Paul Wellstone

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. I understand my colleague's point. I guess I say with a twinkle in my eye to the Senator from Kentucky, I think people in the country and certainly everybody in this Chamber should be very worried about just this loophole in the shifting of soft money to these sham ads. That is what we should worry about. I see a whole bunch of interest groups and organizations that will do it. I see a whole bunch of new ones that will be created that are going to do it unless we go back to the original standard that was in the original bill, and that is basically in the Shays-Meehan bill coming out of the House. I don't think I would include the media or journalist broadly defined, whether I agree or disagree with their particular editorials. Now, the soft money and issue ad provisions of McCain-Feingold restrict sham issue ads run by parties, corporations, and labor unions--that is important--but not by other groups. Limiting the ban in such a way seems to invite--this is what I am trying to say--a shift in spending to private groups in future elections, suggesting in the future years, even if this bill passes, that Congress is going to be predestined to revisit sham issue ad regulation to close yet another loophole in Federal election law. I say as a matter of policy, why not do it now. And I continue to make this argument. I argue this loophole is already pretty wide. The Campaign Finance Institute Task Force on Disclosure estimated that perhaps over $100 million was spent by independent groups trying to influence Federal elections with sham ads during the 2000 cycle. I don't think this comes as any surprise to the Presiding Officer or any of my colleagues. Many colleagues have seen such ads run during their own election. The Brennan Center for Justice and the University of Wisconsin found these ads are overwhelmingly negative. Here is something I was not as aware as I should have been--again, I think many know what I am talking about; many have been the target of these negative ads; in some cases, some have perhaps been the beneficiaries of the negative ads against their opponent if that is what you like--the Brennan Center for Justice found specifically that more than 70 percent of these sham electioneering ads sponsored by groups are attack ads that denigrate a candidate's image or character as opposed to 20 percent, the good news, of the candidate-sponsored ads. The point is, if you are concerned about poison politics, leave this loophole open, let these interest groups run these sham ads. Overwhelmingly they are negative, they can be vicious, they are poison politics. The study concluded: . . . candidates and the American public can expect a wave of television advertising in the last 60 days of an election, casting aspersions on a candidate's integrity, health, or intentions. Why in the world do we want to keep this loophole? Why do we want to pass a piece of legislation where the soft money is going to all shift away from the parties to these sham issue ads which are so overwhelmingly negative, which so overwhelmingly epitomize poison politics? These groups are accountable to virtually no one, to nobody. And frankly, they do the dirty work for too many people in politics. I would like to do away with poison politics. Make no mistake about it, every Senator--I am not talking about ads, I say to the Presiding Officer, that are legitimately trying to influence policy debates--rather, this amendment only targets those ads that we all know are trying to skew elections but until now have been able to skirt the law. I am not talking about legitimate policy ads. I am not talking about ads that run on any issue. I am talking about the ads that end up bashing the candidate or whoever is running. They don't say just vote against them. I am talking about sham issue ads. Any group, any organization, any individual can finance any kind of ad they want. I am just applying the standard of this bill to where there is a huge loophole. Title II of McCain-Feingold consists of several sections known as the Snowe-Jeffords provision, named after similar legislation first proposed by my two colleagues from Maine and Vermont. This provision is an excellent first step toward curbing sham issue ads in that it prohibits such ads from being paid for with corporate or union treasury money. Under the bill as currently written, broadcast ads that mention a Federal candidate that are made within 60 days of a general election, or within 30 days of a primary, and are transmitted to an audience that includes the electorate of the candidate, are defined as ``electioneering communications.'' That is a pretty tight test. Now the value of this difference, in addition, has been discussed previously in this debate, so I will not spend a lot of time on its merits now. Suffice it to say this amendment has been carefully crafted, and I believe it is fully constitutional. First, because it is totally unambiguous. It is perfectly obvious on the face whether an ad falls under this definition. This means there will be no ``chilling'' effect on protected speech, a concern raised by the Supreme Court in the Buckley decision because a group would be uncertain if an issue ad they intended to run would be covered or not. In other words, this is a bright-line test. Second, the test is not overly broad. A comprehensive study conducted by the Brennan Center of ads run during the 1998 election found that only two genuine issue ads out of the hundreds run would have been inappropriately defined as a sham ad. You want to have a tight test, you want to have a high standard, that is what we do. Snowe-Jeffords forces disclosure of all ads that fall under this definition, but under this bill, only corporations and unions may not spend funds from their treasury or soft money for this purpose. If a corporation or union wishes to run electioneering communications, they must use a PAC with contributions regulated by Federal law to do so. The point is, they have to do it with hard money. The point is, every other group and organization, pick and choose--it can be the NRA, it can be the Christian right, it can be the Sierra Club, it can be other organizations on the left, other organizations on the right, organizations representing every other kind of interest imaginable-- they can continue to use soft money and pour it into these sham ads. Why are we not applying this prohibition to them? Why are we creating this huge loophole? Do we want to pass a piece of legislation which is just like Jell-O? Push here, no, it doesn't go do parties and now it all goes into the sham issue ads. We will not be doing right for people in the country if we pass a bill that does not get, really, very much big money out of politics but just changes the way it is spent. Maybe it will even be less accountable. Here is the exemption in this bill for certain organizations: 501(c)(4) groups and 527 groups--this exemption means that Sierra Club, National Rifle Association, Club for Growth, or Republicans for Clean Air would be able to run whatever ads they want using soft money to finance them. They would, for the first time, have to disclose how much they are spending, but there is no bar to such groups running sham ads under this bill. Fine. They can disclose how much they are spending. Three weeks before election, they pour in an unlimited amount of money with poison politics attacking Republicans, I say to the Chair, or Democrats, or independents. Why do we want to have this loophole? I want to see this soft money prohibition and this big money out. I do not want to see us have this loophole in this piece of legislation which may mean that we passed a piece of legislation that has shifted all of this big money in the worst possible direction. I think this is a mistake. Already these interest groups are spending over $100 million on sham ads to influence our elections. Over 70 percent of them are bitterly personally negative. So these groups already play a major role in our elections, and I predict, if we do not close this loophole now with this amendment, we will be back here in 2 years or 4 years, or I hope and pray people do not--maybe it will not be for another 20 or 30 years--trying to do what I am trying to do today. The reason will be that the center of power-- please listen to this--in Federal elections will move much closer to these unaccountable groups because they will be able to pump millions and millions of dollars in soft money into these sham ads. That is where this money is going to go. We will see what the other arguments on the floor