Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Is that implicit?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, today I offer my support for the Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001. Communities in every state in this country are suffering from a critical lack of affordable housing. Many rural areas have been particularly hard hit. This bill takes an important step toward re-establishing the production and preservation of affordable housing as a National priority. It assures that the needs of rural communities are not forgotten. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this bill, and urge all of my colleagues similarly to support this legislation. The time has come for the federal government to get back in the business of producing affordable housing. Until we do, we will not get at the issue underlying the current affordable housing crisis: the rapid erosion of affordable housing stock. Every year, in fact, every day, we see the demolition of old affordable housing units without seeing the creation of an equivalent number of new affordable housing units. And while there can be no question that some of our existing affordable housing units should be demolished, we have yet to meet our responsibility to replace the old units that are lost with new, better, affordable units. Our current policy simply results in too many displaced families, families who are forced to sometimes double-up or even become homeless in worst-case scenarios, overburdening otherwise already fragile communities. The housing needs of rural communities are particularly pronounced. Rural households pay more of their income for housing than do urban households. They are less likely to receive government-assisted mortgages; they tend to be poorer than urban households. They have limited access to mortgage credit, and they are often targeted by predatory lenders. Rural communities have a disproportionate share of the nation's substandard housing. They often have an inadequate supply of affordable housing. Development costs are higher in rural communities than in urban areas, and rural communities have a limited secondary mortgage market. Many low-income rural families have only limited experience with credit and lending institutions, and they often lack an understanding of what it takes to get a home loan. Compounding this problem is a lack of pre- and post-purchase counseling for rural homeowners. Despite the critical housing needs of rural communities, direct lending for new or improved rural rental housing is currently at its lowest funding level in more than 25 years. The Department of Agriculture, USDA, has oversight of most of the federal rural housing assistance programs. The primary sources of funding for rural housing assistance, the Section 515 Rural Rental Housing Loan Program, which makes direct loans to developers and cooperatives to build rural rental housing and the Section 521 Rental Assistance Program (which provides rent subsidies to low-income rural renters), have seen their funding levels steadily eroded since the mid-eighties. As a consequence, right now the rate of housing assistance to non-metro areas is only about half that to metro areas. Unfortunately, while funding levels for rural housing assistance programs have been decreasing, the need for affordable rural housing has been increasing. According to an analysis of 1995 American Housing Survey, AHS, data, 10.4 million rural households, 28 percent, have housing problems. When considering only rural renters, the problem becomes even more pronounced. Thirty-three percent of all rural renters are ``cost burdened,'' paying more than 30 percent of their income for housing costs. Almost one million rural renter households suffer from multiple housing problems. Of these households, 90 percent are severely cost burdened, paying more than 50 percent of their income for rent. Sixty percent pay more than 70 percent of their income for housing. Nearly 60 percent of tenants in Section 515 housing are elderly, disabled or handicapped. The average tenant income is less than $8,000 a year, and the average income of tenants who receive Section 521 housing assistance is $7,300 per year. Ninety-eight percent of them are either low-income, 88 percent, or very-low income, 10 percent, and 75 percent are single female or female-headed households. The ``Rural Rental Housing Act of 2001'' is intended to promote the development of affordable, quality rental housing in rural areas for low income households. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture, directly or through specified intermediaries, to provide rural rental housing assistance in the form of loans, grants, interest subsidies, annuities, and other forms of assistance to finance eligible projects. It would require that no state receives less that $2 million. It would limit the amount of assistance to 50 percent of the total cost of eligible projects, unless the project is smaller than 20 units and is targeted to very-low income tenants, then assistance can total up to 75 percent of the total cost. It would require that properties acquired, rehabbed, or constructed with these funds remain affordable for low-income families for at least 30 years, and it would give priority to low-income families, low-income communities, or communities lacking affordable rental housing. Finally, it would authorize $250,000,000 in appropriations for each fiscal year 2002 through 2006. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this important legislation, and look forward to working with Senators Edwards, Jeffords, and Leahy to ensure its passage.