John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I want to take a minute to say that I think we all agree we are making very good progress. I also want to point out that we don't have any idea yet how many amendments remain. It is about time now in this process that we get an idea of how many remaining amendments there are. The majority leader is trying to figure out whether we should stay in tomorrow, and even Saturday, in order to complete our work. I am not sure I can agree to us not remaining in session, unless we have some idea as to the number of remaining amendments and how we continue to address those. Look, everybody knows the Senator from Alaska is going on a trip to Alaska next Thursday night and is intent on doing that. I don't want to interfere with that. I don't want us to go out early tomorrow, or at any time, until we have some idea as to how we can bring this to an end, hopefully, by next Thursday or Friday. I hope Members will let Senators McConnell and Dodd know of their amendments. That doesn't mean there won't be one or two additional amendments or additional second degrees. But we ought to know about how many amendments remain so we can have an idea as to how much time we need to use over the weekend. I thank my friend from Mississippi for a very important amendment that will take advantage of the new technology we have, as far as increasing full disclosure and informing the American people.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for a valiant attempt at trying to balance this problem about so-called paycheck protection and corporations. Unfortunately, he is not having any more success than we did when we attempted to try to strike that balance as well. The bill, very briefly, strikes our codification of the Beck provision. It has no regulatory mechanism, and it has no methodology for who would enforce it and how. It says in his amendment that ``expressly advocate support for opposition to a candidate.'' What does that mean? It talks about as far as corporations are concerned, ``use funds from its general treasury for the purpose of political activity.'' What is the general treasury? The stock market value? The cash on hand? The money that is being disbursed? This, unfortunately, is an amendment which clearly cannot adequately define what a stockholder's involvement is. Again, suppose a stockholder said his or her stock money could not be used and then, of course, the stock is split or the stock is sold or there is a reduction in the amount of the budget. Who gets what money? Who regulates it? Very frankly, I am in sympathy with the Senator from Utah because we tried to address this issue. It is just well nigh impossible and certainly is not addressed in any kind of parity or specificity in this amendment. Mr. President, I will be moving to table this amendment at the appropriate time. I would like to work with the Senator from Utah to see how we can obtain some kind of parity, although I point out, as I said before, the paycheck protection in this permission or nonpermission really is not what this campaign finance reform is all about because if you ban the soft money; you ban the corporate check; you ban the union check; you ban the union leader from giving a million-dollar check; you ban the corporate leader from giving the check. When you ban soft money, then all they can do is give a $1,000 check for themselves or $1,000 from their friends. Later on, I am sure there will be some specific questions about the language in this bill. It is nonspecific, it is unenforceable, and it is in such an amorphous state, very frankly, it is meaningless. I believe my time has expired.