are. I can anticipate some of them, and I will continue to make mine brief. But I say to the Presiding Officer, I do not know how many votes this amendment will get. I really do not know. But I will tell you this. My wife's family are from Appalachia--Harlan County, and Letcher County in Kentucky--the Isons. They talk about poor cities. When I am 80 years old, I at least am going to be able to tell my grandchildren--I am sorry, I have grandchildren now--my great grandchildren, great, great, great grandchildren, I hope and pray--that I laid down this amendment, I tried to close this loophole, I tried to do something that for sure would get more of the big money out of politics. I do not know what the vote will be, but I know I am here, and I know I have to be a reformer, and I know I have to make this bill better. I have to lay down this marker just as I tried to do last week in an amendment that should have passed. I cannot believe that colleagues, authors of this bill, did not support it. I cannot believe that during the vote I had people telling me: I don't want my State legislature or people in my State telling me how to finance my campaign--as if it were our campaign. I could not believe it. I say to the Presiding Officer, I could not believe Republicans, who always argue for States rights, voted against the proposition that every State ought to decide whether or not they wanted on a voluntary basis to apply some system of voluntary or partial public financing. Talk about encouraging grassroots politics. People in the country say: We can get at it in Arizona. They already have. You have clean money, clean elections. We can get at it in Minnesota, in Nevada. We don't know if we can ever be effective in D.C. toward public financing, but we can do it right here, we don't have to take expensive air trips to D.C. And it is defeated. Now I am trying to plug this loophole, and tomorrow or the next day we are heading towards raising spending limits. Let me be clear, this amendment does not say any special interest group cannot run an ad. A lot of interests are special. That is fine. They are special to the people they represent, and sometimes they are special to the public interest, depending on your point of view. It only says these groups and organizations need to comply with the same rules as unions and corporations. Groups covered by my amendment can set up PACs, they can solicit contributions, and they can run all the ads they want. All this amendment says is they cannot use their regular treasury money. They can't use the soft money contributions to run these ads. This is an amendment about fairness. It is an amendment about leveling the playing field. I know some of my colleagues may come to the floor and oppose this amendment because, while they believe as a matter of policy this amendment is the right thing to do, they fear the Court may find that covering these special interest groups under the Snowe-Jeffords electioneering communication provision is unconstitutional. And, in all honesty, this is probably a question upon which reasonable reformers can disagree. But it is a debate worth having. I think this provision can withstand constitutional scrutiny, but it is probably not a slam- dunk. Still, in a moment I want to talk about why I think the courts will uphold this amendment. But before I do--this has to be in the summary of this amendment tomorrow, before people vote--I want to make one important point. I have drafted this amendment to be fully severable. I have drafted this amendment to be fully severable. In other words, no one can suggest that even if the courts find this amendment unconstitutional, it would drag down the rest of this bill or even jeopardize the other provisions of Snowe-Jeffords. This creates a totally new section under title II of this bill. Under the worst case scenario, if the Supreme Court rules that groups covered by my amendment cannot be constitutionally barred from using treasury funds for these sham issue ads, then the rest of the legislation will be completely unaffected. The rest of the legislation will be completely unaffected. And we are going to have a debate on severability anyway. This is what gets to me. Colleagues will come out here--they did it on the amendment to allow States to light a candle and move forward on public financing--and they will say: Oh, no, if you get a majority vote for your amendment, then it could bring down the bill. The argument is the majority of Senators vote for the amendment and then later on the same majority of the Senators who vote for the amendment say they are going to vote against the bill because they just voted for an amendment? Come on. I am just getting frustrated out here. Let's vote for these amendments on the basis of whether they are good policy and whether or not they represent reform. I want to talk about this bill from the point of view of the constitutional arguments. I do it with a little bit of trepidation. I am not a lawyer, but I can certainly marshal some evidence for my point of view. A February 20, 1998, a letter signed by 20 constitutional scholars, including a former legislative director of the ACLU, which analyzed the Snowe-Jeffords provision on electioneering argued that, even though the provision was written to exempt certain organizations, the organizations that I don't want to exempt from the ban on electioneering communication, such omission was not constitutionally necessary. And the scholars noted: The careful crafting of the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment stands in stark contrast to the clumsy and sweeping prohibition that Congress originally drafted in FECA. Unlike the FECA definition of electioneering, the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment would withstand constitutional challenge without having to resort to the device of narrowing the statute with magic words. 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 and PACs (and the most grassroots of nonprofit organizations) could engage in electioneering that falls within this broadened definition. It could impose fundraising restrictions, prohibiting individuals from pooling large contributions toward such electioneering. I argue colleagues can vote for this amendment in good conscience, but let me take a few moments to address in some detail and try to preempt some of the contentions we are likely to hear on the other side. The main argument that I think colleagues will hear advanced against the constitutionality of this amendment is based upon a 1986 Supreme Court case called the Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life. In that case, a 5-4 decision, the Court found a flier produced by the group that urged voters to vote ``pro-life'' and mentioned candidates could be paid for using the group's regular treasury funds. But I think the five reasons why the Court would find this amendment, which is different constitutionally, is: First, it is important to note tonight at the onset that this amendment--and indeed the Snowe-Jeffords motion already in the bill-- only covers broadcast communications. It does not cover print communications such as the one issue in the Massachusetts Citizens for Life. Indeed, the group argued that the flier 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 the regulation of election-related communication was overly burden to small grassroots organizations. Under our amendment--and under Snowe-Jeffords the group would have to raise $10,000 on broadcast ads that mention a candidate 60 days before the election before their provision would kick in. Third, the Federal law that the Court objected to was extremely broad. And the Court specifically cited that fact as one of the reasons it reached its decision, saying ``regulation that would produce such a result demands far more precision than [current law] provides.'' This amendment, which is patterned after the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, has that provision. Finally, and most importantly of all about this Court decision, the Court actually argued that the election communications of nonprofit corporations, such as the one covered in this amendment, could be regulated once it reached a certain level. In fact, this is what the Court said: Should MCFL's independent spending become 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. Since this decision, these groups have operated outside the law with impunity. Take, for example, the organization Republicans for Clean Air. Despite its innocuous name, this was an organization created for the sole purpose of promoting the candidacy of George