, as discussed above, cannot justify a 
     limit on issue advocacy.
       Furthermore, the proposed ban on soft money contributions 
     cannot be justified on the theory that political parties 
     corrupt federal candidates, which the Supreme Court has 
     already rejected. In Colorado Republican, the FEC took the 
     position that independent, uncoordinated expenditures by 
     political parties ought to be treated as contributions to the 
     benefitted candidate. Such treatment would have resulted in 
     allowing individuals, candidates, and political action 
     committees to spend unlimited amounts of money on independent 
     expenditures to advocate the election of a candidate, while 
     limiting the amount a political party could spend for the 
     same purpose.
       The Supreme Court disagreed with the FEC, noting that `[w]e 
     are not aware of any special dangers of corruption associated 
     with political parties'' and, after observing that 
     individuals could contribute more money to political parties 
     ($20,000) than to candidates ($1,000) and PACs ($5,000) and 
     that the ``FECA permits unregulated `soft money' 
     contributions to a party for certain activities,' the Court 
     concluded that the `opportunity for corruption posed by these 
     greater opportunities for contributions is, at best, 
     attenuated.' The Court continued in this vein with respect to 
     the FEC's proposed ban on political party independent 
     expenditures, which has direct application to McCain-Feingold 
     2001's ban on soft money contributions:
       ``[R]ather than indicating a special fear of the corruptive 
     influence of political parties, the legislative history [of 
     the Act] demonstrates Congress' general desire to enhance 
     what was seen as an important and legitimate role for 
     political parties in American elections.  .  .  .
       ``We therefore believe that this Court's prior case law 
     controls the outcome here. We do not see how a Constitution 
     that grants to individuals, candidates, and ordinary 
     political committees the right to make unlimited independent 
     expenditures could deny the same right to political 
     parties.''

     The concurring justices also found little, if any, 
     opportunity for party corruption of candidates because of 
     their very nature and structure.

       The Supreme Court echoed the same theme with respect to the 
     independent expenditures of political action committees:
       ``The fact that candidates and elected officials may alter 
     or reaffirm their own positions on issues in response to 
     political messages paid for by PACs can hardly be called 
     corruption, for one of the essential features of democracy is 
     the presentation to the electorate of varying points of 
     view.''

     If this is true of PACs, then a fortiori there can be no 
     corruption or appearance of corruption resulting from issue 
     advocacy by political parties.

       In addition, the Supreme Court in MCFL provided further 
     guidance on whether the threat of corruption is posed by an 
     organization such as a political party. The Court considered 
     the ban on independent expenditures by corporations under 2 
     U.S.C. Sec. 441b. The MCFL Court evaluated whether there was 
     any risk of corruption with regard to an MCFL-type 
     organization that would justify such a ban on its political 
     speech. While MCFL considered whether an ideological 
     corporation was sufficiently like a business corporation to 
     justify the ban on using corporate dollars for independent 
     expenditures, there are several transferable concepts to 
     evaluating the threat of corruption posed by a political 
     party.
  The concern raised by the FEC in MCFL was that Sec. 441b served to 
prevent corruption by `prevent[ing] an organization from using an 
individual's money for purposes that the individual may not support.' 
The Court found that `[t]his rationale for regulation is not compelling 
with respect' to MCFL-type organizations because `[i]ndividuals who 
contribute to [an MCFL-type organization] are fully aware of its 
political purposes, and in fact contribute precisely because they 
support those purposes.' `[I]ndividuals contribute to a political 
organization in part because they regard such a contribution as a more 
effective means of advocacy than spending the money under their own 
personal direction.' `Finally, a contributor dissatisfied with how 
funds are used can simply stop contributing.' Thus, the Court held that 
the prohibitions on corporate contributions and expenditures in 
Sec. 441b could not be constitutionally applied to non-profit 
ideological corporations which do not serve as a conduit for business 
corporation contributions.
       Political parties similarly pose no risk of corruption 
     because people give money to parties precisely because they 
     support what the political party stands for. A contribution 
     to a political party is for the purpose of enhancing advocacy 
     of the issues the party represents. Any individual unhappy 
     with the use of the money may simply quit contributing and 
     leave the political party. In sum, the threat of corruption 
     cannot justify a limit on issue advocacy and, even if it 
     could, political parties pose no threat of corruption to 
     their candidates.
       Finally, the Supreme Court also found that, just as 
     independent expenditures of interest groups pose no danger of 
     corrupting candidates, neither do those of political parties. 
     And while no one disputes that expenditures on express 
     advocacy actually coordinated with candidates are properly 
     contributions to the candidate because of the possibility of 
     quid pro quo corruption, the Court held that coordination 
     must be proven as a matter of fact; it cannot be presumed. 
     `Reforms' may not presume coordination where it does not 
     actually exist.
       Thus, there is no justification, in either policy or law, 
     for the severe limits on national, state, and local political 
     parties that McCain-Feingold 2001 imposes.

  Thus, Mr. President, Mr. Bopp has thoroughly shown the myriad of 
constitutional problems from which this bill suffers, and I am 
confident that the Supreme Court will ultimately validate his analysis.

[[Page 5069]]

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record, 
the letter authored by Laura Murphy, Director of the Washington, D.C. 
office of the American Civil Liberties Union and Professor Joel Gora of 
the Brooklyn Law School. In this letter, Ms. Murphy and Professor Gora 
analyze S. 27, ``The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001'' and 
thoroughly discuss its many constitutional infirmities.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:
         American Civil Liberties Union, Washington National 
           Office,
                                   Washington, DC, March 20, 2001.
       Dear Senator: The McCain-Feingold bill, also misnamed as 
     ``The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001'' (S. 
     27) is a destructive distraction from the serious business of 
     meaningful campaign finance reform. Meaningful campaign 
     finance reform would develop comprehensive programs for 
     providing public resources, benefits and support for all 
     qualified federal political candidates. Since 25 years of 
     experience have shown that limits on political funding simply 
     won't work, constitutionally or practically, it is time to 
     seek a more First Amendment-friendly way to expand political 
     opportunity. Public financing for all qualified candidates is 
     an option that provides the necessary support for candidacies 
     without the imposition of burdensome and unconstitutional 
     limits and restraints. The ACLU has long argued for this, but 
     instead we must use our time today to condemn the ill-
     conceived iterations of McCain-Feingold that are non-remedies 
     to our national campaign finance woes and are wholly at odds 
     with the essence of the First Amendment.
       Simply put, the McCain-Feingold bill is a recipe for 
     political repression because it egregiously violates 
     longstanding free speech rights in several ways: It stifles 
     issue advocacy in violation of the First Amendment; it 
     criminalizes any constitutionally-protected contact that 
     groups and individuals may have with candidates (through bans 
     on so-called ``coordination''); and it virtually destroys 
     political parties in an unconstitutional fashion.