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, in recognition of his distinguished record of service to the United States, I am introducing a bill today to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Eugene McCarthy. The Congressional Gold Medal is considered to the most distinguished recognition that Congress bestows. I believe, and I hope my colleagues will agree, that the Congressional Gold Medal is a fitting tribute to the dedicated service Eugene McCarthy has given to our Nation. Eugene McCarthy graduated from St. Johns University in Minnesota in 1935, and from the University of Minnesota in 1939. He taught economics and sociology at public and Catholic high schools and colleges in Minnesota and North Dakota, including at St. Thomas College in St. Paul, and at his own alma mater, St. Johns University. McCarthy served in the military intelligence division of the U.S. War Department in 1944. In 1948, he was elected to Congress to represent the State of Minnesota. For Eugene McCarthy, this was merely a first step, revealing that his long-time interest in politics would be even more a calling than it would be a career. He has pursued his political vocation and mission for more than 40 years. This span covers Eugene McCarthy's service in the House of Representatives and in the Senate during the years 1948 to 1971, his anti-war presidential campaign of 1968, his Independent candidacy of 1976, and the many books, essays and speeches that always spoke out for reform of the political process and the limitation of executive power. Eugene McCarthy exemplified the highest standards of public service and dedication to Constitutional principles as a member of the House of Representatives for five terms, from 1948 to 1958, and as a Member of this body, the Senate, for two terms, from 1959 to 1971. Through his shaping of legislation on civil rights, tax policy, Social Security and Medicare, the minimum wage, unemployment compensation, government reform, foreign policy and Congressional oversight of the Central Intelligence Agency, McCarthy upheld the finest principles of politics and policy. As Chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Unemployment Problems in 1959-60, McCarthy held hearings which led to the Committee's outlining of many of the economic development and social welfare programs later enacted during the Kennedy and Johnson administration. On the Ways and Means and Finance Committees of the House and Senate, respectively, McCarthy pushed for additional benefits and minimum wage coverage for migrant workers. In the early 1960s, he led the fight to give Medicare coverage to the mentally ill. He was a leader throughout the 1960s in efforts to extend unemployment compensation. Beginning in 1954, and subsequently for more than 15 years in both the House and the Senate, McCarthy called for Congressional oversight of the CIA. Eugene McCarthy's principled campaign for the Democratic Presidential nomination in 1968 and his courageous stand regarding U.S. withdrawal from the Vietnam War inspired countless young people to believe they could make a difference in public life. He always emphasized the role of Congress in foreign policy, and his actions helped hasten the end of the most controversial war in American history. Eugene McCarthy deplored cynicism and any tendency to look upon all politicians as corrupt. He said: Truth will prove the best antidote to cynicism which is an especially dangerous attitude when it prevails among young people . . . Not only does it destroy confidence and hope, some of the most precious assets of youth, but it also eats away the will to attack difficult political problems, as it does problems in other fields. As a distinguished author, poet and lecturer, Eugene McCarthy has elevated the language of public dialogue in a way that epitomizes the deepest and most cherished values of American political life. ``What the country needs,'' McCarthy said in 1968, ``is a freeing of our moral energy, a freeing of our resolution, a freeing of our strength.'' He added that, ``in a free country the potential for leadership must exist in every man and ever woman.'' McCarthy has authored numerous books on American politics and institutions, including ``A Liberal Answer to the Conservative Challenge,'' 1964; ``America Revisited: 150 Years After Tocqueville,'' 1976; ``the Ultimate Tyranny: The Majority over the Majority,'' 1980; and ``Up Till Now: A Memoir,'' 1988. Eugene McCarthy has dedicated much of his life to our Nation. His leadership and service have extended far beyond his tenure in the United States Congress. It is an honor for me to ask that we award the congressional Gold Medal to this deserving scholar and gentleman. This bill offers us here in the Senate finally to recognize Eugene McCarthy's extraordinary contributions to the United States and to say: Eugene McCarthy, we thank you.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, putting more big money into politics is not reform; it is deform. Saying that an individual can contribute as much as $5,000 a year to a candidate, that an individual can contribute as much as $100,000 a year in an aggregate to different political efforts, means two things. It means, first of all, that those who run for office are going to be even more dependent on the top 1 percent of the population. Is that reform? It means the vast majority of the people in the country are now really going to believe if you pay, you play, and if you don't pay, you don't play. They will feel left out. And they should feel left out. It is hard for me to believe that Senators want to go back home to their States and say, we have voted for reform by making it possible for those people who are the heavy hitters and the well-connected and have the money to have even more domination over politics today in our country. How are you going to explain that? Do you think it will be the schoolteachers who are going to be making $100,000 contributions per year? Do you think it will be the hospital workers? Do you think it will be the child care workers? Do you think it will be middle-income people, working-income people, low- and moderate-income people, the majority of people? One-quarter of 1 percent of the population contributes over $200. One-ninth of 1 percent of the population contributes over $1,000. Now you will take the lid off and make the people with the big money even more important, with more influence over politics? And you dare to call that reform? This is one of the most frustrating and disappointing times for being a Senator if we pass this amendment. My colleague from Tennessee talks about class warfare. Let me put it a different way. This is fine for incumbents; I guess they get the money. I don't see myself getting these big bucks. What about whoever wants to run for office as a challenger but he or she is not connected to all these interests; they are not connected to people who are so well heeled; they represent different people? There is not one Fannie Lou Hamer in the United States. There is not one Fannie Lou Hamer. The truth of the matter is, there will not be one Senator who will be able to represent a Fannie Lou Hamer, a civil rights leader, a poor person, people without any power, and people without any money. You are not going to get people elected any longer if you raise these limits because no one is going to have a chance unless they have a politics that appeals to people who have all of the economic clout. What