John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to address the Senate as in morning business.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Bob Smith, Jim Jeffords, and Daniel K. Inouye. The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress. The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability. The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts across 30 States. Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest. The Institute also assisted in facilitating interagency teamwork for the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even Members of Congress have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative processes. Currently, the Institute is involved in more than 20 cases and many more are pending consideration. The Institute accomplishes its work by maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and facilitators located in 39 States. We believe that mediators should be involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and that system is working. The demand on the Institute's assistance has been much greater than anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long- term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and designing internal systems for preventing or resolving disputes. Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance. In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional 5 years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by preventing costly litigation. On February 11, 2002, the Arizona Daily Star included an editorial that recognizes the benefits of this Institute to resolving environmental conflicts faced by various parties, including Federal and non-Federal parties, and recommends continuing support for the Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to continue Federal support for the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution. I am pleased to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Bob Smith, Jim Jeffords, and Daniel K. Inouye. The Congress enacted legislation to establish the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution in 1998, with the purpose of offering an alternative to litigation for parties in dispute over environmental conflicts. As we know, many environmental conflicts often result in lengthy and costly court proceedings and may take years to resolve. In cases involving Federal Government agencies, the costs for court proceeding are usually paid for by taxpayers. While litigation is still a recourse to resolve disputes, the Congress recognized the need for alternatives, such as mediation and facilitated collaboration, to address the rising number of environmental conflicts that have clogged Federal courts, executive agencies, and the Congress. The Institute was placed at the Morris K. Udall Foundation in recognition of former Representative Morris K. Udall from Arizona and his exceptional environmental record, as well as his unusual ability to build a consensus among fractious and even hostile interests. The Institute was established as an experiment with the idea that hidden within fractured environmental debates lay the seeds for many agreements, an approach applied by Mo Udall with unsurpassed ability. The success of the Institute is far greater than we could have imagined. The Institute began operations in 1999 and has already provided assistance to parties in more than 100 environmental conflicts across 30 States. Agencies from the Environmental Protection Agency, the Departments of Interior and Agriculture, the U.S. Navy, the Army Corps of Engineers, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and others have all called upon the Institute for assistance. Even the Federal courts are referring cases to the Institute for mediation, including such high profile cases as the management of endangered salmon throughout the Columbia River Basin in the Northwest. The Institute also assisted in facilitating interagency teamwork for the Everglades Task Force which oversees the South Everglades Restoration Project. The U.S. Forest Service requested assistance to bring ranchers and environmental advocates in the southwest to work on grazing and environmental compliance issues. Even Members of Congress have sought the Institute's assistance to review implementation of the Nation's fundamental environmental law, the National Environmental Policy Act, to assess how it can be improved using collaborative processes. Currently, the Institute is involved in more than 20 cases and many more are pending consideration. The Institute accomplishes its work by maintaining a national roster of 180 environmental mediators and facilitators located in 39 States. We believe that mediators should be involved in the geographic area of the dispute whenever possible and that system is working. The demand on the Institute's assistance has been much greater than anticipated. At the time the Institute was created, we did not anticipate the magnitude of the role it would serve to the Federal Government. The Institute has served as a mediator between agencies and as an advisor to agency dispute resolution efforts involving overlapping or competing jurisdictions and mandates, developing long- term solutions, training personnel in consensus-building efforts, and designing internal systems for preventing or resolving disputes. Unfortunately, experience has also taught us that most Federal agencies are limited from participating because of inadequate funds to pay for mediation services. This legislation will authorize a participation fund to be used to support meaningful participation of parties to Federal environmental disputes. The participation fund will provide matching funds to stakeholders who cannot otherwise afford mediation fees or costs of providing technical assistance. In addition to creating this new participation fund, this legislation simply extends the authorization for the Institute for an additional 5 years with a modest increase in its operation budget. The proposed increase is in response to the overwhelming demand on the Institute's services, an investment that will ultimately benefit taxpayers by preventing costly litigation. On February 11, 2002, the Arizona Daily Star included an editorial that recognizes the benefits of this Institute to resolving environmental conflicts faced by various parties, including Federal and non-Federal parties, and recommends continuing support for the Institute. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of this editorial be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Nothing is more indicative of the support for the Institute than the cosponsorship of my two colleagues, Senator Smith and Senator Jeffords, the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over most environmental matters before the Congress. I thank Senator Smith and Senator Jeffords for their critical support, and I look forward to working with them to enact this important, bipartisan legislation. This is a matter of some urgency as the existing authorization will expire in this fiscal year. I look forward to working with the cosponsors of this legislation and the rest of my colleagues to move this bill forward expeditiously to ensure continuing support for the valuable services of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution to our Nation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my friend from Wisconsin, and I endorse Mr. Shays' discussion on the reasons that Congress must act to ban soft money. Let me also call to my colleagues' attention a statement that Mr. Shays made on February 13, 2002, concerning the functioning of the soft money ban, and in particular, the Levin amendment. The Levin amendment concerning state parties' use of nonfederal funds was added to the bill here on the floor last year. It was modified, and in my view improved, on the House side. My colleague from Wisconsin and I participated in the negotiations that yielded the final terms of the Levin amendment contained in the House bill. Mr. Shays explains quite well the way that the Levin amendment in the final bill is supposed to function, and the restrictions, or what some have called ``fences,'' that we hope and believe will prevent the Levin amendment from becoming a new soft money loophole. Mr. Shays' discussion appears in the Record on pages H408-H410 on February 13, 2002.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be happy to respond to the Senator's question. Section 213 of the bill allows the political parties to choose to make either coordinated expenditures or independent expenditures on behalf of each of their candidates, but not both. This choice is to be made after the party nominates its candidate, when the party makes its first post-nomination expenditure--either coordinated or independent--on behalf of the candidate. This provision is entirely consistent with the Supreme Court's rulings in the two Colorado Republican cases. In the first of those cases, the Court held that a party had a constitutional right to make unlimited independent expenditures, using hard money funds, on behalf of its candidates. But of course, those party expenditures must be fully and completely independent of the candidate and his campaign. The second Colorado Republican case held that Congress may limit the size of coordinated expenditures made by parties on behalf of their candidates, in order to deter corruption and the appearance of corruption that could result from unlimited expenditures that are coordinated. This provision fully recognizes the right of the parties to make unlimited independent expenditures. But it helps to ensure that the expenditure will be truly independent, as required by Colorado Republican I, by prohibiting a party from making coordinated expenditures for a candidate at the same time it is making independent expenditures for the same candidate. We believe that once a candidate has been nominated a party cannot coordinate with a candidate and be independent in the same election campaign. After the date of nomination, the party is free to choose to coordinate with a candidate, or to operate independently of that candidate. If it chooses the former, it is subject to the limits upheld in Colorado Republican II. If it chooses the latter, it is free to exercise its right upheld in Colorado Republican I to engage in unlimited hard money spending independent of the candidate. Section 213 provides, for this purpose only, that all the political committees of a party at both the state and national levels are considered to be one committee for the purpose of making this choice. This will prevent one arm of the party from coordinating with a candidate while another arm of the same party purports to operate independently of such candidate. This provision is intended to ensure that a party committee which chooses to engage in unlimited spending for a candidate is in fact independent of the candidate.