        I. S. 27 Erodes Robust Citizen Speech Prior to Elections

       As Virginia Woolf stated, ``If we don't believe in freedom 
     of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it 
     at all.'' Clearly, the authors and supporters of McCain-
     Feingold despise any form of issue advocacy that has the 
     audacity to mention candidates for federal office by name. 
     The bill virtually silences issue advocacy (redefined as 
     ``electioneering communications'') in three ways:
       Section 201 requires accelerated and expanded disclosure of 
     the funding of issue advocacy.
       Section 202 effectively criminalizes issue advocacy as a 
     prohibited contribution if it is ``coordinated'' in the 
     loosest sense of that term with a federal candidate.
       Section 203 bans issue advocacy completely if it is 
     sponsored by a labor union, a corporation (including such 
     non-profit corporations organized to advance a particular 
     cause like the ACLU or the National Right to Life Committee 
     or Planned Parenthood, unless they are willing to obey the 
     government's stringent new rules) or other similar organized 
     entity. Even an individual who receives financial support--
     from prohibited contributors such as corporations, unions or 
     wealthy individuals--is also barred from engaging in 
     ``electioneering communications.''
       The bill would impose these limitations on communications 
     about issues regardless of whether the communication 
     ``expressly advocates'' the election or defeat of a 
     particular candidate. Nor is there any requirement of even 
     showing a partisan purpose or intent. Instead, during 60 days 
     before a primary or 30 days before a general election, any 
     such communication is subject to the new controls simply by 
     identifying any person who is a federal candidate, which will 
     usually be an incumbent politician.
       These restraints and punishments are triggered by the 
     making of any ``broadcast, cable, or satellite 
     communication'' which ``refers to a clearly identified 
     candidate for Federal office'' within 60 days of a general or 
     runoff election or 30 days of a primary election or 
     convention, ``made to an audience that includes members of 
     the electorate'' for such election or convention. This 
     distinction between broadcast, cable and satellite from those 
     communications through other media bears no relevance to the 
     only recognized justification for campaign finance 
     limitations or prohibitions, namely, the concern with 
     corruption. Suppressing speech in one medium while permitting 
     it in another is not a lesser form of censorship, just a 
     different form.


  A. These Issue Advocacy Restrictions Would Have Adverse, Real-Life 
                              Consequences

       Had these provisions been law during the 2000 elections, 
     for example, they would have effectively silenced messages 
     from issue organizations across the entire political 
     spectrum. The NAACP ads--financed by a sole anonymous donor--
     vigorously highlighting Governor Bush's failure to endorse 
     hate crimes legislation--is a classic example of robust and 
     uninhibited public debate about the qualifications and 
     actions of political officials. By the same token, last 
     Spring, when New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani was a candidate for 
     the United States Senate, any broadcast criticism of his 
     record on police brutality as mayor of New York, undertaken 
     by the New York Civil Liberties Union, would have subjected 
     that organization to the risk of severe legal sanctions and 
     punishment under these proposals. The Supreme Court in cases 
     from New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) 
     through Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976) to California 
     Democratic Party v. Jones, 120 S.Ct. 2402 (2000) have 
     repeatedly protected full and vigorous debate during an 
     election season. The provisions of the pending bills would 
     silence that debate.
       Second, the ban on ``electioneering communications'' would 
     stifle legislative advocacy on pending bills. The blackout 
     periods coincide with crucial legislative periods, including 
     the months of September and October as well as months during 
     the Spring. During Presidential years, the blackout periods 
     would include the entire Presidential primary season, 
     conceivably right up through the August national nominating 
     conventions. For example had this provision been law in 2000, 
     for most of the year it would have been illegal for the ACLU 
     or the National Right to Life Committee to criticize the 
     ``McCain-Feingold'' bill as an example of unconstitutional 
     campaign finance legislation or to urge elected officials to 
     oppose that bill! The only time the blackout ban would be 
     lifted would be in August, when many Americans are on 
     vacation!
       During the 104th Congress, for example, the ACLU identified 
     at least 10 major, controversial bills that it worked on that 
     were debated in either chamber of the Congress within 60 days 
     prior to the November 1996 general election. This legislation 
     includes several anti-abortion bills including so-called 
     partial birth abortion legislation, public disclosure of the 
     CIA budget, creation of a federal database of sex offenders, 
     new federal penalties for methamphetamine use, prohibition on 
     discrimination of gays and lesbians in the workplace, same-
     sex marriage prohibition, anti-immigration legislation and 
     school vouchers, among others. This pattern of legislating 
     close to primary and general elections has only been repeated 
     in subsequent Congresses.


       B. Why These Limitations Run Afoul of the First Amendment

       Under the reasoning of Buckley v. Valeo and all the cases 
     which have followed suit, the funding of any public speech 
     that falls short of such `express advocacy' is wholly immune 
     from campaign finance laws. Speech which comments on, 
     criticizes or praises, applauds or condemns the public 
     records and actions of public officials and political 
     candidates--even though it mentions and discusses candidates, 
     and even though it occurs during an election year or even an 
     election season--is entirely protected by the First 
     Amendment.
       The Court made that crystal clear in Buckley when it 
     fashioned the express advocacy doctrine. That doctrine holds 
     that the FECA can constitutionally regulate only 
     ``communications that in express terms advocate the election 
     or defeat of a clearly identified candidate,'' and include 
     ``explicit words of advocacy of election or defeat.'' 424 
     U.S. at 44, 45. The Court developed that doctrine because it 
     was greatly concerned that giving a broad scope to FECA, and 
     allowing it to control the funding of all discussion of 
     policy and issues that even mentioned a public official or 
     political candidate, would improperly deter and penalize 
     vital criticism of government because speakers would fear 
     running afoul of the FECA's prohibitions. ``The distinction 
     between discussion of issues and candidates and advocacy of 
     election or defeat of candidates may often dissolve in 
     practical operation. Candidates, especially incumbents, are 
     intimately tied to public issues involving legislative 
     proposals and government actions. Not only do candidates 
     campaign on the basis of their positions on various public 
     issues, but campaigns themselves generate issues of public 
     interest.'' Id. at 42-43. If any reference to a candidate in 
     the context of advocacy of an issue rendered the speech or 
     the speaker subject to campaign finance controls, the 
     consequences for the First Amendment would be intolerable.
       Issue advocacy is freed from government control through a 
     number of other doctrines the courts have recognized as well. 
     First, the constitutional right to engage in unfettered issue 
     advocacy is not limited to individuals or cause 
     organizations. Business corporations can speak publicly and 
     without limit on anything short of express advocacy of a 
     candidate's election. See First National Bank of Boston v. 
     Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978). (Of course, media corporations 
     can speak publicly and without limitation on any subject, 
     including editorial endorsements of the election or defeat of 
     candidates, i.e. ``express advocacy'', see Mills v. Alabama, 
     384 U.S. 214 (1966).)
       Contributions to issue advocacy campaigns cannot be limited 
     in any way, either. See Citizens Against Rent Control v. 
     Berkeley, 454 U.S. 290 (1981). Finally, issue advocacy may 
     not even be subject to registration and disclosure. See 
     McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, 514 U.S. 334 (1995); 
     Buckley v. Valeo,