W. Bush during the last Republican primary election. That is another example, again with an unlimited amount of advertising soft money. And we now have a loophole in this bill that will enable them to do it again. If you are going to say corporations and unions can't do this 60 days before an election--they can't finance these sham issue ads for soft money--it should apply to all of these groups and organizations. If you do not, it is not only unfair to unions and corporations, you are going to have a proliferation of these organizations. Republicans for Clean Air, Democrats for Clean Air, People Who Do Not Like Any Party For Clean Air, Liberals For Clean Air, Conservatives For Clean Air, Citizens For Dirty Air--I don't know what it will be. Another example is the Club For Growth. This was an outfit that ran attack ads against moderate Republican congressional candidates in the primary. Both groups, which would be covered by my amendment, are not covered by this bill. But they could clearly be banned from running these sham issue ads from their treasury funds under the Massachusetts Citizens for Life decision. It is that simple. By the way, this is amazing. In the 1986 decision, the Court concluded: The FEC maintains the inapplicability of current law to MCFL to open the door to massive, undisclosed spending by similar entities . . . We see no such danger. In all due respect to this Supreme Court, it is clear that the FEC had it exactly right and the Supreme Court had it exactly wrong. If we have seen money to the tune of $100 million this last election, it was these sham issue ads. I am going to say it won more time. I don't know whether this amendment will pass. I do not know whether it will get one vote. But I tell you this: I am going to be able to say later on that I at least tried to get this reform amendment passed. This is a huge loophole. In the Shays-Meehan bill, they plugged the loophole. In the original Feingold bill, they plugged the loophole. I will say it again. How can you say to corporations and to labor that they can't run these sham issue ads in the 60-day period before elections and the 30-day period before primaries but at the same time not apply that prohibition to every other group and organization, whatever cause they represent? And, No. 2, don't you realize that what everybody is going to do is set up another one of these groups and organizations? Then you will have a proliferation of influence groups and organizations. And individuals with all of this wealth and organizations that want to make these huge soft money contributions will make their soft money contributions to these sham issue ads run by all of these groups and organizations, which under this loophole can operate with impunity. We are going to take soft money out of parties and we are going to put it into the sham issue ads. Frankly, I don't want my colleague from Kentucky to count me as an ally. If I am going to be the subject of these kinds of poisonous ads, I would rather point my finger at the Republicans. Or if I were a Republican, I would rather point my finger at the Democrats. Or I would rather point my finger at the opposing candidates. I wouldn't want to be put in a position of not knowing exactly who these different groups and organizations were with all of this soft money pouring into these poisonous ads in the last 3 weeks before the election. That is the loophole that we have. I am not telling you that some of these groups and organizations, right, left, and center, are going to necessarily like this. But I am telling you, if you want to be consistent, that we have to support this amendment. If we don't want a huge loophole that is going to create maybe just as much soft money in politics as now, you have to support this amendment. If you want to try to get as much of the big money out of politics as possible, you have to support this amendment. If you hate bitter, personal, poison politics, you have to support this amendment. Because, before the Presiding Officer came in, I was saying that the Brennan Center said that 70 percent of the money spent by these sham ads by these groups and organizations is personal, negative, and going after people's character. I am glad to say that only about 20 percent of the candidates' ads do that. The Campaign Finance Institute at George Washington University in a February 2001 report found this to be the case. This is the quote. These undisclosed interest group communications are a major force in U.S. politics, not little oddities, or blips on a screen. Maybe when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in 1986 it was a blip on the screen. But today we are talking about tens of millions of dollars that go into these sham issue ads. These groups and organizations have become major players in our election. But the law doesn't hold them accountable. One more time: I think Senators are aware of this. Some of you have been candidates in which these special interest groups have come in and carpet bombed your State with these sham issue ads. Maybe they were run against you. Maybe they were run against your opponent. In some recent elections there have been more special interest group ads run than by the candidates of a party. May I make clear what is going on? We have to plug this loophole. If you just have the prohibition on the soft money to the party, and then you apply it to the sham issue ads by labor and corporations, and you don't apply it to any other group or organization--the 501(c)(4) groups and the 527 groups; the National Rifle Association, the Sierra Club, the Club for Growth, Republicans for Clean Air, and the list goes on and on--all you are doing is, No. 1, being patently unfair, by any standards of fairness, to corporations and labor, and, No. 2, you are inviting all of the soft money to go to these other groups and organizations. There will be a proliferation of them. We will have sham issue ads. There will be carpet bombing in all of our States and carpetbagging. Who knows where these ads come from? Even if all my other arguments on constitutionality fall--and I think they are pretty sound--I think there is an excellent reason to believe that the Court today would look at this issue in a completely different way than it did in 1986. As I said before my colleague came in, I have written a separate provision. This is a separate section of the bill. Even if this section were declared unconstitutional, I have written it so that it is severable, so it would not apply to Snowe-Jeffords or the rest of the bill. It does not put the rest of the bill in jeopardy at all. I think it is on constitutional ground, but it does not put the bill in jeopardy. We are going to have a vote on the whole issue of severability anyway. So no one can come out here and say, if this amendment is adopted, it will jeopardize the constitutionality of the bill. As I said before, I am getting tired of this other argument, which is that if a majority of the Members vote for the amendment, then this will bring the bill down. How does that happen--a majority of the Members vote for the amendment, and then a majority of the Members turn around and vote against the bill because of the amendment that the majority of the people just voted for? I do not think there is anything wrong with trying to strengthen legislation. I hope my colleagues will vote for this amendment. I want to shout it from the mountaintop, I want to be on record, I think it would be a major mistake not to close this loophole. If we do not close this loophole, we are going to see millions of dollars of soft money flow to these special interest groups, we are going to see more and more of these sham issue ads with their shrill, bitter attacks. I think people in the country, and people in Minnesota, are going to wonder, why didn't we fix this problem when we had a chance. I think this amendment adds significantly to this bill. It makes it a better bill. It is better for politics. It is better for public policy. It is better for all of us. And most important of all, it is better for the people in this country and it is better for the people in Minnesota. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, before we go to a quorum call, I would like to say one thing. I think it comes with being 5 foot 5\1/2\. I won't say that we not go into a quorum call, but if people oppose this amendment, they should come out and debate it, really. If they oppose this amendment, they should come out here and debate it. Mr. President, if we go into a quorum call equally divided, how much time do we have? Are we moving on to the Hollings amendment?

