Carl Levin

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senate has begun debating the Federal budget for next year and the years ahead. We are fortunate after years of large budget deficits, to finally enjoy a projected budget surplus, a real surplus separate and apart from the Social Security surplus. While this new ``on-budget'' surplus provides us with many possibilities, it also requires us to balance how best to use our resources within a framework of fiscal responsibility. If we choose the wrong path we could return to the days of big Federal deficits and all the damage they did to our economy. In approaching our Federal budget, I believe we should divide the projected surplus among four budget goals: giving the American people fair and fiscally responsible tax relief, paying down the debt, protecting Social Security and Medicare, and responsibly investing in key priorities such as education, prescription drug coverage for seniors, environmental protection and national defense. In deciding how to allocate the new surplus, we should first and foremost remember it is a projection for ten years downstream, so it is highly speculative. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, cautions legislators that there is only a 10 percent likelihood that its ten-year projection will prove accurate. This is especially troublesome because most of the surplus, upon which the President's tax cuts rely, is not projected to accrue until after 2005, the most unreliable years of the forecast. History has shown that CBO projections only 5 years in to the future have been off by as much as 268 percent. Understanding that these projections are uncertain, here's what I think should be done with surplus dollars that actually materialize: First, I would protect the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. We have to take prudent steps today to ensure that as 77 million baby boomers retire over the next 30 years, the costs of their Social Security and Medicare won't explode the Federal budget. In just 15 years, the Social Security and Medicare programs will require transfers from the ``non-Social Security and non-Medicare'' side of the Federal budget in order to pay benefits. Without reform, these transfers will get larger and larger, placing enormous pressure on the federal budget--pressure that would be compounded if President Bush's proposed tax cuts were enacted. Thus I think it is imperative to set aside the surpluses that are currently accumulating in these trust funds and not use them for new spending or tax cuts--as the President's budget proposes to do. Next, I would allocate one-third of the projected $2.5 trillion non- Social Security, non-Medicare surplus for tax cuts. We have proposed an immediate stimulus tax cut package that could provide taxpayers with up to $450 of relief this year, $900 for married couples filing jointly. The first part of the package would to give a one-time tax refund to everyone who paid payroll or income taxes last year, in 2000. Couples would get a check for $600 and singles would get a check for $300 as early as July, if the provision were enacted now. The second part of the package would permanently cut the 15 percent income tax rate to 10 percent for the first $12,000 of taxable income for couples and the first $6,000 of taxable income for singles. This would save couples an additional $600 per year and singles an additional $300 per year and, if enacted soon, the decrease in paycheck withholding could begin in July. This package is a truly broad-based relief measure aimed at stimulating the economy. We also should increase the Earned Income Tax Credit for working families with children, substantial marriage penalty relief, and the amount of money exempt from estate taxes, so that less than one percent of the country's wealthiest estates would remain on the tax roll. Under this approach, all American taxpayers would get a tax cut, but the lion's share would go to middle income Americans, that is to those who need it most. President Bush's plan mostly benefits the wealthiest among us. Under his plan, 5 percent of taxpayers would get more than 50 percent of the benefit. As a result, most of the surplus is used in tax cuts, leaving little or nothing for debt reduction and other important priorities. While this top 5 percent would receive huge tax breaks under the President's plan, it leaves 25 million taxpaying Americans, who pay their Federal taxes through payroll taxes, without a single dollar of tax relief. I agreed with President Bush when he said that every American taxpayer should receive tax relief. But his plan, which leaves out 25 million people, falls far short of that goal and leaves out those taxpayers who need relief the most. In addition to providing tax relief, we need to dedicate a large portion of the surplus to reducing our debt so that we don't push this immense burden onto our children and grandchildren. For the first time in a generation, we have the opportunity and the resources to pay down the enormous debt and we should do so. Additionally, by paying down the debt, we can help keep interest rates low well into the future giving all Americans an economic benefit. Our plan calls for dedicating one-third of the non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus to reducing the $3 trillion plus portion of our national debt that is outstanding and held by domestic and foreign investors. In contrast, the President's budget does not use any of the projected non-Social security, non-Medicare surplus for debt reduction. Finally, we need to invest some of our surplus responsibly in new initiatives and important benefits, like prescription drug coverage for seniors and education programs for our students. Using one-third of our non-Social Security, non-Medicare surplus to meet the basic life- sustaining needs of our seniors, to build a smarter 21st century workforce, and to prepare for other. unforeseen challenges, will pay huge dividends in the long run. President Bush's budget--focusing on tax cuts at the expense of everything