[[Page 5070]]

     519 F.2d 821, 843-44 (1975) (holding unconstitutional a 
     portion of the FECA which required reporting and disclosure 
     by issue organizations that publicized any voting record or 
     other information ``referring to a candidate''). The 
     rationale for these principles is not just that these various 
     groups have a right to speak, but also that the public has a 
     right to know and a need to hear what they have to say. This 
     freedom is essential to fostering an informed electorate 
     capable of governing its own affairs.
       Thus, no limits, no forced disclosure, no forms, no 
     filings, no controls should inhibit any individual's or 
     group's ability to support or oppose a tax cut, to argue for 
     more or less regulation of tobacco, to support or oppose 
     abortion, flag-burning, campaign finance reform and to 
     discuss the stands of candidates on those issues.
       That freedom must be preserved whether the speaker is a 
     political party, an issue organization, a labor union, a 
     corporation, a foundation, a newspaper or an individual. That 
     is all protected ``issue advocacy,'' and the money that funds 
     it is all, in effect, ``soft money.'' Those who advocate 
     government controls on what they call ``sham'' or ``phony'' 
     or ``so-called'' issue ads, and those who advocate outlawing 
     or severely restricting ``soft money'' should realize how 
     broad their proposals would sweep and how much First 
     Amendment law they would run afoul.
       Finally, it is no answer to these principled objections 
     that this flawed bill would permit certain non-profit 
     organizations to sponsor ``electioneering communications'' if 
     they in effect created a Political Action Committee to fund 
     those messages. Under governing constitutional case law, 
     groups like the ACLU and others cannot be made to jump 
     through the government's hoops in order to criticize the 
     government's policies and those who make them. In addition, 
     most non-profits would be unwilling to risk their tax status 
     or incur legal expenses by engaging in what the IRS might 
     view as partisan communications. Moreover, the groups would 
     still be barred from using organizational or institutional 
     resources for any such communications. They would have to 
     rely solely on individual supporters, whose names would have 
     to be disclosed, with the concomitant threat to the right of 
     privacy and the right to contribute anonymously to 
     controversial organizations that was upheld in landmark cases 
     such as NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958). This holding 
     guaranteed the opportunities that donors now have to 
     contribute anonymously--a real concern when a cause is 
     unpopular or divisive.

         II. S. 27 Assaults the Free Speech of Issue Advocates

       The second systemic defect in this bill is its grossly 
     expanded concept of coordinated activity between politicians 
     and citizens groups. Such ``coordination'' then taints and 
     disables any later commentary by that citizen group about 
     that politician. By treating all but the most insignificant 
     contacts between candidates and citizens as potential 
     campaign ``coordination,'' the bill would render any 
     subsequent action which impacts that politician as a 
     regulated or prohibited ``contribution'' or ``expenditure'' 
     to that candidate's campaign. These provisions violate 
     established principles of freedom of speech and association.
       Under existing law, contact coordination between a 
     candidate or campaign and an outside group can be regulated 
     as coordinated activity only where the group takes some 
     public action at the request or suggestion of the candidate 
     or his representatives, i.e., where the candidate is the 
     driving force behind the outside group's action. See Federal 
     Election Commission v. Christian Coalition, 52 F. Supp. 2d 45 
     (D. D.C. 1999). Under the bill, however, the definition of 
     coordination is expanded in dramatic ways with severe 
     consequences, thereby prohibiting certain kinds of contact 
     with candidates. A coordinated activity can be found whenever 
     a group or individual provides ``anything of value in 
     connection with a Federal candidate's election'' where that 
     person or group has interacted with the candidate then or in 
     the past in a number of ways. This includes, for example, 
     instances which the outside person or group has ``previously 
     participated in discussions'' with the candidate or their 
     representative, ``about the candidate's campaign strategy . . 
     . including a discussion about .  .  . message. . .''
       Section 214 of the bill thus imposes a year round 
     prohibition on all communications that are deemed ``of 
     value'' to a federal candidate. The bill wrongly asserts that 
     issue groups are ``coordinating'' if they merely discuss 
     elements of the lawmaker's message with the lawmaker or his 
     or her staff anytime during a two year period. For example, 
     if a veteran's group suggests to a candidate how best to talk 
     about the flag amendment in order to win the hearts and minds 
     of voters, the group then can't run ads in Senator McCain's 
     state praising him for protecting the flag.
       Once such so-called coordination is established it triggers 
     a total ban on issuing any communication to the public deemed 
     of value to the candidate, and it defines such communication 
     as an illegal corporate contribution! These rules act as a 
     continuing prior restraint, which bars the individual or 
     group from engaging in core First Amendment speech for the 
     lawmaker's entire term of office. Even if such an 
     organization has a connected PAC, it can no longer engage in 
     any independent expenditure affecting the lawmaker because by 
     merely speaking to the candidate or his or her staff it has 
     engaged in illegal ``coordination.'' Here again, the bill 
     attempts to impose another gag rule on issue advocacy 
     organizations.
       Translated into the way in which citizen advocacy groups 
     work, this means that a group cannot urge a candidate to make 
     a particular proposal a part of the candidate's platform if 
     the group subsequently plans to engage in independent 
     advocacy on that issue. Likewise, a group like the National 
     Rifle Association could not discuss a gun control vote or 
     position with a Representative or Senator if the NRA will 
     subsequently produce a box score that praises or criticizes 
     that official's stand. Similar to the ban on coordination 
     (Section 202) discussed earlier in this letter, banning 
     ``coordination'' of ``electioneering activity'' resulting in 
     a long blackout period when an outside group or individual 
     can be blocked from broadcasting information about a 
     candidate, this ban--on coordination of ``anything of 
     value''--can operate month in and month out throughout the 
     entire two or six year term of office of the pertinent 
     politician. That is why the AFL-CIO, among other groups, is 
     so concerned about the treacherous sweep of the anti-
     coordination rules. See ``Futile Labor: Why Are The Unions 
     Against McCain-Feingold?'' The New Republic, March 12, 2001, 
     pp. 14-16.
       Thus, these coordination rules will wreak havoc on the 
     ability of the representatives of unions, corporations, non-
     profits and even citizen groups to interact in important ways 
     with elected representatives for fear that the taint of 
     coordination will silence the voices of those groups in the 
     future. The First Amendment is designed to encourage and 
     foster such face-to-face discussions of government and 
     politics, see Buckley v. American Constitutional Law 
     Foundation, 525 U.S. 182 (1999), not to drive a wedge between 
     the people and their elected representatives .