kind of reform is this? I think this amendment, if it passes, is a potential ``deal breaker.'' And my colleague from Tennessee says we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good. I say to my colleague from Tennessee, the question is whether or not we have the good any longer. The question is whether or not we have the good any longer. We take the caps off; we bring more big money into politics; we now make hard money contributions essentially soft money. One hundred thousand dollars per year? How many couples in the State of Minnesota can contribute $200,000 a year? How many people in Minnesota can contribute that? And we call this reform? This amendment has that made-for-Congress look. This amendment has that pro-incumbent look. This amendment has that pro-money, big money look. I ask, where are the reformers? Why aren't we making an all-out fight? Why aren't people saying this is the deal breaker? We are getting to the point where it is a very real question, if this kind of amendment passes, whether we even have the good any longer. I hope this amendment will be defeated.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I will take a little bit of time because I think other Senators will be coming out to the floor soon to talk about where we are on the hard money changes. We had a proposal by Senator Thompson which basically raised the amount of money that an individual could give to a candidate from $1,000 to $2,500 per election; from $2,000 to $5,000 over a 2-year cycle; so $2,500 per election, primary, general, up to $5,000 per candidate. There are other provisions as a part of the Thompson amendment. The other one I want to mention is raising the aggregate limit from $30,000 to $50,000, which actually per cycle means $100,000. So what we are saying now is an individual can give up to $5,000 supporting a candidate, and in the aggregate, an individual, one individual could give as much as $100,000 to candidates. I have recited the statistics on the floor so many times that I am boring myself. But there is the most huge disconnect between the way in which--here on the floor of the Senate and in the ante room--the way that people who come together in the lobbying coalitions are defining compromise and victory, and the way people in coffee shops think about this. One-quarter of 1 percent of the population contributes $200 or more, one-ninth of 1 percent of the population contributes $1,000 or more. So I do not really see the benefit of injecting yet more money into politics, literally turning some of the hard money into soft money. I am sure people in the country are bewildered by hard money, soft money. Let me put it this way. I don't see how politics that becomes more dependent on big contributors, heavy hitters, people who have more money and can afford to make these contributions, is better politics. I just don't get it. On the Thompson amendment, there was a motion to table. It was defeated. I thought, frankly, some of the moderates on the Republican side who were part of the reform camp would have voted against the Thompson amendment. They did not. Senator Feinstein came out with an amendment, and her amendment basically doubles the limits. So I guess we go from $1,000 to $2,000 and then $2,000 to $4,000 and it raises the aggregate amount but not a lot. The Feinstein amendment is certainly better than the Thompson amendment. Now there are some negotiations. Regardless of what happens in these negotiations, the point is the headlines in the newspapers in the country tomorrow for the lead story should be ``U.S. Senate Votes for Reform, Votes to Put More Big Money Into Politics,'' because that is really what we are doing. I think this is a huge mistake. I have two children who teach.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to keep the floor as we move on to the debate.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam Chair, I have two children who are teachers. I can tell you right now that neither one of them can afford to make a $1,000 contribution or a $2,000 contribution or $4,000 or $5,000 in an election cycle. I can tell you right now that neither one of them can afford to make $30,000 worth of contributions. My God, that is, frankly, the salary of a good many teachers in this country. They cannot afford to make those kinds of contributions. On the floor of the Senate we are saying, my gosh, the reality is that we have this inflation and $1,000 isn't worth $1,000. The reality is that the vast majority of the people in the country don't make these big contributions; therefore, we don't pay as much attention to them; therefore, they have become increasingly disillusioned, and now as a part of this deal we are raising the spending limits--whatever the compromise is. It seems to me that it goes exactly in the opposite direction than we should be going. How are ordinary citizens who can't afford to make these big contributions going to feel--that this political process is now going to be better for them when we have taken the caps off and have raised the contribution level? Now people who are running for office are going to be even more dependent on the top 1 percent of the population. How is that reform? I haven't done the analysis. I do not know how it will add up. My guess is that while, on the one hand we are taking the soft money out, we are now going to be putting a whole lot more hard money into politics. In the election year 2000, 80 percent of the money in politics was hard money. I am not trying to denigrate taking soft money out--the prohibition on soft money that is in McCain-Feingold. But as this legislation moves along, I am, in particular, saddened and a little bit indignant that we are now defining ``reform'' to raise the limits so those people who can afford to make a $1,000 contribution can now make $2,000; those who can afford over 6 months--whatever cycle--to make not $2,000 but to now make $4,000 contributions will be able to do so. The argument that some of my colleagues make is the fact that 99 percent of the population can't afford to do this doesn't mean we shouldn't let the other 1 percent. But I tell you what is going to happen. We are going to be even more dependent on the big givers. We are going to become even more divorced from all of those people who we serve who can't afford to make those contributions. We are going to spend even less time. There will be even less of an emphasis on the small fund raisers and less of an emphasis on grassroots politics. It is a tragedy that we are doing this. I do not know