Mr. WELLSTONE. We move on to the Hollings amendment at what time?

Mr. WELLSTONE. OK. I say to my colleague, I will reserve that. I hope at some point in time before the vote tomorrow I will have an opportunity to respond to whatever criticism there might be of this amendment. I have done a lot of work getting ready for this amendment. I am ready for the debate. I am not talking about my colleague from Nevada, but I think the Senators who oppose this----

Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator. If I may, before we go into a quorum call, I will take just a couple minutes. I repeat one more time what I said about the whole question of constitutionality. On the whole question of the Snowe-Jeffords provision, of any other provision, there could be a challenge. This amendment uses the same sham issue test, ad test, as the Snowe-Jeffords language in the bill. I think it is constitutional. But if bulletproof constitutionality is the standard, then I do not know why we adopted the Domenici millionaire's amendment because I think that most definitely subjects this bill to a constitutional challenge--arguing that millionaires have the same first amendment rights as the rest of us. Most important of all, this amendment is fully severable. If the Court does strike it down, it is a separate provision; the rest of the bill will be unaffected. We are also going to have a separate vote on the whole question of severability. I certainly plan on voting for severability. So I want to make it clear, I hope Senators will vote on this on the merits of the proposal. Don't get the soft money out of this place-- parties--and let it shift to these sham ads. Don't have a prohibition that applies to corporations and unions and none of these other groups and organizations. It is not fair to them, and there will be a proliferation of these groups and organizations. The soft money will flow to them; and we are going to have these sham ads which are destructive and personal and bitter, and that is going to become American politics. This amendment plugs that loophole. Vote up or down on the basis of whether you think it is good public policy. Come out here, someone, and tell me why it is not good public policy. Well, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and the time will be equally divided.