III. S. 27 Allows the Unconstitutional Virtual Destruction of Political 
                                Parties

       In addition to its disruptive and unconstitutional effect 
     on issue groups and issue advocacy, S. 27 also would have a 
     disruptive if not destructive effect on political parties in 
     America by totally shutting off the sources of funding that 
     support so much of what American political parties do. It 
     would cast a pall over the vital democratic work that 
     political parties perform. These unprecedented restrictions 
     on soft money would make parties less able to support 
     grassroots activity, candidate recruitment and get-out-the-
     vote efforts.


   A. The Bill Represents a Three-pronged Attack on Political Parties

       (1) Section 101 of the bill completely eliminates all 
     ``soft money'' funding for all national political parties and 
     all of their constituent committees and component parts. 
     Under current law there are no federal restrictions on 
     raising, spending or routing such soft money by federal state 
     or local parties or their candidates or office holders. Under 
     McCain-Feingold, all of the funding for all of the vital 
     party activities described above would become illegal, unless 
     it came only from individuals, in small dollar amounts. In 
     other words, political parties may only raise and spend 
     highly regulated ``hard money'' for virtually everything they 
     do.
       (2) Section 101 of the bill also bars any federal candidate 
     or officeholder from having any contact whatsoever with the 
     funding of any ``federal election activity'' by any 
     organization unless that activity is funded strictly with 
     hard money. The scope of ``federal election activity'' is 
     extremely broad and encompasses the following activities if 
     they have any connection to any federal election or 
     candidate: (1) voter registration activity within 4 months of 
     a federal election, (2) voter identification, get-out-the-
     vote activity or ``generic campaign activity,'' (3) any 
     significant ``public communication'' by broadcast, print or 
     any other means that refers to a clearly identified federal 
     candidate and ``promotes,'' ``supports,'' ``attacks,'' or 
     ``opposes'' a candidate for office (regardless of whether the 
     communication contains ``express advocacy''). Under this 
     rule, a candidate would attend an NAACP Voters Rights benefit 
     dinner at his or her peril, if funds were being raised for 
     any ``federal election activity'' such as getting people to 
     the polls on election day. The same might be true for one who 
     attended an ACLU Bill of Rights Day fund raiser, when the 
     ACLU produces a box score on civil liberties voting records 
     during an election season.
       (3) The bill also reaches and regulates all State and local 
     political parties and bans them from raising or spending soft 
     money for any ``Federal election activity'' also or any 
     activity which has any bearing on a federal election. It 
     basically federalizes all of the restrictions and limitations 
     of the FECA.


    B. Political Party Activity is Protected by the First Amendment

       Political funding by political parties is strongly 
     protected by the First Amendment no less than political 
     funding by candidates and committees. The only political 
     funding

[[Page 5071]]

     that can be subject to control is either contributions given 
     directly to candidates and their campaigns (or partisan 
     expenditures explicitly coordinated with campaigns) or 
     communications that constitute express advocacy. These can be 
     subject to source limitations (no corporations or unions or 
     comparable entities) or amount restraints ($1,000, or $5,000 
     in the case of PACs). All other funding of political activity 
     and communication is beyond presumptive constitutional 
     control. That would include soft money activities by 
     political parties.
       Parties are both advocates for their candidates' electoral 
     success and issue organizations that influence the public 
     debate. Get-out-the-vote drives, voter registration drives, 
     issue advocacy, policy discussion, grass-roots development 
     and the like are all activities fundamentally protected by 
     the First Amendment and engaged in by a wide variety of 
     individuals and organizations. An issue ad by the ACLU 
     criticizing an incumbent Mayor on police brutality is an 
     example of soft money activity, in the broadest sense of that 
     term, as is an editorial on the same subject in The New York 
     Times. We need more of all such activity during an election 
     season, not less, from political parties and others as well.
       The right of individuals and organizations, corporate, 
     union or otherwise, to support such issue advocacy traces 
     back to the holding in Buckley that only those communications 
     that ``expressly advocate'' the election or defeat of 
     identified candidates can be subject to control. The Supreme 
     Court in the 1996 Colorado Republican Federal Campaign 
     Committee v. FEC, 518 U.S. 604 (1996) case noted the varying 
     uses of soft money by political parties. In the recent case, 
     Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Governmental PAC, 528 U.S. 377 
     (2000), which upheld hard money contribution limits, the 
     Court's opinion was silent on whether soft money could be 
     regulated at all. Although certain individual Justices 
     invited Congress to consider doing so, the case itself had 
     nothing to do with soft money.
       To be sure, to the extent soft money funds issue advocacy 
     and political activities by political parties, it becomes 
     something of a hybrid: it supports protected and 
     unregulatable issue speech and activities, but by party 
     organizations often more closely tied to candidates and 
     officeholders. The organizational relationship between 
     political parties and public officials might allow greater 
     regulatory flexibility than would be true with respect to 
     issue advocacy by other organizations. Thus, for example, 
     disclosure of large soft money contributions to political 
     parties, as is currently required by regulation, might be 
     acceptable, even though it would be impermissible if imposed 
     on non-party issue organizations. But the total ban on soft 
     money contributions to political parties raises serious 
     constitutional difficulties.
       Just last year, the Supreme Court reminded us once again of 
     the vital role that political parties play in our democratic 
     life, by serving as the primary vehicles for the political 
     views and voices of millions and millions of Americans. 
     ``Representative democracy in any populous unit of governance 
     is unimaginable without the ability of citizens to band 
     together in promoting the electoral candidates who espouse 
     their political views. The formation of national political 
     parties was almost concurrent with the formation of the 
     Republic itself.'' California Democratic Party v. Jones, 530 
     U.S. 567 2402, 2408 (2000). As Justice Anthony M. Kennedy put 
     it in his separate opinion in Colorado Republican Federal 
     Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, 518 U.S. 
     604 (1996): ``The First Amendment embodies a profound 
     national commitment to the principle that debate on public 
     issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open. 
     Political parties have a unique role in serving this 
     principle; they exist to advance their members' shared 
     political beliefs.'' Id. at 629.
       While electing candidates is a central mission of political 
     parties, they do so much more than that. They engage in issue 
     formulation and advocacy on a daily basis, they mobilize 
     their members through voter registration drives, they 
     organize get-out-the-vote efforts, they engage in generic 
     party communications to the public. Much of these activities 
     are supported by what S. 27 would deem as soft money. The 
     bill before you would dry up these significant sources of 
     funding for those party activities. It would basically starve 
     the parties' ability to engage in the grass roots and issue-
     advocacy work that makes American political parties so vital 
     to American democracy.