how the bill will ultimately go. I think this is a terrible mistake. It has that sort of ``made for Congress'' look. This is the sort of agreement that is a victory, Minnesotans. This victory is for all you Minnesotans who now contribute $1,000 or more. You will be able to give even more money to candidates. Minnesotans, please listen. The Senate is now pretty soon about to pass a reform measure. All of you Minnesotans who contribute $1,000 and $2,000 a year and can afford to do it will now be able to double your contributions. I am sure people in Minnesota will just feel great about this. I am sure people in Minnesota will feel that this is real reform. And I am sure 99 percent of the people in Minnesota will feel it is true. This is a game we can't play: You pay, you play. You don't pay, you don't play. I will finish, maybe, but just to make one other point. I am looking at this in too personal of a way by showing more indignation than I should. People can disagree. That is the way it is. You win or lose votes. We talk about getting rid of soft money. With what we are now about to do on these individual spending limits, there is a bunch of people who will never be able to run for this Senate. They are really not. I will tell you who those people are. They are women and men who themselves don't have a lot of money and who take positions that go against a lot of the money interests in this country and people who have the economic resources. I said earlier that the Chair would be interested in this because of her own history. I was talking about the Fannie Lou Hamer Project. Spencer Overton from the Fannie Lou Hamer Project was speaking yesterday at the press conference. Fannie Lou Hamer, as the Chair knows, was this great civil rights leader, daughter of a sharecropper family, large family, grew up poor, and became the leader of the Mississippi Democratic Party. She was a great leader, a poor person, a poor woman, and a great African-American leader. He was saying yesterday that there are not any Senators who look like Fannie Lou Hamer. He was right. He went on to say that the truth is, this isn't an issue of corruption. This is an issue of representation-- of whether there is inclusion or exclusion. The Fannie Lou Hamers of this country are going to be even less well represented when we become even more dependent on those fat cats who can make these huge contributions. How is a woman such as Fannie Lou Hamer, a great woman, ever going to run? How about people who want to represent the Fannie Lou Hamers? How are they going to have a chance to run? They are going to be clobbered. Democrats, don't get angry at me, but there are plenty of Democrats who will be able to raise the money. That is good. You will be able to get the two, or three, or four, or five, or six. I don't know what their final deal will be. You will be able to get those big contributions. But you will pay a price. Democrats, we will pay a price. We are paying that price. We will dilute our policy performance. We will trim down what we stand for. We will be more reluctant to take controversial positions on test economic issues. We will be less willing to challenge economic and political power in America today than we are already, and today we are not so willing to challenge that power. This isn't just like statistics. And here is one proposal to raise the money, and here is another one, and now we have a compromise. This is about representation. Spencer was right. Spencer Overton was right. Fannie Lou Hamers are not going to be well represented at all. I doubt whether hardly anybody who comes from those economic circumstances today and who take positions that are antithetical to economic and political power in America--I hate to argue conspiracy. I am just talking about the realities. Are they ever going to be able to run? I don't think they will be able to run. It is going to be very hard. If you are well known or an incumbent, you have a pretty good chance. That is good. We get some great people here. We have the Presiding Officer. We have Senator Kennedy. Senator Dayton is here--people who have been well known for good reasons and who have accomplished a lot in their lives. The Chair has. People who have economic resources--Senator Kennedy does, and Senator Dayton does--care deeply about these issues. That is not my point. My point is that as we rely more and more on the big contributors and the well oiled and the well heeled and the heavy hitters, all of us who are running are going to become more dependent on that money. The people who are going to have the most difficult time ever getting elected are going to be ordinary citizens, which I think means they are the best citizens. I mean that not in a pejorative way but in a positive way. They are not going to have a prayer. They are not going to have access to this money. Let's not kid ourselves. If you believe the standard of a representative democracy is that each person should count as one, and no more than one, we have moved dangerously far away from that. I do not see how any kind of ``compromise,'' defined by the pattern of power right here in the Senate today, represents a step forward, where we now are going to say that those people who are the big givers are going to be able to give more and those people running for office are going to be more dependent on them. I bet you, Madam Chair, that after this amendment or this compromise passes, that over 50 percent of the money that will be raised in the next election cycle--the cycle I am in--over 50 percent of the money that will be raised will be in these large contributions, raised from, again, about 1 percent of the population. Now I ask you, how does that represent reform? How does that make this a healthier representative democracy? I think it is a huge mistake. And, I, for one, am adamantly opposed and want to express my opposition. I am not out on the floor to launch a filibuster, so I will yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, let me thank my colleague from North Carolina for his excellent dissertation. I just loved it when he was going through these ads. I want to make it real clear that for all of these different groups and organizations--I don't want to keep my colleague from North Carolina--on the floor, but I know he will agree with this very important distinction--that all of these groups and organizations, whether they are left, right, center, lean Democratic, lean Republican, you name it, they can run all the ads in the world they want and they can finance those ads with