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

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is a book. I don't agree with all of its analyses. It has a catchy title and was written by Jim Hightower. The title is, ``If The Gods Had Meant Us To Vote, They'd Have Given Us Candidates.'' The reason I mention this book is there is this one graphic that is interesting: The percentage of the American people who donate money to national political candidates. Ninety-six percent of the American people donate zero dollars. The percentage who donate up to $200 is 4 percent. The percentage who donate $200 to $1,000 is .09 percent. And the percentage who donate $1,000 to $10,000 is .05 percent. The percentage who donate from $10,000 to $100,000--and he points out in his book that you need a magnifying glass for this one--is .002 percent. The percentage who donated $100,000 or more--you need a Hubble telescope, he says, for this one--is .0001 percent. I use this graph from my friend Jim Hightower's book for two reasons. First of all, I have an amendment that tries to make sure a lot of this big money doesn't get--it is like Jell-O, you push it here, it shifts. It shifts from the party into the sham issue ads, not to the corporation, not to labor, but to every other group and organization. There will be a proliferation of it. This amendment plugs that loophole. The Shays-Meehan bill basically has the same approach. This was originally part of the Feingold-McCain bill. I made it clear this provision is 100-percent severable. This is a separate provision. In any case, we will have a debate on severability. I have made it clear it is hard to make the argument that when a majority vote, you can't make the argument that to vote for this reform would bring the bill down. I think we voted for other reforms that have a better chance of bringing down the bill. But it doesn't make sense. You say the majority voted for this amendment; now they are going to vote against the bill that has this amendment. The other point I want to make is with this graph, what we are doing here is voting down reform amendments, such as the amendment last week that would have allowed States to light a candle and move forward with some voluntary system of partial or public financing, or maybe vote down this amendment, which would be a terrible mistake. We are going to revisit this. This is going to be the loophole, I promise you. Let's do the job now, while we can. At the same time, they want to raise the hard money limits. Now we are supposed to feel better that we have gotten rid of a lot of soft money. That is what is significant about this effort by Senators McCain and Feingold. That is a significance that cannot be denied. But the problem is, it may shift to the sham issue ad. The other problem is, since 80 percent of the money spent in 2000 was hard money, PAC money included, you are going to raise the hard money limits. It is crystal clear what people are talking about with one another. Why are we going to do that? Why are we going to bring yet more big money into politics and make people running for office more dependent on the top 1 percent of the population? How did that get to be a reform? And then I hear Senators say, well, the point is, if you go from 1 to 3 or 2 to 6, we will have to spend only one-third of the time. Permit me to be skeptical. Everybody will be involved in this obscene money chase. They will be just chasing $3,000 contributions and $6,000 contributions. Somehow, people in Minnesota are going to be more reassured that we are putting more emphasis on the people who can afford to make $3,000 or $6,000, or maybe it will go from 1 to 2, or 2 to 4, and we are doing something that gives people more confidence in a political process that is more dependent upon the people who have the big bucks. I raise this because I want to know why I am not having a debate on my amendment. I would like to know why Senators don't come out here and speak against this amendment. I don't mind people disagreeing or having other points of view. That is what it is about. But I would be interested in the opponents coming out here and opposing this amendment. Don't just wait until the last 5 minutes and get up and say we oppose the amendment, or we oppose it because there has been an agreement to oppose the amendment, because it will bring down the bill, or because it is not constitutional. I am trying to deal with arguments, but maybe there are arguments I don't know about. This is very similar to what passed in the House. Well, it is my nature to like everybody and have a twinkle in my eye, so it looks as if in the world's greatest deliberative body, that there is not going to be a lot of deliberation or debate on this. I will have other amendments. This is a reform amendment, and this is the right thing to do. I yield the floor and reserve the balance of my time and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I think we are in a critical time regarding the direction and prospects for this bill. This is an important piece of legislation. It started out weaker than it once was. It is still a very important effort. The question is whether or not reformers will support amendments that are proreform that will improve the bill or whether we will go in the direction, for example, of taking the caps off hard money and having yet more big money in politics. This amendment improves this bill. This amendment says when you have the prohibition on soft money in parties and then you have a very important effort by Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords to also apply that prohibition of soft money to the sham issue ads when it comes to labor and corporations, in the Shays-Meehan bill, that prohibition on soft money applies to all the groups and organizations. In the other McCain-Feingold bill, it applied to all of these organizations. If you don't have that prohibition of soft money, you will take the soft money from parties and it will all shift to a proliferation of the groups and organizations that are going to carpet bomb our States with all these sham issue ads. This is a loophole that must be plugged. My amendment is what is in the Shays-Meehan bill. Third, colleagues, I want to be very clear. I have written this amendment in such a way that severability applies. Even if a Supreme Court in the future were to say this amendment is not constitutional, there is complete severability here and it would not apply to any other provisions, including the Jeffords-Snowe provision. Also, looking over at my colleague from the State of Tennessee, Senator Thompson, we accepted the millionaire amendment which will in all likelihood be challenged by the courts. That is why I am so clear there is severability of principle that applies to this amendment. Finally, if we are going to pass this bill and we are going to try to get some of the big money out of the politics, please let's not, when we have a chance to fix a problem, not fix it. Don't let the soft money no longer apply to parties and all shifts to these sham ads. Let's be consistent. I do not believe that an effort to improve this bill is an effort to kill this bill. The argument that if the majority of Senators vote for this amendment and improve the bill, then later on the majority of Senators who voted for this amendment will vote against the bill that the majority just voted for on the amendment, doesn't make any sense. I have heard this argument too many times. We ought to fix this problem. I hope I will have your support.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Louisiana, 1 minute to the Senator from Illinois, and reserve the remainder of my time for myself and Senator Harkin.

Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank my colleague. The Senator from Illinois?

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, how much do I still have?

Mr. WELLSTONE. I am glad to yield.