    C. S. 27 Diminishes the Ability of Political Parties to Compete 
      Equitably with Others Who Choose to Speak During Campaigns.

       Finally, the law unfairly bans parties, but no other 
     organizations, from raising or spending soft money. That 
     would mean that anyone else--corporations, foundations, media 
     organizations, labor unions, bar associations, wealthy 
     individuals--could use any resources without limit to attack 
     a party and its programs, yet the party would be defenseless 
     to respond except by using limited hard money dollars. The 
     NRA could use unregulated funds to mount ferocious attacks on 
     the Democratic Party's stand on gun control, and the Party 
     would be effectively silenced and unable to respond. 
     Conversely, NARAL could mercilessly attack the Republican 
     Party's stand on abortion, using corporate and foundation 
     funds galore, and that Party would likewise be stifled from 
     responding in kind. A system which lets one side of a debate 
     speak, while silencing the other, violates both the First 
     Amendment and equality principles embodied in the 
     Constitution.
       The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001 is not 
     reform at all, but is a fatally flawed assault on First 
     Amendment rights.
       Sincerely,
     Laura W. Murphy,
       Director.
     Joel Gora,
       Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School and Counsel to the 
     ACLU.


                             change of vote

  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent to change my vote on rollcall vote 
No. 41 from yea to nay. This change will not affect the outcome of the 
vote. The amendment at issue was adopted by a vote of 70-30 and if 
enacted will require broadcasters to charge political candidates the 
lowest rates offered by the broadcast, satellite or cable stations 
throughout the year.
  While I believe the goal of this amendment is laudable I am concerned 
that it could unsettle the balance of support for the underlying 
legislation. Further, I believe it could provide political candidates 
with an unfair economic edge in the purchasing of air time.
  On the first point, it should be clear to all that the McCain-
Feingold legislation was carefully crafted to ensure meaningful 
campaign finance reform while recognizing the rights of all Americans 
to continue their participation in our electoral process. This is a 
delicate balance and I would regret to see this bill lose the support 
of such important participants in the political process as our nation's 
broadcasters.
  I believe that political candidates should not be gouged in their 
purchase of air time but I remain unconvinced that such is the normal 
and usual practice today. Other groups, be they charitable or civic 
oriented, should not be disadvantaged because of efforts to lower the 
rates for political candidates. For the reasons stated above I believe 
this issue should not be considered on this important legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    1996 Campaign Finance Violations

  Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, in 1997, the Governmental Affairs 
Committee spent a year in investigating some of the worst campaign 
finance abuses in our Nation's history. Despite a number of obstacles, 
witnesses fleeing the country, people pleading the fifth amendment, 
entities failing to comply with subpoenas, our Committee uncovered 
numerous activities that were not only improper but illegal. To date, 
26 individuals and two corporations have been prosecuted or indicted 
for campaign finance violations arising from the 1996 Federal 
elections.
  Specifically, what we uncovered was a pattern of abuse in which 
access to people in power was bought with large campaign contributions. 
What made that possible was unregulated, unlimited soft money. Time 
after time we heard about contributions of tens and hundreds of 
thousands of dollars in exchange for which access was granted. In fact, 
one of the key reasons I have fought for the McCain-Feingold bill is to 
eliminate this opportunity for abuse.
  There is no question in my mind that the enormous soft money 
contributions we examined led to corruption and the appearance of 
corruption to the American public. The committee's findings are 
contained in a six volume, 10,000 page report, S. Rpt. No. 105-167, the 
committee's depositions, S. Prt. No. 106-30, and the committee's 
hearings, S. Hrg. No. 105-300). The facts and findings contained in 
these documents clearly provide the basis for a determination that 
unlimited soft money contributions lead to corruption and the 
appearance thereof.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Tennessee appropriately 
puts in context the work we are doing on the bill before us. The record 
in the Senate is replete with the compelling need for this legislation. 
In particular, we learned during the 1997 hearings

[[Page 5072]]