else--leaves little room for new investments or unanticipated needs and actually makes drastic cuts to some very important federal programs which millions of Americans and the communities they live in count on. The next chart compares the Democratic plan to President Bush's plan, showing how the Bush plan comes up short in key areas because of the size of the tax cut. As budget debate continues in the weeks ahead, Congress will be making some important decisions regarding our country's future. We have the ability to provide targeted tax relief, fund some important national priorities and protect Social Security and Medicare for future generations, while dedicating significant resources to paying down the national debt. To achieve all of these goals, we need to act wisely today so that we strengthen our economy in the long run, not weaken it once again by risking a large Federal deficit with an excessive tax cut benefiting mostly those who need it least. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the charts in the Record.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I cannot support including reconciliation instructions in this resolution. This is a very important issue for the Senate as an institution and a very important issue for the future economic well-being of the nation. The Senate is a great legislative body, a deliberative body unique in the world. The central feature of the unique role the Senate plays is the fullness of debate and the openness of the amendment process. The reconciliation process is a feature of the Budget Act which was adopted in 1974. When it was adopted, it was contemplated that the reconciliation process would be used as a tool of fiscal restraint. That is, that reconciliation would be used to reduce deficits. The Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, himself, said in 1985: Frankly, as the chairman of the Budget Committee I am aware of how beneficial reconciliation can be to deficit reduction. But I'm also totally aware of what can happen when we choose to use this kind of process to basically get around the rules of the Senate as to limiting debate. Clearly, unlimited debate is the prerogative of the Senate that is greatly modified under this process. I have grown to understand this institution. While it has a lot of shortcomings, it has some qualities that are rather exceptional. One of those is the fact that it is an extremely free institution, that we are free to offer amendments, that we are free to take as much time as this Senate will let us, to debate and have those issues thoroughly understood both here and across the country. And, in 1989, Senator Domenici said: There are a few things about the U.S. Senate that people understand to be very, very significant. One is that you have the right, the rather broad right, the most significant right among all parliamentary bodies in the world, to amend freely on the floor. The other is the right to debate and to filibuster. When the Budget Act was drafted, the reconciliation procedure was crafted very carefully. It was intended to be used rather carefully because, in essence, Mr. President, it vitiated those two significant characteristics of this place that many have grown to respect and admire. Some think it is a marvelous institution of democracy. And if you lose those two qualities you just about turn this U.S. Senate into the U.S. House of Representatives or other parliamentary body. In 1981, former Majority Leader Howard Baker stated, Reconciliation was never meant to be a vehicle for an omnibus authorization bill. To permit it to be treated as such is to break faith with the Senate's historical uniqueness as a forum for the exercise of minority and individual rights. The amendment before us today would add reconciliation instructions to this budget resolution for a totally different purpose. The purpose is to shield the massive tax cut proposed by President Bush from full debate and the amending process in the Senate. This is the opposite of fiscal restraint. This is the opposite of deficit reduction. The reconciliation process would restrict debate to only twenty hours and potentially less time and would constrain amendments. It reduces the likelihood of compromise. It reduces the likelihood of the enactment of a tax cut with broad bipartisan support because it weakens minority rights and tempts the majority to force their version on the minority. This would be a misuse of the reconciliation process and a disservice to the American people. The tax bill will impact the federal budget and the nation's economy for many years to come. It will cost more than $1.6 trillion over the next decade, probably much more. The American people, the people who send us here as their representatives have the right to have this tax cut considered and evaluated, debated and amended under the normal procedures which have made the Senate a great deliberative body. In 1981, the reconciliation process was used to enact spending reductions which President Reagan sought. That was appropriate. However, the major tax cut which was the centerpiece of his program was considered that same year as a free-standing tax bill in the Senate. That is, it was considered under the normal Senate rules. The tax bill was fully debated for about twelve days and more than a hundred amendments were considered. There were fifty roll call votes. That was a process in the tradition of the Senate and did it credit. I was one of eleven Senators that voted against that bill. But the process that was used to adopt that tax bill was the appropriate and normal process. This is what makes the Senate the world's preeminent deliberative body. Today, we are being asked to turn our backs on Senate history by adding language to this budget resolution which will make it more difficult for the Senate to fully debate, amend and work its will on tax legislation which we will consider in the weeks ahead. I support a tax cut, but not President Bush's version which I think is too large, relies on highly problematical projections. But, I cannot support this effort the circumvent the Senate's rules in order to pass without full debate and amendment any tax cut bill. Doing so is the opposite of the intent of reconciliation.