soft money; in other words, money they get in contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it is absolutely fine as long as the focus is on the issue. As long as those are genuine issue ads and it is not electioneering, they have all of the freedom in the world to do that-- period. No question about it. Second, if they want to do the electioneering and they want to do these sorts of ads where you say ``call' as opposed to ``vote against candidate x,'' you bash the candidate, whatever party--they can run all the ads they want and they can have all of the freedom of speech in the world. The only thing is, they have to finance it out of hard money. That is all. They cannot pretend that these are ``issue ads'' when they are sham issue ads and we all know it is electioneering. That is the point. But they can do it. They just have to raise their money under the campaign limits that deal with hard money. That is the whole point of some of the amendments to this bill. From my own part, one more time--and the more I talk to people, I think the people agree this is a very important strengthening amendment--what we want to make sure of is when we do the prohibition on soft money to the parties, all of a sudden that money, again, like pushing Jell-O, doesn't just shift to these sham issue ads where a variety of existing groups and organizations, much less the proliferation of all the new groups and organizations, will take advantage of a loophole and just pour all of their soft money into these sham issue ads which are really electioneering. In that case, what will we have accomplished if we have, roughly speaking, just as much soft money spent but it is just going to be spent in a different way, unaccountable big dollars? That is what the amendment I introduced the other night was all about. I only came to the floor because I want to make sure the Record is clear. My colleague from Maine was gracious enough to give me a little bit of time. Let me make three quick points. Point No. 1. The amendment I introduced the other night--since this amendment has been mentioned several times by my colleague--uses the exact same sham issue test ad, with some additional targeting, as the Snowe-Jeffords language in the bill which is constitutional. In fact, actually the targeting language I use makes the amendment more likely to survive any constitutional challenge. Point No. 2, the Snowe-Jeffords test is a bright-line test, as my colleague from North Carolina pointed out. It is perfectly obvious on its face, whether an ad falls under this definition. This means there will be no ``chilling effect'' on protected speech, which was a concern raised by the Supreme Court in the Buckley decision because every group, every organization would be uncertain if an ad they intended to run would be covered or not. We make sure everybody would be certain. Point No. 3, the test is not overly broad. A comprehensive study conducted by the Brennan Center, which did a whole lot of work on campaign finance ads during the 1998 election, found that only two genuine issue ads, out of hundreds run, would have been inappropriately defined as a sham issue ad. This is a really important one for the Record. On February 20, 1998, a letter signed by 20 constitutional scholars, including the former director of the ACLU, which analyzed the Snowe- Jeffords provision on electioneering communications, argued that even though the provision was written to exempt certain organizations from the ban on electioneering communication, such omission was not constitutionally necessary. I quote from these scholars, including a former director of the ACLU: The careful crafting of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment stands in stark contrast to the clumsy and sweeping prohibition that Congress originally drafted. Congress could, if it wished, apply the basic rules that currently govern electioneering to all spending that falls within this more realistic definition of electioneering. Congress could, for example, declare that only individuals, PAC's and the most grassroots of nonprofit corporations could engage in electioneering that falls within the broad definition. It could impose fundraising restrictions prohibiting individuals from pooling large contributions towards such electioneering. Fifth point: If you believe that the amendment that passed the other night that I introduced covers certain groups unconstitutionally--if that is what you believe--then you must also believe that the current Shays-Meehan bill--the version passed by the House of Representatives-- and the 1997 version, and all previous versions of the McCain-Feingold bill are also unconstitutional because they cover the same groups. Point No. 6: In September 1999, Don Simon, then-executive vice president and general counsel of Common Cause, argued in a memo to all House Members that the Shays-Meehan bill is fully constitutional. That is exactly the amendment we passed the other night on the floor of the Senate. Finally, in the event of constitutional problems, the amendment passed the other night is fully severable. I make five arguments as to why this is a very different question. First, this amendment, and indeed the Snowe-Jeffords provision already in the bill, only covers broadcast communications. It does not cover print communications like the one at issue in Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Indeed, the group argued that the flyer should have been protected as a news ``editorial.'' Snowe-Jeffords specifically exempts editorial communications. Second, the court based its decision in part on the logic that regulation of election related communications was overly burdensome to small, grass roots, nonprofit organizations and so would have a chilling effect on speech. But the Snowe-Jeffords standard that the amendment would apply has a high threshold that must be met before a communication is covered. A group would have to spend $10,000 on broadcast ads that mention a federal candidate 60 days before an election before this provision would kick in. This meets the Court's requirement in the case that minor communications be protected. Third, the federal law that the court objected to was extremely broad and the Court specifically cited that fact as one of reasons it reached the decision it did, saying ``Regulation that would produce such a result demands far more precision that [current law] provides.'' This amendment provides that precision. The Snowe-Jeffords language is very narrowly targeted and has a very high threshold before it