Mr. McCAIN. I agree with my friend from Wisconsin that these statements express our intent in this bill quite well.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that several news reports detailing numerous instances in which wealthy individuals have circumvented contribution limits by directing their children's campaign contributions be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator is correct that section 318 was added in the House. It is an important provision, and the Senator from Wisconsin and I supported it being included in the bill. Under the FEC's current regulations at 11 C.F.R. Sec. 110.1(i)(2), children under the age of 18 may make contributions to political candidates and committees as long as the child knowingly and voluntary makes the decision to contribute. In addition, the child must make the contribution out of his or her own funds, which the child is in control of, such as the proceeds of a trust or money in a savings account in the child's own name. Unfortunately, notwithstanding these regulations, we believe that wealthy individuals are easily circumventing contribution limits to both political candidates and parties by directing their children's contributions. Indeed, the FEC in 1998 notified Congress of its difficulties in enforcing the current provision. Its legislative recommendations to Congress that year cited ``substantial evidence that minors are being used by their parents, or others, to circumvent the limits imposed on contributors.'' Accordingly, Section 318 of the bill prohibits individuals 17 years old or younger from making contributions or donations to and a candidate or a committee of a political party. We believe it is appropriate for Congress to prohibit minors from contributing to campaigns because we agree with the Commission that there is substantial evidence that individuals are evading contribution limits by directing their children to make contributions. According to a Los Angeles Times study, individuals who listed their occupation as student contributed $7.5 million to candidates and parties between 1991 and 1998. Upon further investigation, some of these contributions where made by infants and toddlers. In another instance, the paper found that two high school sisters contributed $40,000 to the Democratic Party in 1998. When asked about the contribution, the high school sophomore answered that it was a ``family decision.'' We believe that this and other examples justify the prohibition on minor contributions that is included in the bill as a way to prevent evasion of the contribution limits in the law. In our view, this provision simply restores the integrity of the individual contribution limits by preventing parents from funneling contributions through their children, many of whom are simply too young to make such contributions knowingly. We recognize that many individuals under the age of 18 support candidates with great fervor and feel passionately about public issues. We do not mean to suggest that children should not be able to participate in the political system. They are free to volunteer on campaigns and express their views through speaking and writing. We simply believe that allowing them to contribute to candidates presents too great a risk of abuse, especially since the existing, more limited, FEC regulation has failed to prevent such abuse.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Michigan for his question. The bill increases the individual contribution limit to a candidate from $1,000 to $2,000 per election. It provides, in addition, higher limits for contributions made to candidates running against opponents who spend large amounts of personal wealth. Those higher contribution limits are set forth in section 304 of the bill. The Supreme Court in Buckley upheld the $1,000 contribution limit established by the 1974 law as a permissible measure that serves the compelling governmental interests of deterring corruption and the appearance of corruption. This ruling was in substance reaffirmed by the Court's decision in 2000 in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri PAC. It is now very well settled law that Congress has the power to set reasonable limits on individual contributions to candidates. The Court has never said that the number picked by Congress is the upper or lower limit on a reasonable determination. Indeed, it rejected the argument in Shrink, that the diminished purchasing power of the Missouri contribution limit because of inflation caused it to be an unreasonably low amount. It is possible that someone would attempt to challenge the $2,000 contribution limit in light of the higher limits provided for some races in section 304, and to argue that both limits cannot serve the same interests of preventing corruption. Congress has concluded that contributions in excess of $2,000 present a risk of actual and apparent corruption. Section 304 does not take issue with this conclusion. In this limited context, however, Congress has concluded that the contribution limits--despite their fundamental importance in fighting actual and apparent corruption--should be relaxed to mitigate the countervailing risk that they will unfairly favor those who are willing, and able, to spend a small fortune of their own money to win election. We believe that Congress can reasonably determine that in the case of a candidate running against a wealthy opponent and having to raise extraordinary amounts of money to keep pace with that opponent's personal spending, that the risk of actual or apparent corruption from higher, yet still limited, contribution limits is small enough to permit candidates to raise those greater contributions in those particular circumstances.

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator for her question. Because of the delay in getting the bill through the House, it became clear that there would be a number of very complicated transition rule issues and implementation problems if we were to try to put the bill into effect for the 2002 elections. We reluctantly determined that it would simply not be practical to apply new rules in the middle of the election cycle. To change the rules in the middle of the campaign would have created uncertainty and potential unfairness, particularly since primaries are imminent in some States. It is our intent, however, that the provisions of this bill will be fully in effect for the 2004 election cycle. In order to provide a certain end to the soft money system, and completely insulate the 2004 elections from that system, the bill provides for an effective date of Wednesday, November 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 elections. After that date, no further soft money will be raised. The November 6, 2002, effective date will permit an orderly transition to the new soft money free world. Now as to the transition rules, we do allow soft money that the parties raise before November 6, 2002, to be used on expenses incurred in connection with the 2002 elections, and we intend that permission to apply to runoff elections, recounts, or election contests arising out of this year's elections as well. We also do not intend the bill substantive provisions concerning advertising, such as Title II and the ``stand by your ad provisions'', wealthy candidates, sections 304, 316, and 319, and contributions by minors, section 318, to apply to 2002 runoff elections. In addition, in the event that a runoff election occurs after November 5, 2002, the national party would--until January 1, 2003, be able to spend soft money received before November 6, 2002 to pay for the costs of non-Federal activities incurred in connection with, and before the date of, that runoff election, and the state parties could spend soft money on Federal election activities in connection with the runoff, as under current law. On the other hand, the increased contribution limits in the bill take effect on January 1, 2003.

Mr. McCAIN. In particular, I thank Mary Murphy and Bob Schiff, of Senator Feingold's staff, for all their work on this issue over the years. Let me also express my heartfelt gratitude to my former staffer Mark Buse, who recently left the Hill after working by my side on this issue for many years. This would not have been possible without him. I thank as well Mark's successor as Republican staff director on the Commerce Committee, Jeanne Bumpus, who, in an incredibly short period of time, became expert on the many issues involved in this legislation and was an invaluable support to me. I also want to thank my administrative assistant and alter ego, Mark Salter, for his continued efforts not only here but in a broad variety of ways. I am grateful for his friendship. Mr. President, the proponents of this legislation have had, and continue to have, one purpose: to enact fair, bipartisan, campaign finance reform that seeks no special advantage for one party or another. Once we complete the Senate debate and vote on final passage, it will be up to the President to take the action that his spokesmen and advisors have led us to believe he will take--to sign the bill into law. It is my hope that he will deem it appropriate to do this. The supporters of campaign finance reform have differences about what constitutes ideal reform, but we have subordinated those differences to the common good. We all recognized one very simple truth: that campaign contributions from a single source that run to the hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars are not healthy to a democracy. Is that not self-evident? It is to the American people Mr. President. It is to the people. The reforms I believe we are about to pass will not cure public cynicism about politics. Nor will it completely free politics from influence peddling or the appearance of it. But I believe it might cause many Americans who are at present quite disaffected from the practices and institutions of our democracy to begin to see that their elected representatives value their reputations more than their incumbency. And maybe that recognition will cause them to exercise their franchise more faithfully, to identify more closely with political parties, to raise their expectations for the work we do. Maybe it will even encourage more Americans to seek public office, not for the privileges bestowed on election winners, but for the honor of serving a great nation. If by today's vote we make even small progress in this direction, I think we have rendered good service to our country, and I am proud of it. I respectfully ask my colleagues for their votes in support of final passage of this bill. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. I would be happy to explain this provision. Section 212 is intended to increase the disclosures of independent expenditures. Current law require such reports to be filed within 24 hours of the making of expenditure aggregating $1,000 or more, if the threshold amount of expenditures is reached within the last 20 days before an election. We add a provision requiring disclosure within 48 hours if independent expenditures totaling $10,000 or more are made prior to the 20th day before the election. As part of the Department of Transportation appropriations bill for 2001, Public Law No. 106-46, Congress required that these ``24 hour reports'' be received by the Commission within 24 hours, rather than simply mailed within that time, which is the standard interpretation of the term ``filing'' in the law. We do not intend in Sec. 212 to change that requirement. Because these reports are very time sensitive, we believe they should be received by the Commission within the time period specified. Indeed, we believe that the Commission should have the authority to require any other time sensitive report required by this bill, such as the 24 hours reports required under Sec. Sec. 304 and 319 also to be received within 24 hours. The ready availability of fax machines and other forms of electronic communications should make it fairly easy to comply with this requirement.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Wisconsin would yield, let me elaborate a bit on his discussion, with which I completely agree, and address the specific concern raised by some of these groups. It is important for the Commission's new regulations to ensure that actual ``coordination'' is captured by the new regulations. Informal understandings and de facto arrangements can result in actual coordination as effectively as explicit agreement or formal collaboration. In drafting new regulations to implement the existing statutory standard for coordination--an expenditure made ``in cooperation, consultation or concert, with, or at the request or suggestion of'' a candidate--we expect the FEC to cover ``coordination'' whenever it occurs, not simply when there has been an agreement or formal collaboration. On the other hand, nothing in the section 214 should or can be read to suggest, as some have said, that lobbying meetings between a group and a candidate concerning legislative issues could alone lead to a conclusion that ads that the group runs subsequently concerning the legislation that was the subject of the meeting are coordinated with the candidate. Obviously, if the group and the candidate discuss campaign related activity such as ads promoting the candidate or attacking his or her opponent, then coordination might legitimately be found, depending on the nature of the discussions. We do not intend for the FEC to promulgate rules, however, that would lead to a finding of coordination solely because the organization that runs such ads has previously had lobbying contacts with a candidate. Section 214 represents a determination that the current FEC regulation is far too narrow to be effective in defining coordination in the real world of campaigns and elections and threatens to seriously undermine the soft money restrictions contained in the bill. The FEC is required to issue a new regulation, and everyone who has an interest in the outcome of that rulemaking will be able to participate in it, and appeal the FEC's decision to the courts if they believe that is necessary.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his kind remarks about those of us who support legislation that he opposes. It is typical of his generosity and spirit. I thank him very much. I also want to thank my friend from Wisconsin, about whom I will speak later on today. As always, he contradicts Harry Truman's old adage that ``if you want a friend in Washington, go out and buy a dog,'' because he is a very dear friend, and it has been one of the great privileges of my life to get close to him. It is a privilege knowing a truly honest man. Mr. President, we have reached, at long last, the point when meaningful reform in our campaign finance laws is within our reach; in fact, it appears to be imminent. Although some of the measure's detractors have argued that the American public doesn't care about this issue, I think the outpouring of public support proves otherwise. In an online poll conducted by Harris Interactive, 65 percent of those polled favored campaign reform to ban soft money. While my colleague from Texas, who spoke earlier, was correct in saying that we are determined, he is incorrect in asserting that we are a determined minority. In a CNN/Time poll last March, 77 percent of Americans described the current way in which candidates for Federal office raise money for campaigns as either ``corrupt'' or ``unethical.'' There has been some shrill media opposition to this bill, particularly in the weeks since the House approved it by a vote of 240 to 189. The support for campaign finance reform that is reflected in newspapers around the country, I think, more accurately reflects the public sentiment on the issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several articles be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend for yielding this time to me. I am grateful to my colleagues and the many people who have brought us to this point. This legislation will provide much-needed reform of our Federal election campaign laws. With the stroke of the President's pen, we will eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars of unregulated soft money that have caused Americans to question the integrity of their elected representatives. This is a good bill. It is a legally sound bill. It is a fair bill that benefits neither party but that profits our political system and that will, I hope, help to restore the public's faith in government. So much has been said about the substance of this bill which has been hashed out literally for years and considered and reconsidered and perfected on the Senate floor in preparation for House passage. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to say thank you to a few people who have made this happen. First, I extend my sincere appreciation and gratitude to my friend Senator Feingold for his unwavering commitment to this cause. He has been a wise counsel and a stalwart partner through these years, and I will forever be proud to have my name associated with him on this issue and other reform issues. On occasion, politicians step up and match rhetoric with actions. Russ Feingold, at a time when there was about to be a flood of soft money advertising into his State in a very close and hard-fought political campaign, said no. Russ Feingold showed enormous courage because he was willing to put his political career on the line for what he believed. I thank the majority leader, Senator Daschle, for his steadfast support that enabled us to pass the McCain-Feingold bill last April and to bring it back this week for a final vote. I thank the Republican leader, Senator Lott, for his commitment to an open debate and for keeping the process fair. The majority and minority whips, Senators Reid and Nickles, have my sincere thanks as well. Senator Dodd managed our side of the debate with his typical skill and good humor. I thank Senator Levin as well for his critical contributions to the compromises that attracted majority support for the bill in both Houses of Congress. I am grateful to all my colleagues, supporters and opponents alike, for their contributions to the bill and to the debate. I would like to personally thank Senate Republican supporters, particularly Senator Thompson whom I will miss more than I can say. His friendship and wise counsel have been not only important to me as a Senator but were a critical element in achieving the legislative result we achieved in the Senate. To Senator Cochran, one of the senior Members and most well liked and respected Members of the Senate, who came on board on this issue at a time when we needed the credibility of a man of his stature, I will always be grateful. Senators Snowe and Collins, I think the State of Maine can be proud of both of those Senators, including Senator Snowe's contribution over one of the more difficult aspects of this legislation, the so-called Snowe-Jeffords amendment, without which it would not have been possible to pass this legislation. I am grateful for the valued support of Senators Specter, Chafee, Fitzgerald, Lugar, and Domenici, who gave legitimacy to our claims of bipartisan cooperation. I am grateful again, as I am so often, to Senator Chuck Hagel. It takes a brave and committed soul to take it upon himself, as he did a few weeks ago, to attempt to facilitate a resolution to this measure between myself and the other supporters of this bill and Senator McConnell. It is in large part due to his efforts that we have that resolution today. Senate passage of a bill, of course, is only half--or less than half, really--of the legislative battle. If it were not for the untiring work of Congressmen Chris Shays and Marty Meehan, the House sponsors of this legislation, we would not be here today. I will always hold them in the highest regard for their tenacious, unrelenting commitment to our shared goal. House minority leader Gephardt worked many long hours to hold the support of the vast majority of his caucus, and I am greatly indebted to him. I salute also the Members who signed the discharge petition that forced House consideration of this bill, and the brave Republicans in particular who voted for its passage. As I told my colleague Senator McConnell a few weeks ago, I won't miss our annual contests on this issue. No one in his right mind would want to continue against so formidable a foe. I can only hope, however, that should I ever find myself again in a pitched legislative battle-- shy as I am of entering into them--that my opponent is as principled as Senator Mitch McConnell. It has been a worthy effort by all involved, and I will always appreciate the dedication shown by all of my colleagues in their efforts to champion their beliefs. I am compelled to mention a few indispensable supporters. In particular, I thank Fred Wertheimer of Democracy 21; all the good, dedicated folks at Common Cause: Scott Harshbarger, Meredith McGeehee, Matt Keller, and Don Simon, including Scott Harshbarger's talented and wonderful predecessor Ann McBride; Jerry Kolberg's Campaign for America; and the Committee for Economic Development. I am thankful also to Trevor Potter, a former FEC Commissioner, for his insight and sound political advice, and to Rick Davis who kept us focused on the big picture and provided invaluable strategic advice. I can't begin to name the many thousands of people not in this Chamber who have fought so hard and long and who gathered under the umbrella of a group called Americans for Reform. I want to mention the efforts by AARP, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen, a broad coalition of religious organizations, Carla Eudy and the staff and supporters of Straight Talk America, for their tireless contributions in this effort and the honor of their friendship. Thanks also to my friend John Weaver for his help and guidance. I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of the staffers of the Senators who contributed significantly to this legislative effort.