Mr. McCAIN. I don't.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Hatch for an effort to do what all of us agree is a fundamental of any campaign finance reform, and that is full and complete disclosure. I regret having to point out my opposition to this amendment because it is my understanding this full disclosure of political activity of both business and labor is defined in the basic bill under section (2) Political Activity, which says: The term ``political activity'' means--(A) voter registration activity; (B) voter identification or get-out- the-vote activity; (C) a public communication that refers to a fairly identified candidate for Federal office and that expressly advocates support for or opposition to a candidate for Federal office; and [finally] (D) disbursement for television or radio broadcast time, print advertising or polling for political activities. The way I read this is most of these activities are conducted by labor unions and only one by corporations. So we have an imbalance here on requirements for disclosure. There are many other things that are done by businesses and corporations that need to be disclosed as well, in my view. Very few corporate activities are involved in voter registration activities. Of course, unions are. The same thing holds for voter identification or get-out-the-vote activity. Express advocacy is clearly not something that is done a lot by businesses, nor is polling. I assure Senator Hatch of the following: We are working with Senator Snowe and with Senator Cochran and Senator Collins, and we are trying to come up with a fair disclosure amendment that will give greater disclosure than is presently in the bill but in a more fair and balanced way. I will have to oppose this amendment on the grounds of its imbalance. The one thing we promised everybody when we proposed this legislation was we would resist any attempt to pass an amendment that would unbalance what we had put forward as a level playing field. This would imbalance that. I believe we can have all of those items fully disclosed, and more, so observers will say this full disclosure, this light, will shine on business and unions alike in an equal manner. Having said that, I regret to have to oppose the amendment. I will make a motion to table at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I would like 3 minutes.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table amendment No. 134, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator from Oregon. I have enjoyed this chance to pose questions to him. I appreciate the courtesy of his response and look forward to working with him on this legislation.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will yield for a question, it counts not only registered lobbyists, but it is a person who employs that lobbyist as well. In other words, I am the CEO of a company back in Arizona, or I am a president of a union back in Arizona, and I am not allowed to contribute while Congress is in session because I have employed that lobbyist?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, it is kind of obvious what the strategy is that is going to be employed here, and that is to sort of love this legislation to death. In other words, let's not leave any stone unturned; let's make sure this is a perfect bill, and anything less than that is not acceptable. So let's have a series of amendments, which I certainly admit are very clever, including this one. I want to point out that this bill says, basically, ``except that the cost of such establishment, administration, and solicitation may only be paid from funds that are subject to the limitations.'' In other words, only hard dollars can pay for a political action committee's establishment, administration, and solicitation. Well, Mr. President, we try to help PACs. We try to help political action committees because they provide us, generally speaking, with small donations that are an expression of small individuals' involvement, as opposed to the so-called soft money, which we are trying to attack. So we have tried to, in the past, make it as easy as possible for political action committees to function, rather than make it difficult. Also, the Senator from Utah interprets this as some way to put pressure on to increase hard money limits. Hard money limits will be debated, and I am confident, to some degree, that hard money limits will be raised. But here is the situation: We have a company, a corporation, in Salt Lake City, UT, and it has a PAC. Where is the office of that PAC? Generally speaking, they don't go out and rent a building or a home or something. They set up a PAC in one of the offices in their building. Usually, the person who administers that PAC--it is not their sole job. It is something that they many times do on a voluntary basis and many times with small compensation for their time, and they are located usually in the building. That is generally the way PACs are administered. So how do you get money for your PAC? You probably put it in the company newsletter, where you say, ``All employees who want to contribute to Acme PAC, please do so,'' and then that money comes in and the individual puts it in their account, et cetera. How do you assess the cost of that? Who pays for that? The CEO, probably on an annual basis, calls the senior managers together and says: I want all you guys and women to contribute to our political action committee. It is that time of year. We are in an election year and we want to support good old Bob Bennett. He has always been a friend of business. What is that worth? How do you assess the cost of that good friend of Senator Bennett's soliciting money for his political action committee so he can support him? Does a notice of contributions in an internal newsletter have a value? What is the value in a newsletter? What about the electricity costs of the office that houses the PAC of the employee who does it on a part-time basis? Well, what we need, obviously, is a new arm of the IRS, or the FEC, or maybe a new organization that we could call the ``PAC police,'' who say, aha, you spent 2 hours today, and that, at your hourly salary, is so much money, and that has to come from hard money donations. Clearly, my friends, this is not an amendment that would have an effect that we could ever enforce, that we could ever make a reasonable kind of a thing. Obviously, it would have some debilitating effects on PACs. The authors of this amendment could not really understand too well how political action committees--particularly the small ones--operate, and think somehow that we could assess the costs and then take that out of hard money and put it into some kind of payment or payback. So I have to oppose this amendment. I think it is not workable. I don't think it is logical or reasonable to do so. The Senator from Utah mentioned the fact that this is soft money and that we are banning all soft money. Well, as the Senator from Utah knows because he mentioned that he read the bill, we don't ban soft money in a lot of areas such as for State parties, or we don't ban soft money in some other areas. But we certainly are banning soft money for the use in Federal campaigns. So I have to oppose the amendment. I hope that my colleagues will understand that this amendment is not an acceptable one.