applies, which further protects amateur, unsophisticated, or extremely limited communications. Fourth, the Court actually argued that the election communications of non-profit corporations--such as the ones covered by amendment--could be regulated once it reached a certain level. In fact, the Court held that, quote: . . . should MCFL's independent spending so extensive that the organization's major purpose may be regarded as campaign activity, the corporation would be classified as a political committee . . . As such, it would automatically be subject to the obligations and restrictions applicable to those groups whose primary objective is to influence political campaigns. Yet since the decision, such groups have actually operated outside the law with impunity. Take for example, the organization ``Republicans for Clean Air.'' Despite it's innocuous name, this was an organization created for the sole purpose of promoting the candidacy of George W. Bush during the Republican primary during the last election. Another example is the Club for Growth. This was an outfit that ran attack ads against moderate Republican congressional candidates in Republican congressional primaries. Both groups, which would be covered by my amendment--but not the current Snowe-Jeffords provision--could clearly be banned from running these sham issue ads with their treasury funds under the Massachusetts Citizens for Life decision. Fifth, the court's decision was based on a premise that may have been true in 1986, but certainly is not the case today: that non-profit groups such as the one at issue in the decision did not play a major rule in federal elections. In fact, the court held that: ``the FEC maintains that the inapplicability of [current law] to MCFL would open the door to massive undisclosed spending by similar entities . . . We see no such danger.'' Today, it is clear that the FEC had it exactly right and the Court had it exactly wrong. In fact, the Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University in a February 2001 report found this to be the case and stated quote: ``These undisclosed interest group communications are a major force in U.S. not little oddities or blips on a screen.'' Perhaps in 1986 it was a ``blip on the screen'' but today we are talking about tens of millions of dollars just in these sham issue adds. These groups have become major players in our elections but the law does not hold them accountable. I yield the floor.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to Senator Dodd that I believe he gave one of the best speeches I have ever heard on the floor on this question. I have two colleagues on the other side whom I like very much. I think Senator Hagel commands widespread respect, as does Senator Craig. I want to pick up, so I don't go with some rehearsed remarks, with what Senator Craig said. He talked about he didn't understand what the Senator from Connecticut was saying because we have this open and full process. That is on what we really ought to be focusing. The fact of the matter is, that is the issue, I say to my colleague from Idaho. The vast majority of the people in the country don't believe this is an open and full process. Too many people in the country believe if you pay, you play; if you don't pay, you don't play. Too many people believe that their concerns for themselves and their families and their communities are of little concern to Senators and Members of the House of Representatives because they don't have the big bucks and because they are not the big players or the heavy hitters. That is exactly the point. When we talk about corruption, I want to say again that I don't know of any individual wrongdoing by any Senator of either party. I hope it doesn't happen. But I do think we have systemic corruption, which is far more serious. That is when you have a huge imbalance between too few people with too much wealth, power, and say, and the vast majority of people who feel left out. If you believe the standard of representative democracy is that each person should count as one, and no more than one, we have moved dangerously far away from that. I think that is what my colleague from Connecticut was saying. It is within this context that I have to say to my good friend from Nebraska that I do not believe the American people will believe this is a reform amendment if they should see a headline saying ``U.S. Senate Votes to Put More Big Money into American Politics.'' We now have, with the Hagel proposal, a huge loophole, unlimited soft money that now goes directly into State parties, and in addition we are talking about going from $1,000 to $3,000 and $2,000 to $6,000, when it comes to individual contributions. Again, I was so pleased to hear my colleague from Connecticut say that when one-quarter of 1 percent of the population contributes $200 or more and one-ninth of 1 percent contributes $1,000 or more, why do we believe it is a reform to put yet more big money into politics and to have all of us more dependent upon these big givers, heavy hitters, or what some people call the ``fat cats'' in the United States? It doesn't strike me that this represents reform. I think it really represents more deform. And I am not trying to be caustic, but I just think this proposal on the floor of the Senate now is a great step backward. I hope my colleagues will vote against it. Finally, I realize that with the proposal of my good friend from Nebraska, one individual would be authorized--if you are ready for this--to give a total of $270,000 in hard and soft money to a national party in an election cycle--$270,000? People in the Town Talk Cafe in Willmar, MN, scratch their heads and say: That is not us. We can't contribute $270,000 to a party in one cycle. We can't contribute $1,000, going to $3,000, or $3,000 going to $6,000. This is not reform. We want you to pass McCain-Feingold with strong amendments, which will be a bill that represents a step forward. This proposal of my friend from Nebraska is not a step forward. It is a great leap, not even sideways but backward. I hope Senators will vote against it.