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Josephson Institute of Ethics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization, recently released its survey on violence and substance abuse in the United States. The survey finds that a disturbing number of young people have easy access to guns and have brought those guns and other weapons to school in the past year. According to those surveyed, 47 percent of all high school students and 22 percent of all middle school students reported having easy access to guns. Of those students who reported drinking at school in the past 12 months, those with easy access to guns jumped to an astonishing 71 percent for high school students and 59 percent for middle school students. Furthermore, 14 percent of high school students and 11 percent of middle school students admitted that they brought weapons to school in the past 12 months. Again, those numbers increased dramatically among students who also reported drinking at school at some point in the last year to 48 percent for high school students and 57 percent for middle school students. Easy access to guns among our young people is dangerous, but access to guns paired with access to alcohol or drugs is recipe for disaster. And while the vast majority of students will be safe in their classrooms, our youth's easy access to firearms makes 36 percent of high school students and 39 percent of middle school students feel unsafe at school. Unfortunately, unless Congress and acts to curb youth access to guns, in some cases, that fear may become a reality for more and more students.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am delighted to rise today to acknowledge and congratulate Mrs. Arbelia Greer Pennington Wood, a resident from my home State of Michigan, who will be celebrating her 116th birthday on Friday, April 6, 2001. The child of a sharecropper, Mrs. Wood, who is affectionately called ``Ma'' by her nephews and nieces, was born in Caledonia, MS in 1885. Raised in Alabama, she moved to Detroit in 1934. Throughout her life, she has been guided by devotion to her family and a deep and abiding faith. Though widowed twice, Mrs. Wood has never been alone. She has been actively involved in the lives of her extended family, which includes not only her nieces and nephews, but also children in her neighborhood. Family members and friends have all commented on her cooking abilities and her ability to teach families about cooking, grammar and even carpentry. In addition to a multitude of nephews and nieces, Mrs. Wood has been blessed to be part of a family noted for its longevity. Her mother lived to be ninety-three years old. A brother of hers lived to be eighty-nine, and many of her younger siblings are currently in their eighties and nineties. One of her nieces has designed a website dedicated to her beloved ``Ma.'' On that website is posted a verse from the Book of Genesis: ``Sarah lived to be 127 years old.'' I cannot help but think that this verse has not only been an inspiration but also a challenge to Ardelia's family. Mrs. Wood has seen the turn of two centuries. She has also displayed immense courage throughout her life. Twice she has successfully battled breast cancer. In addition, she has participated as a civil rights activist. As a child, Mrs. Woods refused to take the advice of her white doctors to identify herself as being Caucasian. Later in life, she demanded that a Mt. Clemens, MI restaurant serve herself and her darker skinned husband whom they were denying service. The restaurant eventually relented. Arbelia has witnessed the many changes that have affected our society. By caring for her family, actively participating in her church and serving as a midwife, Arbelia Greer Pennington Wood has quietly worked to make this country a better place. Such daily acts of commitment and civic duty are the foundation upon which this nation is built. Mrs. Arbelia Greer Pennington Wood can take pride on the occasion of her 116th birthday. I am honored to join her family in wishing her a blessed and happy birthday. I hope my Senate colleagues will join me in congratulating Mrs. Arbelia Greer Pennington Wood.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is now time for the Senate to step up to the plate, as we open this baseball season, to do what needs to be done--to bring an end to the soft money loophole that has destroyed the law that is supposed to place limits on campaign contributions. Passage of McCain-Feingold will bring an end to solicitations and contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars in exchange for access to people in power--``lunch with the committee chairman of our choice for $50,000,'' ``time with the President for $100,000,'' ``participation in a foreign trade mission with Government officials for $50,000.'' The moment of truth is now--with this vote--because this is the first time we are voting with the real possibility that what we do here can become law. Mr. President, I also want to talk about two concerns about the impact of this legislation that I have heard from some of my colleagues--that the parties will be weakened and that the soft money will now flow to the outside groups. It is true, of course, that no one can predict with certainty just what will happen once the soft money loophole is closed and provisions with respect to issue ads are in place. There is some of the unknown to what we are doing here today. But I'd like to remind those concerned about the parties and the increased strength of outside groups that there are provisions in the bill to ameliorate those concerns. First, with respect to the parties, while the bill eliminates soft money, it also increases the hard money limits to the parties and makes those limits subject to indexing. The bill also contains an amendment I sponsored along with Senator Ensign, that will allow State parties to raise and