[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 3]
[Senate]
[Pages 3623-3624]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




            TO CLARIFY ACCEPTANCE OF PRO BONO LEGAL SERVICES

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
consider a resolution.
  The clerk will report the resolution by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A resolution (S. Res. 227) to clarify the rules regarding 
     the acceptance of pro bono legal services by Senators.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, this Senate resolution S. Res. 227 is 
very similar to a Senate resolution passed by this body in 1996. That 
1996 resolution--S. Res. 321--was passed to ensure that Senators who 
wanted to challenge the constitutionality of the Line Item Veto Act 
could do so using unlimited pro bono legal services, subject to 
regulations promulgated by the Ethics Committee.
  It is clear that the campaign finance bill that passed today--H.R. 
2356--will be challenged in court if the President signs it into law. 
The Senate resolution which passed today makes it clear that any Member 
of this body may receive pro bono legal services in connection with any 
action challenging the constitutionality of that law.
  This body is in agreement on this issue. There is no need for debate 
or a vote. This new Senate resolution ensures that the Senate will 
continue its tradition of permitting Members to utilize unlimited pro 
bono legal services when challenging legislation that raises serious 
constitutional questions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the resolution is 
agreed to and the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table.
  The resolution (S. Res. 227) was agreed to, as follows:

                              S. Res. 227

       Resolved, That (a) notwithstanding the provisions of the 
     Standing Rules of the Senate or Senate Resolution 508, 
     adopted by the Senate on September 4, 1980, or Senate 
     Resolution 321, adopted by the Senate on October 3, 1996, pro 
     bono legal services provided to a Member of the Senate with 
     respect to any civil action challenging the constitutionality 
     of a Federal statute that expressly authorizes a Member 
     either to file an action or to intervene in an action--
       (1) shall not be deemed a gift to the Member;
       (2) shall not be deemed to be a contribution to the office 
     account of the Member;
       (3) shall not require the establishment of a legal expense 
     trust fund; and
       (4) shall be governed by the Select Committee on Ethics 
     Regulations Regarding Disclosure of Pro Bono Legal Services, 
     adopted February 13, 1997, or any revision thereto.
       (b) This resolution shall supersede Senate Resolution 321, 
     adopted by the Senate on October 3, 1996.

  Ms. LANDRIEU. Mr. President, I begin by adding my compliments to 
Senators Feingold and McCain for their extraordinary efforts in passing 
and helping to usher through a far-reaching piece of legislation that 
will hopefully close the loopholes and help Members conduct campaigns 
that truly meet the spirit and intent of the reform laws we have passed 
over the course of the last couple of years. We need to have the kind 
of campaigns of which we can all be proud, ones that allow people in 
this Nation to express their views, yet have campaigns and financing 
and funding that are fully and completely disclosed. I thank them and 
acknowledge their work.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, today I rise to address issues related 
to my vote on H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill.
  For some time President Bush has clearly indicated his willingness to 
sign campaign reform legislation passed by the Congress. I have great 
respect for his judgement and this was an important consideration in 
making my decision to support this legislation.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill is not perfect 
legislation, but I believe it may be the best the Congress is able to 
produce. I approached both McCain-Feingold and now the Bipartisan 
Campaign Finance Reform Bill with an open mind and feel it is in the 
best interests of the nation to implement achievable reform legislation 
rather than hold out for perfect--and probably unattainable--reform 
legislation.
  During each of the last two Congresses I introduced my own campaign 
finance reform bills--``The Constitutional and Effective Reform of 
Campaigns Act,'' or ``CERCA.'' My proposals have been good faith 
efforts to strike middle ground in this important debate and were 
offered as alternatives to the bills that have been debated before the 
full Senate in the past. The principal points in my bills were enhanced 
disclosure, increased hard dollar contribution limits, a cap on soft 
money and paycheck protection.
  As chairman of the Rules Committee during the 105th Congress, I 
chaired twelve or more hearings on campaign reform including the 
funding of campaigns. My bill was a result of these 2 years of 
hearings, discussions with numerous experts and colleagues, and the 
result of over 2 decades of participating in campaigns and campaign 
finance debates.
  My bill capped soft money thereby addressing the public's legitimate 
concern over the propriety of large soft money donations while allowing 
the political parties sufficient funds to maintain their headquarters 
and conduct their grassroots effort.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill bans all soft money. And 
while I would have preferred merely to cap soft money as we already cap 
hard money, a total ban is the only option currently on the table.
  In addition to the issue of soft money, there is the issue of raising 
the hard money caps. Candidates for public

[[Page 3624]]

office are forced to spend too much time fundraising at the expense of 
their legislative duties.
  The current individual contribution limit of $1,000 has not been 
raised, or even indexed for inflation for over 20 years. This situation 
requires candidates to spend more and more time seeking more and more 
donors.
  The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Bill increases the individual 
contribution limits to $2000 and indexes that limit for inflation. My 
campaign finance legislation contained a similar provision which 
ensured that a greater percentage of political contributions would be 
fully reported and available for all to see.
  It is my firm belief that the Congress has a responsibility, in 
accord with the constitution, to balance the rights of those who care 
to participate in the political process with the desire to improve 
accountability and responsibility within the campaign system.
  Precisely because of my concern that previous campaign finance reform 
proposals did not adequately respect the First Amendment Freedom of 
Speech, I was compelled to write my own campaign reform proposals that 
focused on disclosure and accountability.
  Clearly, today's legislation faces constitutional challenge, however, 
those decisions will ultimately have to be resolved by the judicial 
branch of Government.

                          ____________________