that some of the most egregious conduct we uncovered, wasn't what was 
illegal, but what was legal. That was the real problem.
  The 1997 Senate investigation collected ample evidence of campaign 
abuses, the most significant of which revolved around the soft money 
loophole. Soft money contributions of hundreds of thousands, even 
millions, of dollars, were shown to have undermined the contribution 
limits in Federal law and created the appearance of corruption in the 
public's eye. The Republican and Democratic national political parties 
that solicit and spend this money use explicit offers of access to the 
most powerful, elected officials.
  Roger Tamraz, a large contributor to both parties and an unrepentant 
witness at our hearings, became the bipartisan symbol for what is wrong 
with the current system. Roger Tamraz served as a Republican Eagle in 
the 1980s during Republican administrations and a Democratic Trustee in 
the 1990s during Democratic administrations. Tamraz's political 
contributions were not guided by his views on public policy or his 
personal support for or against the person in office; Tamraz gave to 
help himself. He was unabashed in admitting his political contributions 
were made for the purpose of getting access to people in power. Tamraz 
showed us in stark terms to all-too-common product of the current 
campaign finance system, using unlimited soft money contributions to 
buy access. And despite the condemnation by the committee and the press 
of Tamraz's activities, when asked at the hearing to reflect on his 
$300,000 contribution to the Democrats in 1996, Tamraz said, ``I think 
next time, I'll give $600,000.''
  As I said, most of the appearances of impropriety revealed during the 
1997 investigations involved legal activities. Virtually every foreign 
contribution of concern to the Committee involved soft money. Virtually 
every offer of access to the White House or to the Capitol or to the 
President or to the Speaker of the House involved contributions of soft 
money. Virtually every instance of questionable conduct in the 
Committee's investigation involved the solicitation or use of soft 
money.
  The McCain-Feingold bill recognizes that the bulk of troubling 
campaign activity is not what is illegal, but what is legal. It takes 
direct aim at closing the loopholes that have swallowed the election 
laws. In particular, it takes aim at closing the soft money and issue 
advocacy loopholes, while strengthening other aspects of the Federal 
election laws that are too weak to do the job as they now stand.
  The soft money loophole exists because we in Congress allow it. The 
issue advocacy loophole exists because we in Congress allow it. 
Congress alone writes the laws. Congress alone can shut down the 
loopholes and reinvigorate the Federal election laws.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, in recent days there has been much 
speculation regarding my position on retaining the severability of the 
campaign finance reform bill being considered by the Senate.
  First let me start by reiterating my strong and unwavering commitment 
to meaningful campaign finance reform. Since I arrived in the Senate, 
I, along with many of my colleagues, have championed an overhaul of our 
campaign finance system. Our system demands more disclosure and 
accountability, we should reduce the amount of money in the system, we 
should ensure that the voice of every American can be heard, and we 
must require fairness.
  I admire Senator McCain and others for their courage and persistence 
in pursuing this goal. Senator McCain has shown himself to be a real 
leader, and I enjoy working with him in the Senate.
  I believe the McCain/Feingold bill is a carefully crafted, balanced 
bill. There have been a number of amendments to this bill, some of 
which I have supported; some I've opposed. Campaign finance reform, in 
addition to reforming the excesses of the current system, must be fair 
and not favor any one party or group over another. If the court, at 
some later date, finds that some part or parts of our reform effort do 
not pass constitutional muster, that ruling should not be allowed to 
tip the scales to the benefit or detriment of one class of actors with 
regard to their ability to engage in political debate. As strongly as I 
believe in reforming our campaign finance laws, I also believe we 
should do a better job of supporting our public schools, providing more 
and better access to quality healthcare, protecting our environment, 
and creating family wage jobs. If my, or the people who share my 
positions, ability to communicate those positions is altered to a 
greater or lesser extent than those with other opinions, then what we 
have left will be fundamentally unfair. The balance of this bill could 
change depending on the court's interpretation. The severability issue 
goes directly to this point.
  Which leads me to why I believe this year's effort is different from 
previous efforts in one very significant and fundamental way. Today, we 
know more about the Supreme Court than we did just a few months ago. We 
know that the court is not beyond interpretations that would appear to 
favor one party over another. And that has given me pause, and, I would 
think, it may give my colleagues pause, when we consider the 
application of this law, how it will be tested in court, and what we 
may end up with as a result.
  If the Supreme Court decided to uphold limits on the amount of soft 
money flowing to our parties, while allowing special interest groups to 
spend unlimited sums to attack or defend candidates, then we will turn 
the electoral process over to those same special interests who we seek 
to limit.
  In this debate, too often, people who have differed with the sponsors 
have been characterized as wanting to ``kill'' the bill. Contrary to 
those assertions, this bill, with or without non-severability, is about 
to pass the Senate.
  After careful consideration, I have decided to vote against the non-
severability amendment. I have made this judgement with strong 
reservations about how the Court could interpret the law we pass.
  I am not willing to participate in enacting a precedent for 
severability that could impact a wide range of bills to come before the 
Senate. Rather than adding a non-severability clause to this bill the 
Congress should act quickly to meet the challenges that may be 
presented by any future court action, and fashion a set of campaign 
finance laws that will serve to strike a balance and ensure fairness.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, reformers frequently assert that there 
is a great desire throughout the land for their campaign finance 
scheme. The truth is there is not, nor has there ever been, a 
groundswell of public demand for even the concept of ``reform,'' let 
alone an unconstitutional assault by the Federal Government on the 
constitutional freedom of citizens, groups and parties to participate 
in America's democracy.
  On that note, I would ask that a March 22, 2001 article in the 
Washington Times entitled ``Nation Yawns at Campaign Finances,'' be 
printed in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 22, 2001]

                   Nation Yawns at Campaign Finances

                           (By Donald Lambro)

       Campaign finance reform may be the No. 1 issue in the 
     Senate right now, but outside of Washington it does not even 
     make the top-40 list of most important problems facing the 
     country.
       Sen. John McCain, Arizona Republican, with the help of 
     favorable national news media coverage, has managed to drive 
     the issue to the top of the Senate agenda this week--ahead of 
     education, health care, Medicare, Social Security, tax cuts 
     and other issues that score much higher in poll after poll.
       Polls show that Americans strongly support the overall 
     concept of campaign reform, but it does not appear on most 
     lists of what concerns them the most, or if it does, comes in 
     dead last.
       ``We've asked people what is the most important problem 
     facing the country and watched campaign finance reform 
     languish at the bottom of every list of 20 to 25 issues,'' 
     said Whit Ayres, a Republican pollster based in Atlanta.

[[Page 5073]]