Mr. McCAIN. I say to Senator Gordon Smith what I said to him before. We have our staffs working. I believe I will be able to table this amendment, but if not, he wins. If it is tabled, we want to work together with him. It is the unseemly appearances the American people don't like. We ought to try to fix it. I think there should be both time and effort in the consideration of this legislation to narrow this amendment so it does meet constitutional concerns expressed by Senator Thompson and others. I thank Senator Smith not only for his involvement in this issue but in the entire issue of campaign finance reform. I know he comes from a State where there is a lot of interest in this issue, as there is in mine--the ``clean campaign'' State referendum. I think he is representing his constituents when he is heavily involved in this issue. I look forward to working with him not only on this one, but as we approach some of the more important issues in the coming days. I thank him for his efforts. Mr. President, if it is an appropriate time, I move to table the Smith amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Would the Senator yield me 1 minute?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I realize there is a time constraint here because, under the UC, we have a vote at 6 o'clock. We have been trying to work out an agreement on this amendment. We have been unable to do so. We will go ahead and have the vote at 6. I will make a tabling motion, but I am committed to working with Senator Smith to see if there is a way that we can work it out to his and everyone's satisfaction. It is overly broad in its language at this time, but we have not been able to reach a conclusion. I regret that because I agree with Senator Smith's intent, and I think he is trying to do something that would cure a very bad perception that persists in Washington. 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, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. McCAIN. Well, if the Senator will yield further, I agree with what he is trying to get at. I think that, frankly, also during the campaign of President Bush, this was part of his campaign finance reform proposal, as I remember. But I think we have to worry about this language because if I am the senior executive of a company or corporation away from Washington that employs a lobbyist, and I am not allowed to contribute at that time, that could be a very large number of people. I wonder if we can work on language with the Senator from Oregon to achieve this goal, without throwing a pretty wide net here. If I am thinking through this legislation, which I am looking at for the first time----

Mr. McCAIN. It is simply people who are registered lobbyists, who have voluntarily decided to register as a lobbyist under the law.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator will agree to one more question, I want to get back on the bill. First, I hope we will be able to convince the Senator from Oregon that any provision in this bill, if passed, would make us better off than we are today--any provision, including the Senator's. Any part of it that would stand would improve the present situation where, indeed, the case exists, and you have heard my argument about that before. The amendment talks about registered lobbyists, but does it also add people who are in charge of political action committees and run PACs? Are there additional individuals covered by this amendment?

Mr. McCAIN. Therefore, it would seem to me that the Senator from Oregon would understand that the whole issue of severability in this bill would then take on increased prominence. It is my understanding that the Senator from Oregon may be in support of nonseverability. I don't get the logic there. You are clearly supporting an amendment that has constitutional questions associated with it, and yet at the same time you would not understand that this bill may have portions of it, particularly during the amending process, that the U.S. Supreme Court would deem unconstitutional, including this one which, even if made unconstitutional, would not affect the thrust of the bill. I am hopeful that the Senator from Oregon will see the logic here--I am dead serious--because it is going to be a big issue, the fact that there should be, as there have been in all but 12 bills passed by the Congress in the last 10 years, a severability clause in this legislation. I would give a lot more credibility to the amendment of the Senator from Oregon if he believed, as he has stated, that there will be constitutional questions, that this bill should not rise or fall based on a decision concerning what a lobbyist does because there are much greater issues at stake. I certainly hope the Senator from Oregon understands my logic in that argument.

Mr. McCAIN. Clearly, Arizona has the finest State government of any of the 50, I am sure the Senator from Oregon would agree. Again, I ask the Senator from Oregon: There is going to be some question in people's minds about the constitutionality of this amendment; you would agree?

Mr. McCAIN. But the Senator does admit that there might be some question of the constitutionality of this issue raised.

