John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. The Senator's understanding is correct on the interpretation of the loan payback provision. It is intentionally prospective because it would be unfair to do otherwise.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, two weeks is a long debate in the Senate. I want to thank all my colleagues for their participation and their cooperation. We hope that many of the questions that might arise about the intent of our bill have been answered in this extraordinary exchange in which so many Senators have taken part. But other questions will undoubtedly come up. To the extent we can anticipate those questions, we want to make sure that our intent is clear. I therefore ask unanimous consent on behalf of myself, Senator Feingold, Senator Thompson, Senator Lieberman, Senator Jeffords, Senator Levin, Senator Snowe, Senator Schumer, Senator Cochran, Senator Collins, Senator Cantwell, Senator Edwards, and Senator Durbin, that a document entitled Statement of Supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001 Concerning Intent of Certain Provisions be printed in the Record.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will vote on final passage of the Campaign Finance Reform Act, and I respectfully ask all Senators for their support. I want to speak very briefly, mainly to express my appreciation to my colleagues, on all sides of this issue, for the quality of our debate. I thank first two men who were as good as their word: The majority leader, for the commitment to an open debate and for keeping the amendment process both fair and expeditious, and the Democratic leader for so effectively safeguarding his party support for genuine campaign finance reform. I also show my respect for the skill, grit, and honesty of the formidable Senator from Kentucky and his able staff. There are few things more daunting in politics than the determined opposition of Senator McConnell. I hope to avoid the experience more often in the future. I thank Senator Dodd, the Democratic manager of the bill, and his staff. His leadership was as critical to our success as his unfailing good humor was to our morale. The majority and minority whips, Senators Nickles and Reid, worked hard to ensure a fair and complete debate and to encourage both sides to reach for good-faith compromises whenever it was possible. Words cannot express how grateful I am to the cosponsors of our legislation. But for the willingness of Senators Thompson and Feinstein to find common ground on the issue of increasing hard money limits, I fear our efforts would have proved as futile as they have in the past. I cannot exaggerate how big a boost Senator Thad Cochran's support was to our cause and how important his wise and courteous guidance was to our success. I appreciate the wise and experienced leadership of Senator Carl Levin. Senators Snowe, Jeffords, Collins, Specter, Schumer, Edwards, Kerry, and all the sponsors worked tirelessly and effectively to reach this moment and more than compensated for my own deficiencies as an advocate. I am also much indebted and inspired by the community of activists for campaign finance reform. The faith, energy, and never-say-die spirit they have shown in a fight they have waged for so many years are the best attributes of patriots. Although we have a few more miles to travel, they have given good service to our country, and my admiration for them is only surpassed by my gratitude. I owe a special thanks to the many thousands of Americans who lent their voice to our cause this year, many who supported my campaign last year and many who did not but who believe that reforming the way we finance Federal election campaigns is a necessary first step to reforming the practices and institutions of our great democracy. I also thank my staff for their extraordinary support, particularly Mark Buse who has worked by my side on this issue for many years and whose industry and creativity will never fail to impress me. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a list of the staffers of the Senators who were very helpful and critical to our success.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Kentucky is exactly right. This whole thing has been a series of fragile compromises. This would unravel the whole effort. Although the Senator from Kentucky and I are not in agreement on the amount, there is no doubt that we have to increase hard money. To say that we would not increase hard money at all and do away with all the soft money is just not a viable proposal. I hope the Senator from Iowa will recognize that there is overwhelming opposition to this amendment, and we could voice vote it at this time. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this is an amendment on coordination. We have been trying now for 2 weeks to reach an agreement. We have come a long way with the hard work of both staffs and a lot of other people involved. We have narrowed the gap from our original language, which all agreed was not satisfactory to what we believe is a reasonable compromise. Basically, we are talking about any coordinated expenditure or other disbursement, means of payment made in concert or in cooperation with, at the request or suggestion of or pursuant to any general or particular understanding with such candidate, candidate's authorized political committee, or their agents or political party or its agents. We are talking about how we can prevent what is really in major circumvention of the intent--in fact, in my view, the letter of the law--and that is to coordinate soft money, which means that additional funds are funneled into political campaigns on behalf of candidates. Mr. President, the amendment states: Within 90 days of the effective date of the legislation, the Federal Election Commission shall promulgate new regulations to enforce the statutory standards set by this provision. The regulation shall not require collaboration or agreement to establish coordination. That is an important point in this amendment. In addition to any subject determined by the Commission, the regulation shall address (a) payment for the republication of campaign materials, (b) payment for the use of common vendor, (c) payments for communications directed or made by persons who previously served as an employee of a candidate or a political party, (d) payments