       Compared to other issues, campaign finance long has been in 
     the basement of public priorities,'' the ABC News Web site 
     said in an analysis earlier this week.
       ``Most people have more pressing concerns, and most doubt 
     reform would effectively curb the role of money in 
     politics,'' it concluded.
       The Pew Research Center asked 1,513 adult Americans last 
     month what is ``the most important problem facing the country 
     today.'' Campaign finance reform did not specifically appear 
     among its list of 45 responses.
       Morality/ethics/family values tops the list with 12 
     percent, followed by education (11 percent), the economy and 
     jobs (13 percent), crime (8 percent), health care (6 
     percent), and energy costs (6 percent).
       Other polls similarly place the issue at the bottom of the 
     issue rankings. An ABC News poll taken in January ranked it 
     16th out of 18 issues. It was last among 16 issues in the 
     general election.
       Mr. McCain made campaign finance reform the centerpiece of 
     his unsuccessful campaign for the Republican presidential 
     nomination last year, but polls showed that most of those who 
     supported him in the primaries did so for other reasons--such 
     as his patriotism and character--not for his signature issue.
       Only 9 percent of the voters in the New Hampshire primary 
     said the issue was their biggest concern. There was even less 
     concern on the Democratic side.
       The issue all but disappeared in the general election. It 
     was seldom raised by Al Gore, and George W. Bush, who opposes 
     the McCain campaign finance reform bill, rarely mentioned the 
     issue unless asked about it.
       Asked how campaign finance reform was playing in Georgia, 
     Mr. Ayres replied facetiously: ``It's a burning issue. It's a 
     topic that dominates every dinner table conversation. You 
     can't go into a supermarket check-out line without hearing 
     everyone talk about it.''
       In fact, Mr. Ayres, ``It's an elite, media-driven, 
     editorial page issue that concerns'' very few people. 
     Virtually every poll seems to confirm that view.
       When a Princeton Survey poll released earlier this month 
     asked 1,200 people what should be Mr. Bush's top priorities 
     this year, campaign finance reform barely registered at the 
     bottom of the list with a minuscule 3 percent.
       What were the top concerns of most people? Education (29 
     percent), the economy (20 percent), tax cuts (15 percent), 
     Medicare, (14 percent), and Social Security (13 percent). 
     Even foreign policy, at 4 percent, scored higher than 
     campaign reform.
       ``People care more about how the taxpayers' money is being 
     spent than about how the politicians are raising money for 
     their campaigns,'' Mr. Ayres said.
       The fact that the Senate is spending so much time on an 
     issue they rate very low, or not at all, ``just feeds the 
     suspicion that Congress spends a lot of time on issues that 
     people don't really care much about,'' he said.
       ``It doesn't show up as a high priority issue, not because 
     people don't want reform, but because they don't believe that 
     they are ever going to get it,'' said independent pollster 
     John Zogby.
       But for most Americans, Mr. Zogby conceded, ``it's just not 
     a passionate issue.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I have authored a number of op-eds on 
this subject over the years and I ask unanimous consent that the most 
recent, appearing March 23, 2001, in USA Today, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                    [From USA Today, Mar. 23, 2001]

                       ``Reform'' Hurts Freedoms


 opposing view: bill unfairly restricts parties' ability to challenge 
                               incumbents

                          (By Mitch McConnell)

       Next week, in its debate over changing campaign-finance 
     laws, the Senate will consider a constitutional amendment 
     overriding the First Amendment and thereby allowing the 
     government to restrict all spending on communications ``by, 
     in support of, or in opposition to'' candidates for public 
     office.
       So empowered, Congress could ban ``soft money'' and even 
     make it illegal for corporate-owned newspapers to endorse or 
     mention political candidates within 60 days of an election. 
     Currently, the media is specifically exempted from federal 
     campaign-finance law, even though these corporate 
     conglomerates exert tremendous influence on the political 
     system. You could call this exemption the media's 
     ``loophole.''
       The McCain-Feingold bill less forthrightly but just as 
     effectively restricts the constitutional freedom of citizens 
     groups and parties to speak out on issues, and elections. 
     McCain-Feingold makes it illegal for citizen groups to 
     criticize members of Congress in TV or radio ads, unless they 
     register with the federal government and conform to a litany 
     of restrictions. Such restrictions on political speech are 
     sure to be declared unconstitutional, as have 22 similar 
     efforts previously struck down in federal court.
       McCain-Feingold also attack the national parties, making it 
     illegal for them to pay for issue advocacy, voter turnout and 
     such mundane overhead expenses as utilities, accountants, 
     computers and lawyers (necessary to comply with existing 
     complex campaign-finance laws) with funds outside the current 
     strict ``hard money'' limits. Hard money refers to funds that 
     can be given directly to candidates and is subject to severe 
     contribution limits (limits not adjusted for inflation since 
     they were created in 1974).
       McCain-Feingold would starve the parties. Few are moved by 
     the parties' plight until they consider that candidates 
     running against incumbent congressmen have only one reliable 
     source of support: parties.
       Without party soft money, liberal news media and ``special 
     interest'' groups would move closer to total domination of 
     the American political environment. If banned, party soft 
     money (which already is publicly disclosed and therefore 
     accountable) will give way to the shadowy world of special-
     interest soft money, where there is no public disclosure and 
     no accountability. That does not meet anyone's definition of 
     ``reform.''

  Mr. McCONNELL. Senator Sessions would like to speak on the bill at 
the conclusion of the session. Perhaps he could wrap it up for us 
tonight. We will see everyone at 9 o'clock in the morning. At the 
conclusion of his remarks, unless floor staff has an objection, he will 
put us in recess.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, as we consider this legislation, I am 
not sure it is possible for any of us, I certainly have not, figured 
out who might be the winner and loser in this legislation. Who would 
get the most benefits, which party, which candidates, those things are 
interesting and, in fact, significant. I am just not terribly worried 
myself.
  I think about my campaigns and if they limit all contributions to 
just $100 per person and nobody else could contribute, nobody else 
could run a negative ad or positive ad about me, I would feel 
comfortable about that. I believe I can raise more $100's than any 
likely opponent I am facing. I could get my message out and it will be 
a good competitive race and that will be fine.
  I wish it could be that simple sometimes. I faced two opponents who 
spent more than $1 million against me in the Republican primary. I know 
what it feels like to be frustrated by ads coming in against you.
  I think this legislation transcends all the complexities and all the 
debate we have had tonight and over the last 2 weeks about soft money, 
hard money, issue ads, independent groups, independent expenditures, 
and all of that. It is a very complicated matter. I think that has 
caused us at some point to lose our contact with the fundamental 
questions with which we are dealing.
  In my view, I have concluded, unfortunately, that on what is 
constitutional and what is good public policy, this legislation does 
not justify our support and should not be passed by this body.
  America has always been a country of raucous debate, uncontrolled, 
exaggeration, negativity, at times emotional. That is the way we are. 
Sometimes I wish it were not so. Others complained on the floor of the 
Senate about negative ads against them. I had those run against me 
also. In my election, I raised a lot more hard money than my opponent, 
but he had equal time on television and it was mostly soft money. They 
came in from the Democratic Party or the Sierra Club and they ran ads 
against me. I know it wasn't a little environmentalist raising this 
money. It was money given to them so they could use it in certain 
campaigns in favor of Democratic candidates. That is the way life is. 
It is frustrating at times to see ads such as that pound on you.
  Soft money didn't help me in this past campaign. I say that to say I 
resent and reject the assertion that those of us who are concerned 
about the serious public policy and constitutional questions involved 
are somehow advocating that because we have a self-interest in it, some 
personal agenda that will help them beat their opponent and get 
reelected. There may be a tendency for some, but it is not for me.
  The problem is whether or not we are furthering or constraining 
political debate in America. Some believe, for example, that depictions 
of violent sex acts of all kinds, depictions of child pornography, are 
protected by the first amendment. Some believe that the act of burning 
a flag of the United States is free speech. Some of these same people, 
however, see things differently on this bill.