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, following the cloture vote, assuming the outcome of the vote is what I hope and believe it will be, I will again seek recognition to offer further comments on what I consider to be one of the most critical legislative measures on which I have had the privilege to work. Today's vote, as reflected in these and other countless newspaper articles and editorials, is about curbing the influence of special interests. Now is the time to enact real reform and return the power to the people and restore their faith in the Government. Mr. President, next to me--the next speaker--is a person who played a very key and vital role in the formulation of this legislation. A lot will be written about how this 7-year odyssey came to an end. One of the chapters in that book will be the time when Senator Thompson, the Senator from Tennessee, and Senator Feinstein, the Senator from California, engaged in delicate operations. The bill was basically dead when they began those negotiations. I won't go into the details of them. But through a near miraculous turn of events, because of the dedicated efforts of Senator Thompson and Senator Feinstein, we reached an agreement on crucial parts of the bill, and we were able to move forward. I will be grateful to my friend from Tennessee for many reasons, but that is only one of them in the long list of debts that I owe him. I thank my friend from Tennessee, who will speak next. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I rise as the sponsor of the campaign finance reform bill that was passed last year by the Senate and a few weeks ago by the House, and is currently before the Senate one final time. We have worked for a number of years now for what is before us today: The opportunity to pass significant campaign finance reform legislation and send it to the President for his signature. Over these years, many have explained why it is imperative that we fix our campaign finance laws, close loopholes that have been exploited to the point of making a mockery of our laws, and put an end to the corrupting influence of big money on our democracy. I would like to address the two central provisions of our bill--the soft money ban and the provisions dealing with sham issue ads. Working with our friends in the House, we have drafted a bill that promotes important first amendment values, promotes enhanced citizen participation in our democracy, is workable, and is carefully crafted to steer clear of asserted constitutional pitfalls. Anyone who reads this bill and the debates should come away with the clear understanding that Congress approached this task with a fealty and dedication to the Constitution, and with a desire to get it right. We are acting today to fix a real problem and have made our best effort to do so in a way that will be upheld by the courts. This bill represents a balanced approach which addresses the very real danger that Federal contribution limits could be evaded by diverting funds to State and local parties, which then use those funds for Federal election activity. At the same time, the bill does not attempt to regulate State and local party spending where this danger is not present, and where State and local parties engage in purely non- Federal activities. We will not succeed in closing the soft-money loophole unless we address the problem at the State and local level. We do this, however, while preserving the rights and abilities of our State and local parties to engage in truly local activity. In order to close the existing soft money loophole and prevent massive evasion of Federal campaign finance laws, the soft money ban must operate not just at the national party level but at the State and local level as well. We have authority to extend the soft money reforms to the State and local level where it is necessary, as it is here, to protect the integrity of Federal elections. Closing the loophole is crucial to prevent evasion of the new Federal rules. As we all know, state party spending may not always clearly divide between Federal and non-Federal purposes. For example, when a State party conducts a ``get-out-the-vote drive,'' it benefits both its Federal and non-Federal candidates. Consequently, if the State party committee pays for the drive with soft dollars, the committee is using federally prohibited contributions in connection with a Federal election to benefit federal candidates. Currently 14 States, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia and Wyoming, allow unlimited contributions--that would be barred at the Federal level--from individuals, unions, PACs, and corporations. In addition, 36 States do not restrict soft money transfers from national parties to State and local parties. To illustrate the size of these transfers, in the 2000 election, the national Democratic Party funneled approximately $145 million and the Republican Party transferred $129 million to their affiliated State parties to take advantage of the State parties' ability to spend a larger percentage of soft money on advertisements featuring Federal candidates. The reports issued by the majority and minority of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee charged with investigating campaign finance abuses in the 1996 elections illustrate the extent to which the coffers of Federal and State political parties are intertwined. In 1996, the State parties spent money they received from the national parties on advertisements considered key to their Presidential candidate's election. The Minority Report makes clear that State parties often act as mere conduits, exercising no independent judgment over the ads. For example, in an internal memo discussing how to run so-called issue ads using soft money that would benefit Senator Dole's campaign, an RNC official wrote: ``Some have voiced concern that buying through the State parties could result in a loss of control on our part. There is absolutely no reason to be concerned about this.'' The bottom line is, whatever the technical niceties, soft money is being spent by State parties to support Federal campaigns. In fact, much of the soft money spent in the 2000 elections to support Federal campaigns was spent by State parties. Congress has a compelling interest in ensuring that State parties do not use backdoor tactics to finance Federal election campaigns in this way. It has an interest in ensuring that Federal elections activities are paid for with funds raised in a non-corrupting manner and in accordance with the Federal guidelines. State parties receive soft money to influence Federal elections in the form of direct contributions to State parties and transfers from national parties for this purpose. Much of this money is then spent on television advertisements attacking or promoting Federal candidates and other activities that we all know are designed to, and do, influence Federal elections. State parties also use soft money to fund ``party building activities,'' such as get- out-the-vote and voter registration drives. But, again, all of us know that these activities, while vitally important to our democracy, are designed to, and do have an unmistakable impact on both Federal and non-Federal elections. Currently, State parties pay for these activities using a mixture of hard and soft money pursuant to allocation formulae set by the Federal Election Commission. But current allocation rules have proven wholly inadequate to guard against the use of soft money to influence Federal campaigns. While national parties will no longer be able to transfer soft money to State parties, some State parties will still be able to receive large contributions from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals, subject to state laws. So unless we close the loophole at the State and local level, we will be right back to the unacceptable situation of having non-Federal money--large contributions from corporations, labor unions and wealthy individuals--used to affect Federal elections. That is because, one, many States allow unlimited contributions from individuals, unions, PACs, corporations and national parties to State and local parties; and two, we know from experience that State parties are spending massive sums of soft money to influence Federal elections. Thus, if left unregulated, or merely subject to existing FEC allocation rules, State and local party activity presents the opportunity for massive evasion. Restrictions on the raising of soft money by Federal candidates and officeholders do not, on their own, prevent evasion of the soft money ban. There will always be persons clearly associated with Presidential or other Federal candidates, but not covered by these provisions, who can raise soft money for state parties to funnel into Federal elections. In addition, those who seek to avoid Federal contribution limits can make huge contributions to State and local parties in order to assist particular Federal candidates. Current law, of course, requires that State and local parties spend exclusively hard money when they engage in certain activities that affect Federal elections. For example, if a State party were to run an ad expressly advocating the election of a Federal candidate, the party would have to pay for the ad with hard money. The bill simply applies this same principle to an additional category of activities, defined as ``Federal election activity,'' that, in the judgment of Congress, also clearly affect Federal elections. By contrast, as the bill makes clear, activities that affect purely non-Federal elections are left unregulated by the bill, and remain subject to the applicable State law. Some argue that the soft money given to State parties is used only for ``party building'' that is wholly unrelated to any activity that in design or practice influences Federal elections. This is demonstrably false. The fact is, much of the soft money that goes to State parties is spent on activities that influence Federal elections. In the 1996 Presidential election, for example, State parties spent many millions of dollars on television ads that promoted their Presidential candidates. The money for these ads, moreover, in many cases was either transferred from the national parties or contributed by donors directly to the State parties. Some have also argued that the Federal Government lacks the constitutional authority to regulate the collection and use of funds by State and local parties. There can be no serious doubt, however, that the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to regulate activity that affects Federal elections, and