spend non-Federal money subject to the State contribution limits for voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities in a Federal election year. The bill as introduced prohibited any money not subject to the federal limits from being used even by State parties for voter registration or get-out-the-vote activities in a Federal election year. Many of us thought that provision went too far, since these activities are often the heart of what State parties do. The provision we added by amendment has a number of limits. Federal candidates and National Party Officials can't be involved in soliciting the State party money, the State party can't refer to a Federal candidate in conducting these activities, and a State, district or local committee can't raise more than $10,000 from any one person for these activities in a calendar year and the activities must be paid for with a formula of federal and non-federal money established by the Federal Election Commission. This provision will enable State parties to engage in important voter registration and get-out-the-vote activities. With respect to the flow of money to outside groups, the bill contains several brakes on that happening. First, Federal candidates are barred from soliciting non-federal money not only for the parties but also for these outside groups. Many people who make large contributions do so because we personally ask them to do so. Without that personal involvement, most large contributors will not contribute, and the large sums of soft money that are now being given to the parties, will simply not be raised or spent anymore. The bill also prohibits unions and corporations from running issue ads in the last 30 days of a primary election and the last 60 days of a general election. That will significantly reduce the amount of sham issue ads run in the days before an election. Finally, the national parties which in the past have contributed significant sums of money to these outside groups will not be in a position to do that with the absence of soft money. So, Mr. President, while I understand these concerns, and realize to some extent we are all stepping into unknown territory with the enactment of this legislation, there are a number of moderating influences in the bill that should avoid the draconian effects suggested by some of our colleagues. I would also, Mr. President, like to address a statement made by my colleague from Texas, Senator Gramm, the other night. He said in his statement opposing this legislation on the Senate floor, that this legislation would prohibit him from selling his house and using all of the money from that house to support a candidate of his choice. The Senator was passionate about how wrong such an outcome could be. But, Mr. President, the legislation would not create such a prohibition. Senator Gramm and any other individual in the United States could sell everything he or she owns and use it to promote such a candidacy. This bill would not prevent that. The Supreme Court has said that is a right guaranteed to everyone under the Constitution. What this legislation does and what the Supreme Court says is permitted under the Constitution, is prohibit Senator Gramm from using the proceeds of the sale of his house to contribute to a candidate or a political party in amounts that exceed the limits established by the Federal Election Campaign Act. An individual can spend an unlimited amount of money in support of a candidate, so long as those expenditures are not coordinated with a candidate. But an individual cannot contribute an unlimited amount of money to a candidate, because, as Congress has determined and the Supreme Court has affirmed, unlimited or large contributions can create the appearance of corruption which can damage the institution of democracy. Mr. President, I also want to say a few words about the so-called Millionaire's amendment we adopted that was sponsored by Senators Domenici, DeWine and Durbin. It is a complicated proposal and one with which we had insufficient time to work. It needed more consideration in order to achieve the fair result that I believe we intended. I am afraid that the amendment as drafted, although improved by the Durbin Amendment, is still too advantageous to incumbents and too cumbersome to administer. I hope this can be addressed at a later stage or even in subsequent legislation, and I hope the Federal Election Commission proceeds carefully and with extensive public comment when implementing the statutory language. The intent of the Durbin amendment was to reduce the incumbency advantage that the original amendment created when it allowed a well-funded incumbent to use the increased contribution limits even though the incumbent's expenditures and cash on hand far exceeded the millionaire challenger's. The Durbin amendment tried to reduce the effect of the original amendment by requiring the millionaire to reach one-half of the amount of expenditures plus cash on hand that the incumbent has before the higher limits are triggered. While this is an improvement, I think we need to work with the numbers to see if another approach would be preferable. Mr. President, 25 years ago this Congress passed a pretty decent campaign finance law. Individuals aren't supposed to give more than $1,000 to a candidate per election, or $5,000 to a political action committee, or more than $20,000 a year to a national party committee or $25,000 total in any one year for all contributions combined. Corporations and unions are prohibited from contributing anything to a candidate except through carefully prescribed political action committees. The limit of a corporate or union PAC contribution is $5,000 per candidate. Presidential campaigns are supposed to be financed just with public funds. That's the law on the books today. The Supreme Court upheld those contribution limits in the case of Buckley v. Valeo and reasserted that position in the recent case of Nixon v. Missouri Government Shrink PAC. In those cases the Supreme Court held that limits on contributions in campaigns do not violate free speech guarantees in the First Amendment. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court upheld contribution limits as a reasonable and constitutional approach to deterring actual and apparent corruption of federal elections in the Buckley case. Let me read what the Court said: It is unnecessary to look beyond the Act's primary purpose--to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from large individual financial contributions--in order to find a constitutionally sufficient justification for the $1,000 contribution limitation. Under a system of private financing of elections, a candidate lacking immense personal or family wealth must depend on financial contributions from others to provide the resources necessary to conduct a successful campaign. . . . To the extent that large contributions are given to secure political quid pro quo's from current and potential office holders, the integrity of our system of representative democracy is undermined. . . . Of almost equal concern is . . . the impact of the appearance of corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial contributions. . . . Congress could legitimately conclude that the avoidance of the appearance of improper influence ``is also critical . . . if confidence in the system of representative government is not to be eroded to a disastrous extent.'' The Court went on to say: And while disclosure requirements serve the many salutary purposes discussed elsewhere in this opinion, Congress was surely entitled to conclude that disclosure was only a partial measure and that contribution ceilings were a necessary legislative concomitant to deal with the reality or appearance of corruption inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions, even when the identities of the contributors and the amounts of their contributions are fully disclosed. The Buckley Court at several points in the opinion endorses the concept that unlimited contributions are enough, by themselves, to create the appearance of corruption and to justify the imposition of limits. In Nixon v. Missouri Government Shrink PAC, decided in January of last year, the Supreme Court was presented with a challenge to campaign contribution limits established by the state of Missouri. In that case, Justice Souter, speaking for a majority of the Court clearly upheld the Buckley decision. But the soft money loophole that has evolved over the past 15 years or so has effectively destroyed the contribution limits. The loophole is huge--since you can't give more than a limited amount to a candidate, give all you want to his or her party--and of course the party uses the money to elect that same candidate. Soft money has blown the lid off the contribution limits of our campaign finance system. Look at the most recent data with respect to soft money contributions. In the 1996 election--a Presidential election year-- Republicans raised $140 million in soft money contributions; Democrats raised $120 million. In 1998, even without a Presidential election-- Republicans raised $131 million in soft money contributions and Democrats raised $91 million. The 1997-98 combined soft money total was 115% more than the 1993-1994 total. And in the 1999-2000 campaign cycle, the Congressional Research Service reports that Republicans and Democrats both raised about $240 million. That's money from corporations and unions--who are not supposed to be giving any money at all. Approximately $280 million of the almost half billion in soft money to the parties came from corporations and unions and $175 million from individuals. And that's money from individual contributors in sums often in six figures--hundreds of thousands of dollars. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in the 1999-2000 campaign 365 individuals gave the parties $120,000 or more for a total amount of over $98 million--when the limit on individual contributions is supposed to be $1,000 per election. The soft money loophole has eaten the law. As many commentators, colleagues and constituents have said, practically speaking, there are no limits. And the truth is, Mr. President, the public is offended and disgusted by this spectacle of huge contributions and well they should be. We should be, too. Because in order to get these large contributions, access to us is often openly and blatantly sold. We sell lunch or dinner with the Committee Chairman of your choice for $100,000 bucks. We sell pictures with the President, access to insiders meetings and strategy sessions, participation in a Congressional advisory group or a trade mission. The open solicitation of campaign contributions in exchange for access to people with the power to affect the life or livelihood of the person being solicited creates an appearance of impropriety and a misuse of power. People who are in power are asking for large sums of money for access to them. This is done openly. Marlin Fitzwater, Press Secretary to former President Bush said it clearly in 1992 when he said, ``It's buying access to the system, yes. That's what the political parties and the political operation is all about.'' Former Senator Paul Simon made a similar observation a number of years ago on the Senate floor. That's why over 25 persons--corporations and individuals gave over $100,000 each to both parties. They didn't contribute because of shared values, obviously. They contributed to cover their bets--to make sure they had access to the winner. They had enough money to do that. That's how far this system has fallen. The parties advertise access. It's blatant. Both parties do it. Openly. Invitation after invitation sells access for large contributions. From 1996: For a $50,000 contribution or for raising $100,000 a contributor gets: Two events with the President. Two events with the Vice President. Invitations to join ``Party leadership as they travel abroad to examine current and developing political and economic issues in other countries. Monthly policy briefings with ``key administration officials and members of Congress. An invitation to the 1997 RNC Annual Gala