Mr. WELLSTONE. This is a reform. The soft money, it doesn't let it channel into all these sham ads. It makes the bill stronger, I say to my colleagues.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleague yield? That amendment applied to broadcasting. The Senator knows that.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure that private health insurance companies cover the costs for drug and alcohol addiction treatment services at the same level that they pay for treatment for other disease. The purpose of this bill is to end discrimination in insurance coverage for drug and alcohol addition treatment. This bill, entitled Fairness in Treatment: The Drug and Alcohol Addition Recovery Act of 2001, offers the necessary provisions to provide this assurance. For too long, the problem of drug and alcohol addiction has been viewed as a moral issue, rather than as a disease. Too often, a cloak of secrecy has surrounded this problem, causing people who have this disease to feel ashamed and afraid to seek treatment for their symptoms for fear that they will be seen as admitting to a moral failure, or a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of alcoholics and addicts that are intended to be humorous or derogatory, and only reinforce the biases against people who have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. I cannot imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has another kind of chronic illness, a heart problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes. It has been shown that some forms of addiction have a genetic basis, and yet we still try to deny the serious medical nature of this disease. We think of those with this disease as somehow different from us. We forget that someone who has a problem with drugs or alcohol can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us at work or on the subway, or like someone in our own family. In fact, it is likely that most of us know someone who has experienced drug and alcohol addiction, within our families or our circle of friends or coworkers. Alcoholism and drug addiction are painful, private struggles with staggering public costs. A study prepared by Brandeis University's Schneider Institute for Health Policy estimated that untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year. This estimate includes costs for alcohol addiction treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. The medical effects of drug addiction are far-reaching. According to the Physician leadership on National Drug Policy, heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer, and stroke. A 1996 article in Scientific American estimated that excessive alcohol consumption causes more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. Of these deaths, 24 percent are due to drunken driving, resulting in untold suffering and tragic loss of life. We know that addiction to alcohol and other drugs contribute to other problems as well. Addictive substances have the potential for destroying the person who is addicted, their family, and their other relationships. We know, for example, that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. If the woman who was addicted to alcohol could receive proper treatment, fetal alcohol syndrome for her baby would be 100 percent preventable, and more than 12,000 infants born in the U.S. each year would not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, with its irreversible physical and mental damage. We know too of the devastation caused by addiction when violence between people is one of the consequences. A 1998 SAMHSA report outlined the links between domestic violence and substance abuse. We know from clinical reports that 25-50 percent of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have substance abuse problems. The report recognized the link between the victim of abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, and recommended that after the woman's safety has been addressed, the next step would be to help with providing treatment for her addiction as a step toward independence and health, and toward the prevention of the consequences for the children who suffer the same abuse either directly, or indirectly by witnessing spousal violence. People who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. According to the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by SAMHSA, nearly 73 percent of all illegal drug users in the United States are employed. This number represents 6.7 million full- time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers. Although many of these workers could and should have insurance benefits that would cover treatment for this disease, they do not. In addition to the health problems resulting from the failure to treat the illness, there are other serious consequences affecting the workplace, such as lost productivity, high employee turnover, low employee morale, mistakes, accidents, and increased worker's compensation insurance and health insurance premiums, all results of untreated addiction problems. Whether you are a corporate CEO or a small business owner, there are simple, effective steps that can be taken, including providing insurance coverage for this disease, ready access to treatment and workplace policies that support treatment, that can reduce these human and economic costs. We know from the outstanding conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. We know that treatment of addiction is as success as treatment of other chronic disease such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. We know that drug treatment reduces drug use by 40-60 percent. And we know that treatment results in other positive changes in behavior, such as fewer psychological symptoms and increased work productivity. According to American Airlines, 75-85 percent of employees who received alcohol and other drug treatment remained abstinent from drugs during their one year follow up. We must do more to prevent this illness and to treat those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Over the past several years, the principle of parity in insurance coverage for alcohol and drug rehabilitation and treatment has received the strong support of the White House, the Office for National Drug Control Policy, Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Former President and Mrs. Gerald Ford, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Kaiser Permanente Health Plans and many leading figures in medicine, business, government, journalism and entertainment who have successfully fought the battle of addiction with the help of treatment. Hearings held in the 106th Congress by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Labor, Education, Labor, and Pensions highlighted the recent major advances in scientific information about the disease; the biological causes of addiction; the effectiveness and low cost of treatment; and many painful, personal stories of people, including children, who have been denied treatment. Recent hearings in the Judiciary Committee have also emphasized a greater Federal role in funding treatment and prevention programs. We know that the failure of insurance companies to provide treatment can sometimes have devastating results. In a 1999 story, the New York Times highlighted the tragic suicide of a young man who desperately sought inpatient treatment care for his drug addiction and fought for 8 months to have the plan authorize the treatment that was in fact included in as part of his benefits. The authorization came through, but too late. He had died 3 weeks earlier from a drug overdose. This kind of denial of care for addiction treatment is not at all unique. The 1998 Hay Group Report on Employer Health Care Dollars Spent on Substance Abuse showed that from 1988 through 1998 the value of substance abuse treatment benefits decreased by 74.5 percent, as compared to a 11.5 percent decrease for overall health care benefits. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes. This legislation will take an important step in this direction by requiring that health insurance plans eliminate discrimination for addiction treatment. The costs for this are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of 1 percent, or less than $1 per member per month, without even considering any of the obvious savings, that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses, and that these savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care, including private insurance plans, must share this responsibility. This legislation does not mandate that health insurers offer substance addiction treatment benefits. What it does is prohibit discrimination by health plans who offer substance addiction treatment from placing unfair and life-threatening limitations on caps, access, or financial requirements for addiction treatment that are different from other medical and surgical services. We must move forward now to vigorously address the serious and life- threatening problem of drug and alcohol addiction in our country. It is long past time that insurance companies do their fair share in bearing the responsibility for treating this disease. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation that will ensure that private health insurance companies cover the costs for drug and alcohol addiction treatment services at the same level that they pay for treatment for other disease. The purpose of this bill is to end discrimination in insurance coverage for drug and alcohol addition treatment. This bill, entitled Fairness in Treatment: The Drug and Alcohol Addition Recovery Act of 2001, offers the necessary provisions to provide this assurance. For too long, the problem of drug and alcohol addiction has been viewed as a moral issue, rather than as a disease. Too often, a cloak of secrecy has surrounded this problem, causing people who have this disease to feel ashamed and afraid to seek treatment for their symptoms for fear that they will be seen as admitting to a moral failure, or a weakness in character. We have all seen portrayals of alcoholics and addicts that are intended to be humorous or derogatory, and only reinforce the biases against people who have problems with drug and alcohol addiction. I cannot imagine this type of portrayal of someone who has another kind of chronic illness, a heart problem, or who happens to carry a gene that predisposes them to diabetes. It has been shown that some forms of addiction have a genetic basis, and yet we still try to deny the serious medical nature of this disease. We think of those with this disease as somehow different from us. We forget that someone who has a problem with drugs or alcohol can look just like the person we see in the mirror, or the person who is sitting next to us at work or on the subway, or like someone in our own family. In fact, it is likely that most of us know someone who has experienced drug and alcohol addiction, within our families or our circle of friends or coworkers. Alcoholism and drug addiction are painful, private struggles with staggering public costs. A study prepared by Brandeis University's Schneider Institute for Health Policy estimated that untreated addiction costs America $400 billion per year. This estimate includes costs for alcohol addiction treatment and prevention costs, as well as costs associated with related illnesses, reduced job productivity or lost earnings, and other costs to society such as crime and social welfare programs. The medical effects of drug addiction are far-reaching. According to the Physician leadership on National Drug Policy, heavy drinking contributes to illness in each of the top three causes of death: heart disease, cancer, and stroke. A 1996 article in Scientific American estimated that excessive alcohol consumption causes more than 100,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. Of these deaths, 24 percent are due to drunken driving, resulting in untold suffering and tragic loss of life. We know that addiction to alcohol and other drugs contribute to other problems as well. Addictive substances have the potential for destroying the person who is addicted, their family, and their other relationships. We know, for example, that fetal alcohol syndrome is the leading known cause of mental retardation. If the woman who was addicted to alcohol could receive proper treatment, fetal alcohol syndrome for her baby would be 100 percent preventable, and more than 12,000 infants born in the U.S. each year would not suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome, with its irreversible physical and mental damage. We know too of the devastation caused by addiction when violence between people is one of the consequences. A 1998 SAMHSA report outlined the links between domestic violence and substance abuse. We know from clinical reports that 25-50 percent of men who commit acts of domestic violence also have substance abuse problems. The report recognized the link between the victim of abuse and use of alcohol and drugs, and recommended that after the woman's safety has been addressed, the next step would be to help with providing treatment for her addiction as a step toward independence and health, and toward the prevention of the consequences for the children who suffer the same abuse either directly, or indirectly by witnessing spousal violence. People who have the disease of addiction can be found throughout our society. According to the 1997 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse published by SAMHSA, nearly 73 percent of all illegal drug users in the United States are employed. This number represents 6.7 million full- time workers and 1.6 million part-time workers. Although many of these workers could and should have insurance benefits that would cover treatment for this disease, they do not. In addition to the health problems resulting from the failure to treat the illness, there are other serious consequences affecting the workplace, such as lost productivity, high employee turnover, low employee morale, mistakes, accidents, and increased worker's compensation insurance and health insurance premiums, all results of untreated addiction problems. Whether you are a corporate CEO or a small business owner, there are simple, effective steps that can be taken, including providing insurance coverage for this disease, ready access to treatment and workplace policies that support treatment, that can reduce these human and economic costs. We know from the outstanding conducted at NIH, through the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, that treatment for drug and alcohol addiction can be effective. We know that treatment of addiction is as success as treatment of other chronic disease such as diabetes, hypertension, and asthma. We know that drug treatment reduces drug use by 40-60 percent. And we know that treatment results in other positive changes in behavior, such as fewer psychological symptoms and increased work productivity. According to American Airlines, 75-85 percent of employees who received alcohol and other drug treatment remained abstinent from drugs during their one year follow up. We must do more to prevent this illness and to treat those who are addicted to drugs and alcohol. Over the past several years, the principle of parity in insurance coverage for alcohol and drug rehabilitation and treatment has received the strong support of the White House, the Office for National Drug Control Policy, Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Former President and Mrs. Gerald Ford, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Kaiser Permanente Health Plans and many leading figures in medicine, business, government, journalism and entertainment who have successfully fought the battle of addiction with the help of treatment. Hearings held in the 106th Congress by the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Committee on Labor, Education, Labor, and Pensions highlighted the recent major advances in scientific information about the disease; the biological causes of addiction; the effectiveness and low cost of treatment; and many painful, personal stories of people, including children, who have been denied treatment. Recent hearings in the Judiciary Committee have also emphasized a greater Federal role in funding treatment and prevention programs. We know that the failure of insurance companies to provide treatment can sometimes have devastating results. In a 1999 story, the New York Times highlighted the tragic suicide of a young man who desperately sought inpatient treatment care for his drug addiction and fought for 8 months to have the plan authorize the treatment that was in fact included in as part of his benefits. The authorization came through, but too late. He had died 3 weeks earlier from a drug overdose. This kind of denial of care for addiction treatment is not at all unique. The 1998 Hay Group Report on Employer Health Care Dollars Spent on Substance Abuse showed that from 1988 through 1998 the value of substance abuse treatment benefits decreased by 74.5 percent, as compared to a 11.5 percent decrease for overall health care benefits. Addiction to alcohol and drugs is a disease that affects the brain, the body, and the spirit. We must provide adequate opportunities for the treatment of addiction in order to help those who are suffering and to prevent the health and social problems that it causes. This legislation will take an important step in this direction by requiring that health insurance plans eliminate discrimination for addiction treatment. The costs for this are very low. A 1999 study by the Rand Corporation found that the cost to managed care health plans is now only about $5 per person per year for unlimited substance abuse treatment benefits to employees of big companies. A 1997 Milliman and Robertson study found that complete substance abuse treatment parity would increase per capita health insurance premiums by only one half of 1 percent, or less than $1 per member per month, without even considering any of the obvious savings, that will result from treatment. Several studies have shown that for every $1 spent on treatment, more than $7 is saved in other health care expenses, and that these savings are in addition to the financial and other benefits of increased productivity, as well as participation in family and community life. Providing treatment for addiction also saves millions of dollars in the criminal justice system. But for treatment to be effective and helpful throughout our society all systems of care, including private insurance plans, must share this responsibility. This legislation does not mandate that health insurers offer substance addiction treatment benefits. What it does is prohibit discrimination by health plans who offer substance addiction treatment from placing unfair and life-threatening limitations on caps, access, or financial requirements for addiction treatment that are different from other medical and surgical services. We must move forward now to vigorously address the serious and life- threatening problem of drug and alcohol addiction in our country. It is long past time that insurance companies do their fair share in bearing the responsibility for treating this disease. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I do not oppose this amendment, but, as several of my colleagues have noted, it is for reasons far different than the sponsors of this amendment have put forward. This amendment deletes Section 304 of the campaign finance reform bill. That section does two things. First, it affirms the obligation that Beck places on unions to afford non-members who pay fees under a union security clause the opportunity to object to paying for activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment. Second it clarifies the so-called ``objection procedures'' required. These are obligations placed on unions under current law. Keeping the provisions in the bill or taking them out will not change unions' lawful obligations to non-members. Indeed, my understanding is that provisions such as Section 304 have been inserted in campaign finance reform measures for quite some time largely because some of my colleagues wanted assurance that unions would obey the law. The fact is that Beck has been the law for almost 13 years. Since Beck became law every union has created procedures to ensure the necessary opt-out procedures. This demonstrates to me that the provision is unnecessary--and has been for some time. I do, however, want to take issue with the Senator from Kentucky's statement to the effect that Section 304 as currently drafted ``eviscerates'' Beck. The Beck Court did not reach the conclusions my colleague suggests. What the Court concluded was that unions were not permitted ``over the objections of dues-paying nonmember employees, to expend funds so collected on activities unrelated to collective bargaining, contract administration, or grievance adjustment . . .'' Hence it created the obligation on the part of the unions to offer opportunities to object and objection procedures that, as noted, are the subject of Section 304. In sum, since Beck is the current law, and Section 304 does not change that fact, I have no objections to removing it from the bill.