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me thank Senator Kerry and Senator Biden and say I am proud to be an original cosponsor on this amendment. My colleague has described the amendment, a 2-to-1 match for up to $200 worth of contributions. This is the public financing part that is in exchange for agreed-upon spending limits. I want to make two or three points in less than 5 minutes. First, very soon we are going to have an amendment to dramatically increase hard money spending limits. The argument is that we really need to do this. As Senator Dodd said earlier this morning, poor Senators, gee whiz, we need to be able to raise more money. There is nothing like that. When you do that, you are more beholden. It is the obscene money chase. You are more beholden to big money. Most people in the country believe big money can pay so they can play, but they can't pay so they can't play. This amendment Senator Kerry has talked about, and Senator Biden spoke about, takes us into a different direction. Candidates agree to spending limits, and you have smaller contributions. You get your support from a lot of folks, little folks, middle class people. What a better politics it is. It is an election and a politics in which people can more believe. The second point is, if you view this as a system--and I don't like saying this because I am an incumbent. But I think it is wired for incumbents. Most people agree that, by and large, that is true. If you want to move toward a more level playing field, in that direction, some system of voluntary, agreed-upon spending limits for public financing really gives the challengers and the people who aren't as well known a much better chance. It is important to have competitive elections in a representative democracy. I can just tell you, remembering back to 1990--and Senator Kerry can go back to his first race--I certainly remember when it felt as if when people didn't know you or think you had a chance and you could hardly raise any money, there was no kind of system that would give you a chance. We lucked out. I won because of my good looks and brilliance. If not for that, I would have lost. I got the Presiding Officer's attention on that. I am kidding. The third point I want to make is that I believe this amendment, if it were part of the McCain-Feingold bill, would be another one of those reform amendments. I hope colleagues will vote for it. I think it is so much a better way of having people believe in the process. It is so much a better way of making sure lots of people think they can run for office as opposed to only a few. It is a better way of having people believe that these elections belong to them and believe they are more a part of politics. I have heard my friend from Kentucky say more than once that any kind of public financing is ``food stamps for politicians.'' That, again, presupposes that elections belong to politicians. They don't. They belong to the people in our States, to the people in the country. This is a very good amendment. This is a strengthening amendment, and it is a very important vote. I hope we will have a strong vote for this Kerry amendment. I am very proud to be an original coauthor. I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak on this amendment.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I don't want to break up the rhythm of what the Senator is saying. It is very powerful. I do not think I can say it as well as you. I would like to ask you one or two questions. In this debate I don't believe I had really heard your formulation before. We talk about big money, corruption, not individual wrongdoing; some people have too much access. You just used the word ``exclusion.'' There was a young African American man today with whom I spoke. He was talking about Fannie Lou Hamer, a great civil rights leader. By background, Fannie Lou Hamer was the daughter of poor sharecroppers. This is a question of inclusion. If you take the caps off, and you are relying on people who can afford to make these kinds of contributions, he was basically saying, this almost becomes a civil rights issue because it is a question of whether or not people who do not have the big bucks will be able to participate in the political process, will be able to be there at the table. I ask the Senator, is this part of what is concerning you, that you are getting away from representative democracy and many people are going to feel more and more excluded as we now rely on bigger and bigger dollars? I have three questions. And I will not take any more of your time. Is that what you are talking about?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Right.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield for another question? You might call it a plutocracy, but let me ask you this. To my understanding, our colleague from Tennessee is talking about individual limits that basically amount to $5,000 for the 2-year cycle. The amount an individual can give to a party goes from $20,000 to $40,000 to $80,000 per cycle. What concerns me maybe even more is that the aggregate limit, am I correct, goes from $30,000 to $50,000, so it is $100,000 per cycle?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Let me ask my colleague this. I would argue that what we are now doing with the proposal of the Senator from Tennessee is actually making hard money soft money when you get to the point where people can now contribute up to $100,000 per cycle.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Here is my question. Do you think that when people in Connecticut--and I see Congressman Shays is here--or people from Minnesota, or people from Rhode Island--people around the country--read a headline, if this amendment passes--I certainly hope it is defeated-- ``The Senate Passes Reform, Brings More Big Money Into Politics,'' do you think people are going to view this as reform? Do you think taking these spending limits off and having us more dependent on the top 1 percent of the population--do you think most people in the country in the coffee shops are going to view this as reform, or do you think they are going to feel even more disillusioned about what we have done, if we support this amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I ask unanimous consent that Luke Ballman from my staff be allowed on the floor today.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 145 and ask that it be reported.