that soft money is used at the State and local level for this purpose. In fact, existing law already prohibits State and local parties from using soft money to explicitly support a Federal candidate. All that the bill does is extend this existing law to close existing loopholes, thereby ensuring that activities that actually influence Federal elections are subject to Federal limitations and rules, while leaving purely State and local campaign activities by State parties subject to applicable State law. Finally, the argument that the bill would somehow undermine the status of State and local parties and prevent them from conducting grassroots campaign activities is similarly incorrect. If anything, the massive influx of soft money from the national parties has turned State and local parties into mere pass-through accounts for the national parties and for large, direct contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals. If anything, the bill will return the State and local parties to the grassroots and encourage them to broaden their bases and reach out to average voters. It is a key purpose of the bill to stop the use of soft money as a means of buying influence and access with Federal officeholders and candidates. Thus, we have established a system of prohibitions and limitations on the ability of Federal officeholders and candidates to raise, spend, and control soft money. The bill prohibits Federal officeholders, Federal candidates, their agents, and entities they directly or indirectly establish, finance, maintain or control, from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring or spending funds in connection with an election for Federal office, including funds for any Federal election activity, unless such funds are ``hard money.'' Furthermore, it prohibits Federal officeholders, Federal candidates, their agents, or entities they directly or indirectly establish, finance, maintain or control from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring or spending funds in connection with a non-Federal election from sources prohibited from making ``hard money'' contributions. It likewise prohibits such individuals and entities from soliciting, receiving, directing, transferring or spending funds--in connection with a non-Federal election--from individuals or Federal PACs that are in excess of the ``hard money'' amounts permitted to be contributed to candidates and political committees by individuals and Federal PACs. These provisions break no new conceptual grounds in either public policy or constitutional law. This prohibition on solicitation is no different from the Federal laws and ethical rules that prohibit Federal officeholders from using their offices or positions of power to solicit money or other benefits. Indeed, statutes like these have been on the books for over 100 years for the same reason that we're prohibiting certain solicitations to deter the opportunity for corruption to grow and flourish, to maintain the integrity of our political system, and to prevent any appearance that our Federal laws, policies, or activities can be inappropriately compromised or sold. For example, the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 generally prohibits Members of Congress or Federal officers and employees from soliciting anything of value from anyone who seeks official action from them, does business with them, or has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance of official duties. No one could seriously argue that this prohibition is without a compelling purpose. The same holds true here. We are prohibiting Federal officeholders, candidates, and their agents from soliciting funds in connection with an election, unless such funds are from sources and in amounts permitted under Federal law. The reason for this is to deter any possibility that solicitations of large sums from corporations, unions, and wealthy private interests will corrupt or appear to corrupt our Federal Government or undermine our political system with the taint of impropriety. The solicitation rules in the bill are also consistent with Federal criminal laws that prohibit Congressional candidates and incumbents, among others, from knowingly soliciting political contributions from any Federal officer or employee or from any contractor who renders personal services. It is also directly akin in purpose to the Federal criminal law that prohibits any person from soliciting or receiving any political contribution in any Federal room or building occupied in the discharge of a Federal officer's or employer's duties. The rule here is simple: Federal candidates and officeholders cannot solicit soft money funds, funds that do not comply with Federal contribution limits and source prohibitions, for any party committee-- national, State or local. This, of course, means that a Federal candidate or officeholder may continue to solicit hard money for party committees. A Federal candidate or officeholder may solicit up to $25,000 per year for a national party committee from an individual. Similarly, the Federal candidate or officeholder may solicit up to $15,000 per year for a national party committee from a PAC. Under the bill, a Federal candidate or officeholder may solicit hard money donations for State party committees to spend in connection with a Federal election, including for voter registration and GOTV activities, of up to $10,000 per year from an individual and up to $5,000 per year from a PAC. In addition, a Federal candidate or officeholder may solicit money for a State party to spend on non-Federal elections. The amount, however, would be subject to the Federal limits and source prohibitions. Therefore, a Federal candidate or officeholder may solicit up to $10,000 a year from an individual and $5,000 a year from a PAC for a State party's non-Federal account, even if that same individual or PAC has already given a similar amount to the State party's Federal, or hard money, account. State parties must fund ``Federal election activities,'' including voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives, with hard money, except for certain non-Federal funds that may be used pursuant to the ``Levin amendment'' to fund such activities. The Levin amendment, however, expressly provides that Federal candidates and officeholders may not solicit the non-Federal funds to be spent under the Levin amendment. One important restriction in the bill applies to fundraising for so- called Leadership PACs, which are political committees, other than a principal campaign committee, affiliated with a Member of Congress. A Federal officeholder or candidate is prohibited from soliciting contributions for a Leadership PAC that do not comply with the Federal hard money source and amount limitations. Thus, the Federal officeholder or candidate could solicit up to $5,000 per year from an individual or PAC for the Federal account of the Leadership PAC and an additional $5,000 from an individual or a PAC for the non-Federal account of the leadership PAC. The Federal officeholder or candidate could not solicit any corporate or labor union treasury contributions for either the Federal or non-Federal accounts of the PAC. Moreover, under the bill, a Federal candidate or officeholder could not directly or indirectly establish, finance, maintain or control a PAC that raises or spends contributions that do not comply with these limits. Nor could a Leadership PAC controlled by a Federal candidate or officeholder spend funds from its non-Federal account on Federal election activities or in connection with a Federal election. The bill also restricts fundraising for state candidates. A Federal officeholder or candidate may solicit no more than $2,000 per election from an individual for a State candidate and no more than $5,000 per election from a PAC for a state candidate. These limits correspond to the Federal hard money source and amount limitations for contributions to Federal candidates. Moreover, a Federal officeholder or candidate may not ask a single individual to donate amounts to all state candidates in a 2-year election cycle that in the aggregate exceed $37,500, which corresponds to the aggregate amount of ``hard money'' that individuals may donate to all Federal candidates over a 2-year cycle. The bill also restricts fundraising for certain other 527 organizations. A Federal officeholder or candidate may not solicit more than a $5,000 donation in a calendar year from an individual or a PAC for a non-party 527 that is not a Federal committee or State candidate's campaign committee. Furthermore, a Federal officeholder or candidate may not ask a single individual to donate amounts in a 2-year election cycle to multiple 527's of this nature that in the aggregate exceed $37,500--which corresponds to the aggregate amount of ``hard money'' an individual may donate to PACs over a 2-year cycle. Proposed new section 323(e)(4)(B) of the Federal Election Campaign Act authorizes the only permissible solicitations by Federal candidates or officeholders for donations to a 501(c) organization whose principal purpose is to engage in get-out-the-vote and voter registration activities described in new section 301(20)(A)(i)&(ii) of the Federal Election Campaign Act. The new section also authorizes the only permissible solicitations for a 501(c) organization that can be made by Federal candidates or officeholders explicitly for funds to carry out such activities. In these instances, a Federal candidate or officeholder may solicit only individuals for donations and may not request donations in an amount larger than $20,000 per year. Section 323(e)(4)(B) applies only to 501(c) organizations. The section does not authorize any such solicitations for other entities, and it does not authorize solicitations for funds to be spent on so-called ``issue ads.'' Thus, a Federal officeholder or candidate may not solicit corporate or union treasury donations, or donations from an individual of more than $20,000 per year, for a 501(c) tax-exempt organization where the principal purpose of the organization is to engage in get-out-the vote or voter registration activities as defined in new 2 U.S.C. section 431(20)(A)(i)&(ii). Likewise, a Federal officeholder or candidate may not solicit corporate or union treasury donations or donations from an individual of more than $20,000 per year for any 501(c) tax-exempt organization where the solicitation is explicitly to obtain funds for the organization to engage in such activities. Conversely, the bill permits a Federal officeholder or candidate to solicit funds without source or amount limitation for a 501(c) tax- exempt organization that is not an organization whose principal purpose is to engage in get-out-the-vote or voter registration activities as defined in new 2 U.S.C. section 431(20)(A)(i)&(ii), provided that such solicitation is not specifically to