says a contributor who raises $250,000 will be entitled to have lunch with the Republican Senate and House Committee Chairman of the contributor's choice. That's what we're openly offering for sale for large contributors and that's what contributors are often buying. Both parties do it, and there are dozens of examples. One invitation in 1997 to a Senatorial Campaign Committee event promised that large contributors would be offered ``plenty of opportunities to share [their] personal ideas and vision with" some of the top leaders and senators. Failure to attend, the invitation said, means that ``you could lose a unique chance to be included in current legislative policy debates--debates that will affect your family and your business for many years to come.'' One letter from a Senatorial Campaign Committee invited the recipient to be a life member of the party's Inner Circle. It said that $10,000 will ``bring you face-to-face with dozens of our Senators, including many of the Senate's most powerful Committee Chairmen.'' Another solicitation offered, for a contribution of $10,000, the choice of ``attending one of 60 small dinner parties, limited in attendance to 20 to 25 people, at the home of a Senator, Cabinet Officer, or senior White House Staff member.'' One offer for membership in a Senatorial Trust said, ``Trust members can expect a close working relationship with all [of the party's] Senators, top Administration officials and other national leaders. Personal relationships are fostered at informal meetings throughout the year in Washington, D.C. and abroad.'' Another solicitation offers lunch at the White House with the President and his wife. It also goes so far as to say that ``Attendance at all events is limited. Benefits based on receipts.'' That means you don't get the benefit until the cash is in hand. Pledges of contributions are not enough. That's how blatant these offers to purchase access have become. The sale of access to small, private meetings is the product of the soft money loophole. The amounts we see on these solicitations aren't $1,000 and $2,000 contributions. They're large--$50,000 or $100,000 contributions in soft money. The soft money loophole has increased and intensified the sale of access. The soft money loophole is swallowing our political system whole. Do these large money contributions create an appearance of personal access and improper influence by big contributors? Yes. Look at the kinds of articles that are being written about the ups and downs of pending legislation. Many of them draw links--in my mind unfairly-- between large soft money contributions and legislative activity. Here's one from the Wall Street Journal on the bankruptcy legislation. It even has a chart of all the organizations in the Coalition for Responsible Bankruptcy Laws and the amount each contributed to the Democrats and Republicans. Here's a similar one from the New York Times. The opening paragraph reads: ``A lobbying campaign led by credit card companies and banks that gave millions of dollars in political donations to members of Congress and contributed generously to President Bush's 200 campaign is close to its long sought goal of overhauling the nation's bankruptcy system.'' Here's another recent article from the New York Times linking large soft money contributions to ambassadorships. Here's another Wall Street Journal article from last year talking about the so-called ``wish list'' of large contributors to the Bush campaign. And, of course, we are all well aware of the stories linking President Clinton's pardons to campaign contributions. These articles are the evidence of the appearance of impropriety created with large soft money contributions. In Buckley v. Valeo, the Supreme Court also answered ``yes'' to the question whether large contributions create the appearance of impropriety. It found an appearance of corruption created from the size of the contribution alone, without even looking at the sale of access. It noted, ``Congress was justified in concluding that the interest in safeguarding against the appearance of impropriety requires that the opportunity for abuse inherent in the process of raising large monetary contributions be eliminated.'' Add to the equation the actual sale of access for large contributions, and you have an even greater ``opportunity for abuse'' and the appearance of corruption. These soft money contributions are not used just for get out the vote or voter registration activities, which is how the loophole got started in the first place. The truth is they are most often used for television ads that appear in thousands of spots in support of and against individual candidates. The truth is, while the parties claim these ads are issue ads, they clearly have one purpose--to help elect or defeat a particular candidate. The Brennan Center analyzed all of the ads from the 1998 election ads paid for with hard money (candidate ads), and ads paid for with soft money (sham issue ads) and they found practically no difference. Although the Supreme Court in Buckley attempted to define a candidate ad as one actually promoting the election or defeat of a candidate through the use of words such as ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' the Brennan Center found that over 90% of the candidate ads, didn't do that--they didn't say ``elect'' or ``defeat'' or ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' a particular candidate. They were, it appears, virtually indistinguishable from the sham issue ads directed at a particular candidate and paid for with soft money. In the 1996 Presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee ran ads on welfare and crime and the budget which were basically designed to support President Clinton's reelection. At our hearings on the campaign finance system, Harold Ickes was asked about these DNC ads and the extent to which the people looking at the ads would walk away with the message to vote for President Clinton. ``I would certainly hope so,'' he said. ``If not, we ought to fire the ad agencies.'' Listen to this