for communications made by a person after substantial discussion about the communication with a candidate or a political party. The impact of coordinating internal communications by any person to its restricted class has any subsequent ``Federal election activity'' as defined in section 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. What we are trying to do is allow legitimate communication within organizations, whether they be unions or whether they be organizations such as the National Rifle Association, National Right to Life, or any other organization--protect their legitimate right to communicate and, at the same time, prevent the so-called coordination which has been the explosion and exploitation of the loophole which has allowed huge amounts, hundreds of millions of dollars, literally, of funds to flow into a political campaign. I think it is a very legitimate compromise. It favors neither one side nor the other. Again, I would like to emphasize, the present language in the bill is not satisfactory, as viewed by both sides. I hope that this is far more satisfactory, if not totally satisfactory, language so we can enforce the law and at the same time not prevent any organization from legitimate communication within that organization. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I urge adoption of this amendment. It basically codifies regulation. It requires the Federal Election Commission to promulgate new regulations to enforce the statutory standards. It shall not require collaboration or agreement to establish coordination, in addition to any subject determined by the Commission. In other words, we are asking the FEC to promulgate regulations to crack down on the abuses of coordination. I think it is legitimate. It neither favors unions nor business and corporations. It may not be the answer that we both wanted, but it is a far significant improvement from the present language. I look forward to working with the Senator from Kentucky in trying to improve it even further. I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am very cognizant of the very short period of time remaining under the UC agreement on amendments. We have been working on a modification of the so- called millionaires amendment. I believe we are very close in trying to equalize this situation so that when a person contributes a certain amount of money, then the incumbent or the candidate without the money will be able to have not an unfair advantage. We have been in consultation, and I hope we can reach an agreement under the UC, if all sides agree, to have an amendment adopted after the vote. That is up to Senator McConnell. I want to hear from him on this issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Missouri. There is a great deal of redundancy in his amendment. We already bar foreign contributions and increase penalties in some areas. But I think the Senator from Missouri makes very valid points. I think his amendment probably addresses some very helpful areas. I am prepared to accept the amendment. I do not know about all Members yet, but we would like to run it by them and see if we can't get some agreement on the amendment. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Stephen Bell of Senator Domenici's staff be accorded the privilege of the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Over the last 2 weeks, literally every day I have been standing on the floor with the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Nevada saying we are going out early, we have a lot of amendments to go, and we need to get this done, and everybody wants to get it done by the end of this week, particularly by this evening. Apparently that is going to be very difficult to do. My suggestion to the Senator from Kentucky and the leadership on both sides is stay in tonight until we get it done or--that is my first choice. My second choice would be tomorrow and then on Saturday. I think we are all aware that the leadership wants to move to the budget debate. I think that is appropriate. We all agreed at the beginning that 2 weeks was sufficient time to address this issue. One thing I suggest to the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Nevada is tabling motions, but clearly first-degree amendments have at least an hour and a half, even if all time is yielded back on the other side. I hope most Members appreciate that there are a couple or three issues, the main one being severability, but the rest of them either have been addressed in some fashion or are not of compelling impact, even though the authors of the amendments may believe that is the case. I urge my colleagues to be prepared to stay in very late tonight because we need to finish this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Hopefully, we can collate the number of the amendments, perhaps work out some time agreements on each one, so we can have an idea as to when we can finish.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the amendment. I appreciate very much what the Senator from New Mexico is attempting to do. He has identified very eloquently an enormous problem that we have with these so-called attack ads which we don't know who paid for and which are clearly not identified. With passage of McCain-Feingold, I think we will make some progress in that area. I say that also as a person who supports free television time for candidates. I agree with the Senator from New Mexico that when a broadcast station obtains a license, they sign a piece of paper that says they will act in the public interest. I think that Americans believe free television time for candidates can be very helpful. But this amendment raises many troublesome issues that I, frankly, can't quite fathom. First of all, who would determine if an ad was indeed a negative ad? Is there going to be a censorship board? Is there going to be a group of Americans who say, OK, watch all of these ads and see which one is negative and which one is not? Is an ad that says: Call your Senator-- which I have seen many times--and ask him or her to save Social Security a negative ad or a positive ad? I don't know who makes this determination as to what is indeed a negative ad. Is it the argument of every candidate I have ever known that says that wasn't a negative ad; I was trying to inform the people of my district or State about