obtain funds for the organization to engage in Federal election activities or activities in connection with elections. For example, the bill's solicitation restrictions would not apply to a Federal candidate soliciting funds for the Red Cross explicitly to be used for a blood drive--as this is not an organization whose principal purpose is to engage in get-out-the-vote or voter registration activities and the solicitation is not expressly to obtain funds for such activities. Finally, the purpose of section 323(e)(4) is to permit only individual candidates or officeholders to assist, in limited ways, section 501(c) organizations. This permission does not extend to an officeholder or candidate acting on behalf of an entity--including a political party. In addition, I would like to address the growing sham issue advocacy loophole. What are these so-called ``issue ads"? The Supreme Court in its Buckley decision made a distinction in the context of speech by individuals and entities other than candidates and political parties, between speech that promoted a candidate, which the Court called ``express advocacy,'' and speech that addressed public issues, which it called ``issue advocacy.'' The Court held that expenditures for public communications by both candidates and political parties ``are, by definition, campaign related,'' and so are always covered by the campaign finance laws, regardless of the language these ads use. With respect to ads run by non-candidates and outside groups, however, the Court indicated that to avoid vagueness, federal election law contribution limits and disclosure requirements should apply only if the ads contain ``express advocacy.'' In a footnote, the Court gave examples of express advocacy, such as ``vote for,'' ``elect,'' ``support,'' and ``defeat.'' The Supreme Court did not foreclose the possibility that ads with strong electioneering content that omitted the ``magic words'' could also be limited. Despite the Buckley holding regarding political parties, the FEC has allowed political parties to get away with using soft money for so called ``issue ads.'' Outside groups, meanwhile, have exploited the ``magic words'' test, using it to justify advertisements that plainly support or attack Federal candidates without using the ``magic words.'' The Senate Governmental Affairs Committee investigation found flagrant abuses by both Presidential campaigns in the 1996 elections. Both Presidential candidates raised soft money to spend on sham issue ads. Both Presidential campaigns were directly involved with their party committees in creating and running soft-money funded TV ad campaigns designed to support their candidates. One example, an RNC commercial entitled ``The Story,'' movingly depicts Senator Bob Dole's recovery from wounds he sustained in World War II. On ABC News, Senator Dole described how the RNC disguised this ad campaign as issue advocacy: ``it never says that I'm running for President, though I hope it's fairly obvious, since I'm the only one in the picture!'' Similar abuses have occurred in congressional races. In the 2000 election, the Democratic party, DNC, DSCC and NY State Democratic Party, spent a combined $7.1 million in New York's highly contested Senate race. In one soft money-funded ad, aired in July 2000, the New York State Democratic Committee criticized Republican Representative Rick Lazio's record on prescription drugs for seniors. The ad showcased an elderly couple who were forced to return to work to pay for their medicines. The ad then accused Lazio of voting against a Medicare Drug benefit when he was a member of the House. Another New York Democratic Party soft money advertisement criticized Lazio's record on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The ad said, ``Rick Lazio voted against the real enforceable Patients' Bill of Rights. The one endorsed by nurses, doctors, the heart, lung, and cancer societies.'' In the November 1997 Special Election to fill Representative Molinari's seat, the RNC poured $800,000 into candidate-specific attack advertisements. For example, the RNC bought this so-called ``issue ad'': The tax bite. Today New Yorkers pay the highest taxes in the country because politicians like Eric Vitaliano keep raising our taxes. Vitaliano raised taxes on families over $7 billion. More taxes for more welfare. Welfare spending went up 46 percent. Then Eric Vitaliano took a big bite for himself, raising his own pay 74 percent. Call Eric Vitaliano. Tell him to cut taxes, not take another bite out of our futures. Even though this was a special election with only one Republican federal candidate on the ballot, the RNC contended that these ads were issue advertisements intended to educate the voters on the Republican Party's positions. Likewise, the California Democratic Party ran sham issue advertisements attacking Republican Steve Kuykendall, who was being challenged by former Representative Jane Harman for the 36th District in California during the 2000 Elections. One of the Democratic ads attacked Kuykendall for taking ``secret'' contributions from Philip Morris Tobacco. The ad went on to say that Kuykendall ``voted for weaker penalties for selling tobacco to minors.'' The ad ends with, ``Tell Steve Kuykendall to give the tobacco money back.'' The problem of political party soft money ads is addressed in this legislation by banning national parties from raising and spending soft money, and by requiring state parties to spend only hard money on ads that promote or attack Federal candidates, regardless of whether they contain express advocacy. But the sham ``issue ad'' problem is not limited to political parties. In 1996, the AFL-CIO spent $35 million on a so-called ``issue ad'' campaign designed to restore a Democratic majority in the House. It ran ads in 44 Republican districts, spending an average of $250,000 to $300,000 on media in the districts of the 32 House Republicans it targeted. To counter the AFL-CIO campaign, the Chamber of Commerce organized 32 business groups to spend $5 million on a sham ``issue ad'' campaign of their own. The purpose of this spending was overtly to affect Federal campaigns, as a guide for corporate spending published the same year by the Business-Industry PAC illustrates. The guide listed ``issue advocacy'' as one of five tools ``to be used to help reelect imperiled pro-business Senators and Representatives, defeat vulnerable anti-business incumbents, and elect free-enterprise advocates.'' Federal election law has long barred unions and corporations from making expenditures in connection with Federal elections. However, by sponsoring their own putative ``issue ads,'' they circumvent this law. The Snowe-Jeffords electioneering communications provision will help restore the original intent of the law: to keep a tidal wave of union and corporate money out of Federal elections. A comprehensive study of political ads by the Brennan Center for Justice shows just how parties and outside groups are financing campaign ads with soft money. They evade campaign finance laws prohibiting the use of soft money on campaign ads by studiously avoiding the use of the so-called ``magic words'' of ``vote for'' or ``vote against'' in such ads. But these soft money-funded ads are nonetheless patently campaign ads. Indeed, 97 percent of the electioneering ads reviewed as part of the Brennan Center's ``Buying Time 2000'' study did not use ``magic words''. The increasing irrelevance of ``magic words'' as a criteria for distinguishing between campaign ads and issue discussion is also illustrated by close examination of campaign ads run by candidates, financed with hard money. Even these hard money-funded ads used magic words only 10 percent of the time in 2000--and 4 percent of the time in 1998. The sham issue ad subterfuge--permitting outside groups to spend supposedly prohibited soft money on campaign ads without disclosing even a dime of that spending--will continue unless Congress draws a more accurate line between campaign ads and issue ads. Clearly, even a casual observer would concede that ``magic words'' is a dramatically underinclusive test for determining what constitutes a campaign ad. This bill would simply subject soft money-funded campaign ads that masquerade as issue discussion to the same laws that have long governed campaign ads. Under the bill, corporations and labor unions could no longer spend soft money on broadcast, cable or satellite communications that refer to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office during the 60 days before a general election and the 30 days before a primary, and that are targeted to that candidate's electorate. These entities could, however, use their PACs to finance such ads. This will ensure that corporate and labor campaign ads proximate to Federal elections, like other campaign ads, are paid for with limited contributions from individuals and that such spending is fully disclosed. This attempt to put teeth back into our campaign finance laws is carefully crafted to pass constitutional muster. According to the Brennan Center's ``Buying Time 2000'' study, less than one percent of the group-sponsored soft-money ads covered by this provision of the bill were genuine issue discussion, more than 99 percent of these ads were campaign ads. This degree of accuracy is more than sufficient to overcome any claim of substantial overbreadth. Of course, the bill's bright line test also gives clear guidance to corporations and unions regarding which advertisements would be subject to campaign law and which advertisements would remain unregulated. Furthermore, the bill does not explicitly or implicitly purport to depart from the Supreme Court's holding in FEC versus Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U.S. 238 (1986) (``MCFL''), or any other Supreme Court precedent. In MCFL, the Supreme Court found that a nonprofit, nonstock corporation, MCFL, had violated the Federal Election Campaign Act's prohibition on the use of general corporate treasury funds by making an expenditure in connection with a Federal election, but that the act's prohibition as applied to MCFL was unconstitutional, given its unique non-business purpose and character. MCFL was expressly formed to promote political ideas and could not engage in business activities; MCFL had no shareholders or anyone else who could make a claim for its assets or earnings; and MCFL was not established by a business corporation or labor union, and it did not accept contributions from such entities. This legislation does not purport in any way, shape, or form to overrule or change the Supreme Court's construction of the Federal Election Campaign Act in MCFL. Just as an MCFL-type corporation, under the Supreme Court's ruling, is exempt from the current prohibition on the use of corporate funds for expenditures containing ``express advocacy,'' so too is an MCFL-type corporation exempt from the prohibition in the Snowe-Jeffords amendment on the use of its treasury funds to pay for ``electioneering communications.'' Nothing in the bill purports to change MCFL. The definitions and provisions of this bill, like every other law, are subject to the Supreme Court's decisions.