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts for his remarks and in particular for his focus on the importance of what some call clean money, clean elections, others call public financing, partial or full public financing. Before I talk about this amendment, I want to give it some context with the argument I made on the floor of the Senate last week. I am bitterly disappointed my amendment was not adopted. That amendment was an effort to say that our States should have the option of applying a voluntary system of partial or full public financing to our races. A couple of Senators said to me during the vote that they did not want their State legislatures deciding ``how to finance my campaigns.'' They are not our campaigns. These campaigns belong to the people of the country. I do believe, until we move to some system of public financing or move in that direction with some reforms, we are going to continue to have a system that is wired for incumbents. Sometimes I think the debate is as much between ins and outs as it is between Democrats and Republicans. I want to put the defeat of that amendment in the context of some of the reform amendments being defeated and other amendments which I think significantly weaken this legislation, at least if one's interest is in reform and in trying to get some of the big money out of politics and bring some of the people back in. The acceptance last week of the so-called millionaire's amendment, where we tried to fix the problem of people who have wealth and their own economic resources and spending it on their own campaigns with basically another abuse, which is to take the limits off how much money people can contribute--I fear this week we are going to take the lid off individual campaign contributions as some have suggested, going from $1,000 to $3,000 or $2,000 to $6,000 a year. The point is, again, one-quarter of 1 percent of the people in the country contribute $200 or more and one-ninth of the voting age population in the country contribute $1,000 a year or more. How last week's support of the so-called millionaire's amendment can be considered a reform--it probably will be challenged constitutionally as well. The point is, I do not know how bringing more money into politics, and more big money in politics, and having Senators--Democrats and Republicans--running for office more dependent on the top 1 percent of the population represents a reform. If the Hagel proposal passes, I think that is a huge step backward. If part of the Hagel proposal passes and we raise the limits on individual contributions, then we have created a situation where I have no doubt incumbents will have a better chance of going after those big bucks. Frankly, I think some of us probably will not be too successful, and, in any case, why in the world would you want a system more dependent upon the top 1 percent of the population who can make those contributions? I worry about a piece of legislation that has moved in this direction. There were some good victories. I always will give credit to colleagues for their good work, and I certainly give full credit to Senator McCain and Senator Feingold for their good work. But I am in profound disagreement, first of all, with defeat of the amendment last week which would have allowed people at the State level to organize-- grass roots politics at the State level. I am especially worried about creating loopholes in this bill or moving toward taking off the cap when it comes to the raising of hard money. Again, I do not believe it is much of a reform. I have heard some argue it is a fact that since 1974 there has been inflation and $1,000 is not worth $1,000. It is also a fact that one- quarter of 1 percent of the people in the country contribute over $200. It is a fact that one-ninth of the people contribute over $1,000. It is a fact that most people do not have that kind of money and cannot make those kinds of contributions. Eighty percent of the money in the 2000 elections was hard money. That is PAC money included. If we take the limit off individual contributions and raise those limits in the direction some of my colleagues are talking about, we are moving toward politics yet even more reliant on big money. What in the world will we have accomplished if, in fact, we are ultimately going to have the same amount of money spent but in a different way, which now gives me the opportunity to talk about the amendment I offer today, which will plug a loophole in this bill. It has to do with the treatment of sham ads. The purpose of this amendment is simple: It is to ensure that the sham issue ads run by interest groups fall under the same rules and prohibition that the McCain- Feingold legislation rightly imposes on corporations and union shame ads. I make this appeal to my colleagues: This was in the Shays-Meehan bill. This was in the original McCain-Feingold bill. I know people have had to negotiate and make different political compromises, but from the point of view of policy, what good will it do if we have a prohibition of raising soft money on political parties and a prohibition when it comes to unions and corporations, but then other interest groups and organizations will be able to, using soft money, put ads on television? The money will just shift. My argument is twofold: No. 1, I do not think it is fair to labor and corporations to say there is a prohibition on raising soft money for these sham issue ads and then not applying that standard to every other kind of group or organization, whether they are left, right, or center. No. 2, I think we are going to have a proliferation of new stealth groups and organizations, all operating within this loophole, so that soft money will shift from the parties to these sham ads. There is this huge loophole and all those ads will go into the TV ads. I say to my colleagues, I would rather point my finger at an opponent or another political party and say, look, your ads are not fair. I might say they are scummy or poisonous. Instead, we will have a proliferation of these stealth sham ads. This is a huge loophole in this bill. In the original McCain-Feingold, the same rules and prohibitions that apply to corporations and unions apply to all the other interest groups. That is the way it should be. It is not fair to corporations and unions. We know it is a loophole. We know we will be back in a couple years dealing with this problem, and there will be plenty of lawyers who will figure out how to create the organizations and put the money into the sham issue ads.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. If I could ask my colleague, I am trying to understand.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand it is just a question. We may be focusing in on different issues. I am focusing on one problem; you may be focusing on what you consider to be another problem. I don't identify the media with the sham issue ads. Whether I agree or disagree, it seems to me, the media are there to inform people. So the answer is no, I wouldn't want to include the media.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I appreciate that.