Mr. McCAIN. What about the fact that you are clearly saying to an individual that because you are in a certain line of work, you are not going to be able to do what other citizens do? How do you respond to that?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Byrd for his annual admonition to all of us to conduct ourselves in a way that reflects the dignity and comity of this institution and reminds us of the transience of all this and the importance of friendships and relationships that are established in this very unique organization. There is a time for us to pause and reflect. There is no one in this body who gives us a more enlightening opportunity than the distinguished Senator from West Virginia. So I thank Senator Byrd. And I also admire the vest he is wearing today as well. I thank the Senator and I will speak on the pending amendment.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, Mr. President, let me point out a couple of things. One is we have spent a long time on this issue. Negotiations included virtually every Senator who was interested in this amendment. There are two parliamentary procedures. If the motion to table fails, yes, a second-degree amendment is in order. But a tabling motion to the second-degree amendment also is in order at any time. There is no timeframe. It is also available to further amendments in the future which could be designed to affect the Domenici-DeWine amendment as well. If this issue is to be revisited with another amendment, it could be done as well. You don't necessarily have to go to a second-degree amendment. I point out to my colleagues that we have 2 weeks. We have now been on this amendment for a number of hours, depending on at what they are looking. We ought to be able to get this issue resolved quickly and move on to other amendments. I can understand the frustration of the Senator from Kentucky because he was under the impression that the next amendment would be his amendment, or one of the supporters of his position on the overall bill. I hope we can have an up-or-down vote with the full and certain knowledge that another amendment to clarify or to change the underlying amendment would be in order at any time, and by having an up-or-down vote, we can move on with the amending process. I hope my colleagues can understand the logic of that. There is a limitation of time. I do not object.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank Senator Domenici, Senator DeWine, and others. Last night, I believe we could have avoided the vote we had. I hope in the future and during this debate we will make sure we try to handle it in a more sensitive fashion. I will take the responsibility for that. We probably should have tried to--because we knew there were several areas that needed to be worked out, which have been worked out, and we are just awaiting the legislative counsel's language so we can move forward with the amendment--we probably should have waited until this morning on the amendment. But that is done. The fact is, as we committed last night, we would reach agreement and work out the differences. There were several specific areas that had not been worked out last night, especially proportionality, among others. I am pleased we worked it out and we are now ready to move forward as soon as the language comes over, and we can vote on this amendment and move on to other amendments. I do believe the principles of McCain-Feingold have been preserved because this deals in hard money. Yes, it lifts some restraints on hard money, but there is no soft money that would be permitted under the Domenici-DeWine-Durbin amendment. So it also addresses, in all candor, a concern that literally every nonmillionaire Member of this body has, and that is that they wake up some morning and pick up the paper and find out that some multimillionaire is going to run for their seat, and that person intends to invest 3, 5, 8, 10, now up to $70 million of their own money in order to win. So when I see the significant support for this amendment, I think those reflect a genuine concern, as we know both parties have now openly stated that they recruit people who have sizable fortunes of their own in order to run for the Senate. I don't think this is a new phenomenon, Mr. President. I think it has been going on for years and years. But as money seems to play a greater and greater role in politics, and as television advertising continues to be more and more important, then, obviously, the ability of someone to achieve office with what is apparently an unfair advantage over a candidate of lesser wealth is being addressed, at least in part, by this amendment. Also, I add to the sponsors of the amendment--and I already discussed this with Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine --this isn't a perfect answer. We all realize that. We know there are some areas that have gone unaddressed, and if there needs to be further addressing, that is why we have another nearly 10 days of debate and amendments. So I am glad we were able to work out the differences that existed last night. Obviously, those negotiations needed to take place, and I hope we can move forward on this amendment as soon as the legislative language comes over from the legislative counsel, so we can move on to another amendment at the earliest moment. Again, I thank Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine and Senator Durbin and others for their efforts on this legislation. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I tell the majority leader that we have an amendment. I don't believe it will take all 3 hours because it was debated last night. We have an agreement which is being written up now. So I believe that we could, within a fairly brief period of time, have a vote on it and move on to another amendment from the Republican side, thereby sort of catching up from yesterday. I mention also that we were supposed to start at noon yesterday, but we didn't start until 1. I don't know whose decision that was. That is not important. We can catch up this morning. We met this morning and we are getting the final details, which we needed to do. This is a very complex, extremely complex issue. The challenges of a millionaire declaring his or her candidacy in Wyoming are significantly different from doing that in the State of California. We tried to accommodate it and, frankly, we have. Those issues were still unresolved last night when the vote was attempted, and all of us were confident that we could work out the differences, bring up an agreement, which will be brought up in the name of Senator Domenici and Senator DeWine and Senator Durbin, and we can have a relatively brief period of debate and vote on it and then move to another amendment by Senator McConnell, or whoever he designates.