the fact that my challenger is a baby killer? It is very difficult to define what a negative ad is. Suppose we had some organization that could determine that this is a negative ad. What if a broadcaster had already sold all their television time? It is the last week of the campaign. It is certainly not unusual that a broadcaster has sold all of their television time in the last 2 or 3 weeks. Do they have to pull ads off the air and replace them with the ads that are mandated by this legislation? I am not sure how you do that either, especially in a Presidential election year. That is time already sold. So the night before the election or 3 days before the election, I say: Wait a minute. My opponent is running attack ads. Now you have to run three times that many on my behalf or against them. However, they say: I am sorry. We have sold all of our time. What is your option then? Suppose they had some television time. What is fair ad placement? Reruns of ``Gilligan's Island'' at 2 a.m. or is it the evening news? I don't know exactly. One station maybe has a higher rating than the other station. You are going to give me the local channel 365 versus the CBS, ABC, NBC, or FOX Network. This is very difficult to work out. I am a little surprised that the Senator from Connecticut didn't look at some of these problems. I want to repeat. I am for free television time for candidates. I detest the negative advertising. I think it is one of the worst things that has ever happened in American politics, that we have these unnamed, unknown groups calling themselves by some attractive name and buy millions of dollars of advertising, and they basically viciously attack their opponents. Who decides that? Many years ago, I reminded the Senator from Connecticut they had a board in Hollywood that used to make decisions as to what was acceptable and not acceptable. They had problems. I don't know who is going to be doing that. I want to work with the Senator from New Mexico. I think we have to do something about these negative ads. I tell you the best way is to dry up their money, and what you don't dry up fully disclose. I want to work with the Senator from New Mexico. I would like to sit down and see how we could work this out. But in its present form, I am just not sure how this amendment can possibly be workable. Finally, I want to say that we just had a major vote, as we all know. We have amendments that are still outstanding. I know Senator McConnell, the Senator from Kentucky, will be back fairly soon. I understand they have a minimal number of amendments. I still think we can get done in a relatively short period of time. I hope all Senators who have amendments will come over so we can start putting these amendments in order and so we can get time agreements, and perhaps not just time agreements but agree to amendments that are satisfactory to both sides so we can wind up all of this. It is not that I am getting fatigued, but it is that we are sort of at a point now where we should bring this to a closure, and I hope we can do that. Reluctantly, at the appropriate time I will be moving to table the Bingaman amendment. I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in behalf of the Senator from Kentucky, I yield myself 10 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, we are now facing one of the major hurdles, and perhaps the last major hurdle, between us and successful resolution of this issue. We had to fight back a poison pill in the form of a so-called paycheck protection. We had to speak clearly that we will not accept soft money in American politics. Then we voted in favor of a very hard-fought and carefully crafted compromise in the form of the Thompson-Feingold amendment. Now we face this issue. Have no doubt about what this vote is really about. If you vote for this amendment, you are voting for soft money. That is really what this vote is all about. Since this may be the last major obstacle we face, I take the opportunity to thank all of my colleagues for the level of this debate, the tenor of this debate. I also thank the thousands and thousands of Americans who have been active in this debate and participated with us through e-mail, phone calls, and through all communications. Without their support, we would not be where we are today. I urge a vote in favor of the tabling motion that will be proposed by Senator Thompson of Tennessee.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the Senator from Kentucky, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am in total sympathy of what the Senator's intent is. Let's go back into the language of his amendment: The term ``attack or oppose'' means, with respect to a clearly identified candidate-- (A) any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous opposition to the candidate. Does that mean if I took out an ad and I say I am a better candidate than Mr. Smith and I am opposed to him, is that an attack ad? That is the first definition. Any expression of unmistakable and unambiguous opposition to the candidate. If I am running and I am a better candidate and I oppose him, we are not going to be able to run an ad that says I oppose Senator Smith or Senator Bingaman.

Mr. McCAIN. Yes.

Mr. McCAIN. Suppose it is the Sierra Club that says we oppose Senator McCain. That is an attack ad? They can't say that?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the majority leader, and I thank Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd, who have managed this bill, I think, with efficiency and, I believe, in a total environment of cooperation. But as we said all during last week, a couple times when we only had two or three amendments, we intended to be done by tonight or the end of this week. We have disposed of some. We will have an amendment that I think is very important that is about to be addressed soon. After that, there are not any major issues. We should finalize this bill so that we can move forward and none of us has to stay here over the weekend. I want to say the majority leader is correct. We all agreed that we could get this thing done in 2 weeks if we allowed the 2 weeks. So there is no reason whatsoever that we should not enter into time agreements on specific amendments and a time for a final vote on this amendment.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the majority leader yield?