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. May I just ask my friends from Minnesota and from New Mexico--three of us are on the floor. We would take about 2 minutes to kind of clear up a problem that has arisen. If I could ask unanimous consent that we could take a maximum of 3 minutes, 1 minute each.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I will take less than 1 minute. We have been working with the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Wisconsin and I have, and our staffs. We have come up with a package of technical amendments with which we are in agreement. We are ready to move that package. There seems to be a problem with another Member, a very senior Member. I hope we can get that worked out. I do have it worked out. I think we should be ready to move forward tomorrow. I think we have had good-faith negotiations. I yield to either one of my colleagues.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, due to my absence, I was unable to vote today on the confirmation of David C. Bury as a judge for the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, Tucson Division. Had I been present today, I would have voted ``yea'' on Mr. Bury's nomination with whole-hearted enthusiasm for a man of outstanding character and tremendous legal talent. Without question, Mr. Bury is well-qualified for this position. His reputation precedes him. In the State of Arizona, he has always been a well-respected and highly competent trial attorney. His unblemished 34 years in the practice of law have proven his commitment to the legal profession. Not only does he bring to the Federal bench extensive experience in civil litigation, he will bring to the bench the requisite qualities of patience, fairness and the highest ethical standards. In short, Mr. Bury will be an outstanding Federal judge for our great state of Arizona. I congratulate him, his wife Debby and his three children on his nomination to the Federal court. They are undoubtedly proud of him not only for this high honor, but also for the rest of his professional accomplishments and his personal commitment to them. I am very confident that Mr. Bury will be a top-notch public servant who will bring to the Federal judiciary the highest level of professionalism, leadership and dedication. He will make the people in Arizona proud. And for his public service, I thank him.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak on the occasion of the 99th birthday of a true American patriot Rear Admiral Elliott Bowman Strauss, USN (Ret.). His lifetime of extraordinary service to this great Nation has been an inspiration to us all. Elliott Bowman Strauss was born in Washington, DC on March 15, 1903, son of the late Admiral Joseph Strauss, USN, and Mrs. Mary Sweitzer Strauss, and grandson of the late Brigadier General N. B. Sweitzer, USA. He attended Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, CT, and entered the U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis, Maryland, on appointment at large in June 1919. He was graduated and commissioned Ensign on June 7, 1923, and subsequently progressed in rank to that of Captain, to date from May 1, 1943. On July 1, 1953, he was transferred to the Retired List of the U.S. Navy and advanced to the rank of Rear Admiral on the basis of citation for actual combat. After graduation from the Naval Academy in June 1923, he had four months' duty in the Bureau of Ordnance, Navy Department, Washington, DC, then reported to the plant of William Cramp and Sons, Philadelphia, to assist in fitting out the USS Concord. He served on board that light cruiser from her commissioning, November 3, 1923, until September 1925, during her shakedown cruise to South Africa. He next served in the USS Hannibal, assigned to survey duty on the southern coast of Cuba, and from November 1926 until November 1927, served in the USS Arkansas, flagship of Battleship Division Two, Scouting Fleet. He remained at sea for 2 years, serving successively in the destroyers Toucey and Blakeley, then had a tour of shore duty at the Naval Torpedo Station, Newport, Rhode Island. In June 1932, he joined the USS Manley, operating in the Atlantic, and later in the Pacific, and from May until September 1934 served as her Executive Officer. He returned to Newport for a tour of duty at the Naval Training Station after which, from November 1935 until September 1937, he was Assistant U.S. Naval Attache at the American Embassy, London, England. While there he was a Delegate to the Third Assembly, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, at Edinburgh, in 1936, and on May 12, 1937, was awarded the British Coronation Medal at the coronation of King George VI of England. Upon his return to the United States in the Fall of 1937, he was designated Aide and Flag Lieutenant on the Staff of Rear Admiral Alfred W. Johnson, USN, Commander Training Detachment, U.S. Fleet, and was attached to the flagship, USS New York. He later served in the same capacity when Admiral Johnson was made Commander Atlantic Squadron, U.S. Fleet. During the period October 1939 until December 1940, he commanded a destroyer, the USS Brooks, after which he served as Navigator of the USS Nashville, light cruiser, until October 29, 1941, participating in the expedition which took the first Marines to Iceland in July 1941. He returned to London, England as U.S. Naval Observer just prior to the outbreak of World War II in December 1941, and served on the staff of Admiral Lord Louis Mountbatten, Chief of Combined Operations, during the early war period, taking part in the Allied raid on Dieppe, August 19, 1942. In November 1943, he reported to Commander U.S. Naval Forces, Europe, and was assigned duty with Task Force One Hundred Twenty-two, later serving on the Staff of the Allied Naval Commander in Chief, Admiral Sir Bertram Ramsey, until August 1944. He was awarded the Bronze Star Medal, with Combat ``V'', and the following citation: ``For meritorious achievement as the United States Naval Representative on the Staff of the Chief of Combined Operations in the Dieppe Raid, and while serving on the Staff of the Allied Naval Commander in Chief during the Invasion of Normandy. Embarked as an observer in a British destroyer which rendered close fire support during the Allied raid on Dieppe on August 19, 1942, Captain (then Commander) Strauss obtained information of great value to the United States and Great Britain in the planning and execution of subsequent operations. Ordered to the Normandy beaches on D plus 2-Day, he applied his comprehensive knowledge of the build-up procedure in solving far shore shipping problems which threatened to delay the operation. Serving with distinction, skill and courage despite enemy air and ground attack throughout these missions to halt German aggression, Captain Strauss upheld the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service.'' On October 12, 1944, he assumed command of the USS Charles Carroll, an attack transport which finished her share of the follow-up operations in connection with the Southern France campaign, and sailed on October 25 for Norfolk, Virginia. Assigned to Transport Division Fifty-two, Pacific Fleet, she left on January 4, 1945, for the South Pacific, carrying supplies and personnel to Guadalcanal, Manus and Bougainville. In February, with Transport Squadron Eighteen, she became a part of Amphibious Group Four, Task Force Fifty-one, in preparation for a major operation, and on April 1, 1945, successfully landed her assault troops and their equipment on the designated beaches at Okinawa Jima. She had aboard the late Ernie Pyle, beloved newspaper man who covered her assault operations in his articles shortly before his death. The Charles Carroll served as Flagship of Commander Transport Division Sixty-three from May until July 1945. Detached from that command on August 6, 1945, Rear Admiral, then Captain, Strauss returned to the United States for duty in the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, Washington, DC. From July until September 1946, he was attached to the Military Staff Committee of the Security Council of the U.S. in New York serving as a naval advisor to the First General Assembly of that body in January 1946, then reported to the Federal Shipbuilding and Drydock Company, Kearney, New Jersey. There, he had charge of fitting out the USS Fresno, CL-121, and from her commissioning on November 27, 1946, until December 1947, commanded that light cruiser. He returned to London, England, and from January 6 to December 10, 1948, was a student at the Imperial Defense College. In February 1949, he reported to the Navy Department to serve as Head of the Strategic Applications and Policy Branch of the Strategic Plans Division, under the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Operations. Two years later he was detached for sea duty organizing and in command of Destroyer Flotilla Six, and in March 1952 was again ordered to the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations where he was Head of the Long Range Plans Branch. On August 11, 1952, he was ordered to the Office of the Deputy for Defense Affairs, Office of Special Representative in Europe for Mutual Security Administration, Paris, France. On September 28, 1953, after his retirement in July of that year, he was ordered detached from that assignment, but to continue duty in Paris as Staff Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs, Office of Foreign Economic Defense Affairs, with his duty station in the U.S. Mission to NATO and European Regional Organization, Paris. From August 1956 until March 1957, Rear Admiral Strauss was Director of Engineering at Bucknell University, Lewisburg, PA. On April 6, 1957, Rear Admiral Strauss was named Chief of the new American Foreign Aide Mission to Tunisia. There he directed a $5.5 million program providing commodities and technical assistance for the rest of the fiscal year ending June 30, a program which in 1958 had risen to more than $20 million, and by the time of his detachment in August 1960, had put more than $100 million into the Tunisian economy. In 1960, he served as personal representative of the Secretary of State as a member of a three-man team to evaluate the effectiveness of the Mutual Aid program to Pakistan, this assignment extended from September 1960 to January 1961. In January 1961, Rear Admiral Strauss initiated, as Director, the A.I.D. mission to the Malagasy Republic and served there until February 1963. He retired from A.I.D. in May 1963. In July 1965, Rear Admiral Strauss became a public member of the Foreign Service Inspection Corps. He was a member of the team inspecting Embassy, Tel Aviv and Consulate General Jerusalem, July--September 1965. In addition to the Bronze Star Medal with Combat ``V'', Rear Admiral Strauss has the American Defense Service Medal; European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal; Asiatic-Pacific Campaign Medal; World War II Victory Medal; Navy Occupation Service Medal, Europe Clasp; and National Defense Service Medal. He was made an honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire and has the Croix de Guerre of France, with palm. Rear Admiral Strauss was married in 1951 to Miss Beatrice Schermerhorn Phillips, daughter of former Ambassador and Mrs. William Phillips of Beverly, MA. He has three children by a former marriage: Elliott MacGregor Strauss, Armar Archbold Strauss, and Lydia Saunderson Strauss Delaunay. His usual residence is Washington, DC. Rear Admiral Strauss is a member of the Pilgrims of the United States, the Chevy Chase Club and Army and Navy Club of Washington, DC; the New York Yacht Club; and the Buck's Club, and the International Sportman's Club, both of London, England.