ad from the Republican National Committee on behalf of then Presidential candidate Bob Dole. Mr. Dole: We have a moral obligation to give our children an America with the opportunity and values of the nation we grew up in. Voice Over: Bob Dole grew up in Russell, Kansas. From his parents he learned the value of hard work, honetsy and responsibility. So when his country called, he answered. He was seriously wounded in combat. Paralyzed, he underwent nine operations. Mr. Dole: I went around looking for a miracle that would make me whole again. Voice Over: The doctors said he'd never walk again. But after 39 months, he proved them wrong. A Man Named Ed: He persevered, he never gave up. He fought his way back from total paralysis. Voice Over: Like many Americans, his life experience and values serve as a strong moral compass. The principle of work to replace welfare. The principle of accountability to strengthen our criminal justice system. The principle of discipline to end wasteful Washington spending. Mr. Dole: It all comes down to values. What you believe in. What you sacrifice for. And what you stand for. That ad was paid for with soft money contributed to the Republican National Committee. And that's argued as permissible under current law, because that ad doesn't explicitly ask the viewer to vote for Bob Dole. It spends its whole time talking positively about him just before the election. If it added 4 words at the end that say what the ad is all about, ``Vote for Bob Dole,'' it would be treated as a candidate ad, not an issue ad, and would be subject to the hard money limits. Well, any reasonable person who hears that ad knows it is an ad supporting the candidacy of Bob Dole. It is not an ad about welfare or wasteful government spending. And in my book, it should have to be paid for with regulated or hard money contributions. That isn't the case today. So, Mr. President, the truth is that this kind of candidate advertising, which should clearly be subject to contribution limits, escapes those limits through the soft money loophole. And it's that soft money loophole that the bill before us would close. It would ban the solicitation or receipt of soft money by the national parties; it would ban the solicitation or receipt of soft money by the candidates or their representatives. Mr. President, the large majority of the American people want campaign finance reform. The large majority of the American people want us to clean up our act. We're the only ones who can do it. As the Supreme Court said in Buckley, an appearance of corruption is ``inherent in a system permitting unlimited financial contributions.'' And permitting the appearance of corruption undermines the very foundation of our democracy--the trust of the people in the system. We have the right to protect our democratic institutions from being undermined by the open sale of access for large contributions which people believe reasonably translates into influence. It's time to step up to the plate. Mr. President, I want to extend my deepest thanks and appreciation to the two Senators who made this moment possible Senator John McCain and Senator Russ Feingold. They have been warriors in this fight for campaign finance reform. They have pushed this when it wasn't popular to do so, and they have made what many thought impossible a reality. It took guts and savvy, and I commend and congratulate them. I also commend our Democratic Leader, Tom Daschle. Without his strength and vision, this legislation would not have happened. Senator Daschle steered a course for our side that kept us on the road to reform. I don't know if anyone else could have done what he did--and, as always, he does it with grace and wit and charm. I commend Senator McConnell for his very strong and fair fight. He is as dedicated to his position as we are to ours. He is an intimidating opponent and has our respect for his dedication and perseverence. I know he is not happy with the outcome, but I believe his dire predictions will be unrealized. I also want to congratulate Senator Dodd on his tireless and brilliant service as the Democratic floor manager. His ability to capture the essence of an issue and related it to real life so we can all understand it is impressive. He served the Senate well in this open-ended and somewhat unpredictable debate. I also want to thank the staff who worked so hard and so diligently on this effort. Bob Schiff and Mark Busse did a terrific job serving at the center of this great spinning wheel of legislation; they combined both excellent legal and political skills to keep the bill on track. Kennie Gill served everyone well as the staff floor manager. Laurie Rubenstein provided excellent legal advice, and Andrea LaRue did a great job keeping the Democratic Leadership represented and informed. I also want to thank Linda Gustitus and Ken Saccoccia of my staff for their endless time and truly extraordinary effort. It is certainly rewarding that this good work has paid off with the passage of this bill. loan payback provision Two weeks ago the Senate passed an amendment to this bill that allows an increase in the individual contribution limits when a candidate is challenging a ``so-called'' millionaire candidate. Included in that amendment was a provision that prohibits candidates from repaying personal loans over $250,000 with contributions from other persons. This provision was enacted on a prospective basis; in other words, this provision would not apply to any candidate loans incurred before the enactment of this legislation. I want to ask my good friend from Arizona, Senator McCain, whether it is his understanding that the underlying intent in making this provision prospective is because this is the only fair and reasonable approach in this situation. Does the Senator from Arizona agree that it would be unreasonable and unfair to expect a candidate who conducted a campaign according to one set of rules to have to retroactively attempt to apply new rules? Isn't applying this provision on a prospective basis the only fair and reasonable approach?