[[Page 5074]]

  On the question of pornography and child pornography, and those 
questions, people can go either way. The Supreme Court has sort of 
split in a lot of different ways. These forms of speech and press are 
quasi-speech. Depictions or acts of burning a flag were never what our 
Founding Fathers were fundamentally concerned about. They were 
concerned in early America about political speech, the right to speak 
out on public policy issues and say what you wanted to say.
  James Madison, the father of our Constitution, whose birth we 
celebrated earlier in the month, the 250th anniversary of his birth, in 
talking about our goal in America as to free elections and people you 
chose could be elected, said: The value and efficacy of this right to 
elect and vote for people for office depends on the knowledge of 
comparative merits and demerits of the candidates for public trust, and 
on the equal freedom, consequently, of examining and discussing these 
merits and demerits of the candidate's respectively.
  That suggests this is what America was founded about, to have a full 
debate about candidates and their position on issues. When do you do 
that? You do that during the election time. Not 2 years before an 
election.
  I believe the contributing of money to promote and broadcast or 
amplify speech is covered by the first amendment. I do not think that 
is a matter of serious debate. Some have suggested otherwise. They said 
money is just an inanimate object. But if you want to be able to speak 
out and you cannot get on television, or you cannot get on radio, or 
you cannot afford to publish newspapers or pamphlets, then you are 
constrained in your ability to speak out.
  The Supreme Court dealt with this issue quite plainly in Buckley v. 
Valeo in 1976. A string of cases since that time have continued that 
view.
  In Buckley they said the following:

       The first amendment denies government [that is, us] the 
     power to determine that spending to promote one's political 
     views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise.

  They go on to say:

       In a free society, ordained by our Constitution, it is not 
     the government, not the government but the people 
     individually as citizens and collectively as associations and 
     political committees who must retain control over the 
     quantity and range of debate on public issues in a public 
     campaign.

  What is that Court saying? That Court is saying the right to decide 
who says what in a political environment is the right of the people and 
associations of people. They have that right. The Government does not 
have the right to restrain them and restrict that and to limit their 
debate, even if it is aimed at us in the form of a negative ad and it 
hurts our feelings and we wish it had not happened. We do not have the 
right to tell people they cannot produce honest ads, hard-hitting ads 
against us. If we ever get to that point, I submit, our country will be 
less free, you will have less ability to deal with incumbent 
politicians who may not be the kind that are best for America.
  In the Buckley case the Court held that political contributions 
constitute protected speech under the first amendment.
  I remain at this point almost stunned that earlier in this debate 40 
Members of this Senate voted to amend the first amendment of the 
Constitution of the United States. Fortunately, 60 voted no. We had 38 
vote yea in 1997 or 1998, and last year it dropped down to 33. But this 
year 40 voted for this amendment. It would have empowered Congress and 
State legislators, government, to put limits on contributions and 
expenditures by candidates and groups in support of and in opposition 
to candidates for office. Just as they outlined in Buckley.
  That is a thunderous power we were saying here, that we were going to 
empower State legislatures and the U.S. Congress to put limits on how 
much a person and group could expend in support of or in opposition to 
a candidate. Think about that. Where are our civil libertarian groups?
  I have to give the ACLU credit, they have been consistent on this 
issue. They have studied it. They know this is bad, and they have said 
so. But too many of our other groups--I don't know whether they are 
worried about the politics of it or what, but they have not grasped the 
danger to free speech and full debate we are having here.
  It seems to me we are almost losing perspective and respect for the 
first amendment that protects us all. In this debate we have focused on 
what the courts have held with regard to the first amendment and to 
campaign finance. I remain confident that significant portions of the 
legislation as it is now pending before us will be struck down by 
Federal courts.
  We ought not to vote for something that is unconstitutional. We swore 
to uphold the Constitution. If we believe a bill is unconstitutional, 
we should not be passing it on the expectation that someday a court may 
strike it down, even if we like the goal. If it violates the 
Constitution, each of us has a duty, I believe, to vote no. The idea 
that we can pass a law that would say that within 60 days of an 
election a group of union people, a group of businesspeople, a group of 
citizens, cannot get together and run an ad to say that Jeff Sessions 
is a no-good skunk and ought not be elected to office, offends me. Why 
doesn't that go to the heart of freedom in America? Where is our free 
speech crowd? Where are our law professors and so forth on this issue? 
It is very troubling to me, and I believe it goes against our 
fundamental American principles.
  I will conclude. I make my brief remarks for the record tonight to 
say I believe this law is, on balance, not good. I believe its stated 
goal of dealing with corruption in campaigns is not going to be 
achieved. I believe it is the case with every politician I know, that 
votes trump money every time anyway. If you have a group of people in 
your State you know and respect, you try to help them. Just because 
they may give you a contribution doesn't mean that is going to be the 
thing that helps you the most. Most public servants whom I know try to 
serve the people of the State and try to keep the people happy and do 
the right things that are best for the future.
  I believe this bill is not good, that the elimination of the corrupt 
aspects we are trying to deal with will not ultimately be achieved. At 
the same time, I believe we will have taken a historic step backwards, 
perhaps the most significant retrenchment of free speech and the right 
to assemble, and free press, that has occurred in my lifetime that I 
can recall. This is a major bit of legislation that undermines our free 
speech.
  I know we have talked about all the details and all the little 
things. There are some things in this bill I like. I wish we could make 
them law. But as a whole, we ought not pass a piece of legislation that 
would restrict a group of people in America from coming together to 
raise money and speak out during an election cycle, 60 days, 90 days, 
10 days, 5 days, on election day--they ought not be restricted in that 
effort. In doing so, we would have betrayed and undermined our 
commitment to free speech and free debate that has made this country so 
great.
  Mr. President, I will proceed to see if I can close us out for the 
night.

                          ____________________