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Nevada not only for his kind remarks, which may be to some degree undeserved, but his continuous help as we have gone through every conceivable parliamentary obstacle as we moved forward. I am very appreciative of his patience, as well as his kind words. Perhaps we are entering the last phase. Perhaps not. As the famous philosopher Yogi Berra said: It ain't over until it's over. I think we have established a scenario which could lead us to a conclusion. I believe, for a period of time, this result may have the beneficial effect that Senator Reid predicts. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield on that point, isn't it particularly entertaining to hear the comments about the drivers of pickup trucks and how important it is for those good citizens--hard- working, poor citizens who drive the pickup trucks, not a penny of theirs pays for these advertisements that have distorted this issue so badly. Wouldn't it have been more fair in the debate to talk about who is paying for all the advertising attacking you and me and anybody who wanted to increase CAFE standards? I don't think a single pickup truck owner paid for those ads. We know who it is. It is the automobile manufacturers. Isn't it the automobile manufacturers who have resisted every single change in safety or efficiency over the last 40 years in the United States of America? Isn't it true that to drag out a picture of an automobile called the ``purple people eater'' and somehow infer that that would be an automobile that the American people would be forced to drive, if we increased CAFE standards, has trivialized this entire debate? I have to tell my friend from Massachusetts that I have been engaged in debates on the floor of the Senate now for quite a few years, as has the Senator from Massachusetts. I haven't quite seen the trivialization of a debate in the manner with which this one was when they dragged out pictures of little European cars. Frankly, the Europeans buy those cars because they don't have parking spaces in the major cities in Europe. I suggest that perhaps the occupant of the chair might go to Germany and get on the autobahn sometime. He will see some pretty big automobiles traveling at very high rates of speed. If we had the little ``purple people eater,'' maybe we ought to have shown the Porsches and the Mercedes Benz, which are extremely popular in Europe, as well. The other thing I ask of my colleague that is a bit disturbing about this debate is this: All these comments about the health of our citizens and the risks to their lives and how this could be so dangerous because we would have more accidents, which by the way have been refuted by recent studies----

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my colleague. I am sure he will be responding to the questions. Here we have a study from my home State of Arizona, the ``Governor's Brown Cloud Summit,'' a study released January 16, 2002, concerning the very serious problem we have in the valley, where the city of Phoenix and surrounding cities are located. I hope colleagues will keep in mind that this is the same valley where, many years ago, doctors recommended people to go and live if they had respiratory problems. Part of the conclusions here are that: Microns, often referred to as PM 2.5, is a significant cause of haze. Each particle, about the size of a single grain of flour, can float in the atmosphere for days, behaving much like a gas. Over half of the PM 2.5 is caused by the burning of gasoline and diesel fuel in vehicles, which are sometimes referred to as on-road mobile vehicles. Then it says: PM 2.5, the prime cause of poor visibility in the valley, also exacerbates health effects, such as asthma attacks and other heart and lung problems that cause people the need to go to the hospitals and is consistently associated with higher-than-average death rates. Reducing the amount of PM 2.5 will make the view of more distant landmarks clearer and reduce health effects. Improvements in visibility and health will be directly proportional to the amount of the emissions eliminated. Recently there was an editorial in the Arizona Republic on March 9, 2002--``New study reveals wider health risks.'' The title is ``Legislature Must Attack Brown Cloud": We have always known the valley's brown cloud is ugly and unhealthy. Now we know it can be deadly. A new study indicates years of breathing that haze of particulate pollution will significantly raise a person's risk of dying of lung cancer and heart attack. For lung cancer, the risk is the same as living with a cigarette smoker, according to a report published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The study, funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences-- Not an automobile manufacturer-- is compelling because of its breadth. Researchers followed half a million people across the country for over two decades. No, it is not just desert dust. The most dangerous particles are much smaller, 2.5 microns or less, so tiny that it takes at least 28 to equal the diameter of a human hair. These ultrasmall particles which wreak havoc by penetrating deep into the lungs come from combustion. Here in the valley, as elsewhere in the West, a big part of our particulate pollution spews out of tailpipes. Long-term exposure to pollution increases risk of lung cancer, according to this study, by 8 percent. The study concludes air pollution puts individuals at greater risk for heart attacks and lung cancer. Pollution has been correlated to reproductive, musculoskeletal, respiratory, and gastrointestinal problems. It is of particular concern to children and older people as their immune responses are less capable of dealing with the stresses caused by pollutants. Arizona has the second highest rate of asthma sufferers in the Nation. Approximately 300,000 Arizonans have asthma. The 2002 report by the Journal of the American Medical Association, says: Six hundred sixty-six premature deaths in Arizona are from exposure to particulate matter. This is serious business. This is not pictures of little European cars. This is not comments about the great individuality of the pickup truck driver. This is about life and death of children and older people. That is what this argument is about and, unfortunately, that has not been part of this debate. It certainly could not have been part of this debate that I know of. It is calculated that brown cloud material would be reduced by 1.8 metric tons per day in 2010, if the use of clean burning fuel was implemented. My State, Arizona, got an F, the worst rating on air quality, in 2001 from the American Lung Association. Ninety percent of the workforce in my State drives to work. One in every 4.5 cars is an SUV; 54 percent of the passenger vehicles sold in Arizona qualify as light-duty trucks. I would be the last representative to try to take away an SUV from my family, my neighbors, or my constituents. Phoenix received a D rating for the amount of smog from cars and trucks per person and an F for the amount spent on public transit versus highways per person. In Phoenix, we have 70 pounds of smog per person per year. In Pima County, vehicle emissions are responsible for up to 70 percent of area air pollution, making them a prime candidate for reduced emissions and cleaner burning cars. An increase in CAFE would reduce my State's pollution by about 2.3 million metric tons per year. The California Air Resources Board established a zero emission vehicle program in 1990 to meet health- based air quality goals. Ten percent of new vehicles produced in 2003 have to be zero emission vehicles. As of 1990, other States may adopt the California program as their own but are otherwise prohibited from setting their own emissions standards. The State of California has listed over 40 chemicals in diesel exhaust as toxic air contaminants. Numerous studies have linked diesel exhaust with cancer, bronchitis, asthma, and other respiratory illnesses. It is very unfortunate that we are failing to address the severe health care problems and direct threat to the health of our citizens as we blithely believe the same old rhetoric from the automobile manufacturers of America which were wrong in 1974, they were wrong in 1976, and they are wrong today. At one time, they were against seatbelts. At one time, they were against airbags. At one time, they said the CAFE standards increase that Congress had the courage to pass years ago would drive them out of business. The last time I checked, they were doing pretty well. I regret this action on the part of the Senate because I believe people will die unnecessarily over time as a result of the action we have taken today. We will revisit this issue because the problem in my State and America is getting worse rather than better. I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I know he has been made famous in newspaper and television advertisements all over America as being the one who is bent on destroying Western civilization as we know it. I do extend to him some sympathy. Some day we will have a rational debate on this issue, and we will bring the scientific facts forward, as I tried to do through different studies conducted by the Journal of the American Medical Association and the National Academy of Sciences, as to the threats to the health of Americans that our failure to address this issue presents. Some day I am sure we will revisit this issue, and I hope the debate is devoid of pictures of small cars that are used in Europe as a threat to the American way of life, in which I know the Senator from Massachusetts and I would never engage. Mr. President, I yield the floor.