Mr. LEVIN. This vote counts. It is real, it is not a signal or a message. I thank the Chair and commend our good friends, Senators McCain and Feingold.

Mr. LEVIN

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

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 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. LEVIN. I am happy to yield.

Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct.

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. 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. 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.

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

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 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.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, earlier this week, a Today Show reporter interviewed Mr. Bob Stuber, a former police officer from California, who maintains a website called Escapeschool.com. Mr. Stuber's website gives advice to students who may one day find themselves caught in the crossfire of a shooting at school. The former police officer offers practical information in this day and age, such as what gunfire sounds like, what to do when a student hears gunfire, and what a student should look for in a hiding place. It is simply heart breaking that this type of advice is even necessary. Yet, students in school are increasingly worried for their safety. Escapeschool.com is a valuable resource because in addition to giving advice to students, it also gives advice to schools and communities to try to prevent such shootings, and information for parents who want to communicate with their children about these events. I encourage students and parents to look at this website and talk to each other about some of the dangers associated with guns. I also encourage my colleagues to look at the website with the hope that we in Congress can restart a dialogue about how to limit youth access to guns and reduce such shootings in American schools. I ask consent to print in the Record excerpts from the transcript of the interview with Mr. Bob Stuber.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we have worked real hard to close the soft money loophole with one hand. We are hopefully going to do that after a huge amount of work. We cannot and should not with the other hand undermine public confidence by raising the hard money limits from $25,000 per year to $50,000 per year for an individual. That is too much money. It is corruptive in its appearance, and it undermines public confidence.

Mr. LEVIN

Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Connecticut. I wish I could come close to him in terms of knowledge of this subject, or my friend from New York. I just want to very briefly say one thing. We have been guided so far, a majority of us, by a principle; and that principle is, there should be limits. That is what this debate is all about. We have limits on individual contributions. We have now decided what those limits would be. We have limits on PAC contributions, limits to PACs, limits to State and party committees, limits on national party committees, and aggregate limits. What this debate is about is restoring limits to campaign contributions. Without McCain-Feingold, or a variant thereof, we have the status quo: Unlimited contributions to campaigns. Despite the fact that our law--our law--says there should be limits, there has been a loophole created which has destroyed that law--destroyed the limits-- and we have seen the result. There is one potential loophole left. That is the loophole which the Senator from New York and the Senator from Connecticut have identified. That loophole is, assuming the Supreme Court finds as many think is likely they will find, the amount of money which could be contributed to a candidate by a political party would be unlimited. Without this kind of an effort to set some kind of limit on those contributions, it seems to me we would be violating the very principle that has guided the majority of us in this debate so far. So I hope we will not give up on that principle. I hope we will be guided by that principle--the principle of the restoration of limits, the preservation of limits, the protection of some limits--because the unlimited amounts of money which have come into these campaigns, it seems to me, have degraded the process, and degraded all of us in the process. So I commend our good friend from New York for identifying this problem. I hope this will be a bipartisan vote of support, to basically do what the law already intends to do, to set limits on the contributions of parties to candidates. That is in the current law. There is a formula that we are simply trying to protect in the event that the Supreme Court says that process does not pass constitutional muster. We knew 25 years ago--and we know now--that limits are important, that unlimited, excessive contributions can create a problem in terms of public confidence. This is the one area left which is critical to the principle in McCain-Feingold. I hope that the amendment of the Senator from New York is adopted, and that it is adopted with a bipartisan vote, because it is so key to this bill accomplishing what it set out to do: Restoration, preservation, protection, of some limits on contributions. I thank the Chair.

Mr. LEVIN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.