Mr. WELLSTONE

Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, do we have any time left?

Mr. WELLSTONE. All right.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Ten minutes, and I may not take a full 10 minutes.

Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will tell you why I may not take the full 10 minutes. I had an opportunity to hear Senator Levin, and he said much of what I wanted to say except he said it better than I can. I do want to be really clear that this ``paycheck protection'' amendment that all of us have been expecting has taken an even more egregious and cynical form than I had contemplated in all my nightmares. This is not about sham issue ads. It is important to go after soft money that goes into such ads by any kind of organization. This is not about parity between corporations and unions, for all of the reasons Senator Levin outlined. This is, however, going after political activity defined as ``voter registration activity, voter identification, or get out the vote, public communication that refers to a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.'' I can understand why, given what we have been doing on the floor of the Senate over the last couple of weeks, such as, for example, in 10 hours overturning 10 years of work to have a rule to provide some protection for people against repetitive stress injury--I can understand why my colleagues would not want unions, or any kind of organization that represents workers, communicating with those workers. This is a gag rule amendment. That is what this is about. Basically, this is the issue: This amendment is all about going after a democratic, with a small ``d''--may I please make that distinction--a democratic institution, with a small ``d,'' and denying that associational democratic institution the right to represent and serve its members. What my colleagues are worried about, what this amendment is a reflection of, is the concern of some of my colleagues that this particular democratic organization, with a small ``d''--a union, or it can be any organization--will be able to serve its members. Frankly, we in the Senate ought to be for all democratic, with a small ``d,'' associational organizations, and we should be all about supporting their rights to serve their members, not trying to gag them, trying to block communication. My colleagues are so worried that these associations and these organizations of people who do not give the millions of dollars will be able to, God forbid, be involved in voter registration activity, get-out-the-vote efforts, internal communication, and grassroots politics. This is the ultimate anti grassroots politics, anti association, anti group and organization, anti rank-and-file member, anti people communicating with one another, anti people without the big bucks through their association being able to have some power and some say and some clout in American politics. This amendment should be roundly defeated. I yield the floor.

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