Mike DeWine

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 69, submitted earlier today by Senators Bayh and Lugar.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this bill at this time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Budget Committee, Senators Domenici and Conrad, for working with me, Senator Graham from Florida, Senator Snowe from Maine, and so many others in support of our amendment that would provide additional assistance for one of our most important agencies, the U.S. Coast Guard. The amendment we have offered would provide an additional $250 million increase in Coast Guard operating expenses above the fiscal year 2002 level recommended by the President. The House has included this $250 million increase in its budget resolution, and I am pleased that the Senate will do the same. Over the past few years, our Coast Guard has faced significant funding shortfalls, which are directly impacting its operations on an annual basis. Additional funding, would eliminate Coast Guard vessel and aircraft spare parts problems, improve personnel training, fund new Department of Defense entitlements, and run drug interdiction operations at optimal levels. Because of funding shortfalls in the Fiscal Year 2001 budget, the Coast Guard has been forced to reduce operations by 10 percent in the second quarter of this year. If funding shortfalls go unaddressed, the Coast Guard anticipates cutting operations by 30 percent in the third and fourth quarters. To address budget shortfalls and restore vital operations, the Coast Guard has requested $91 million in supplemental funding from the Office of Management and Budget. The same thing happened last year. The Coast Guard was forced to reduce operations by 30 percent last summer, and Congress again had to come to the rescue with $77 million in supplemental operating funding. The Coast Guard has developed an unhealthy budgetary dependence on emergency supplementals to pay for normal ongoing mission operations. The recent enactment of two successive Defense Authorization bills, which increased personnel costs dramatically, has exacerbated the Coast Guard's funding problems even further. These bills mandated pay raises, new medical entitlements, recruiting and retention incentives, and other entitlements that far exceeded what was appropriated in the Transportation Appropriations Bill for the Coast Guard. The money to fund these initiatives doesn't just magically appear. It must come from someplace. And, what usually happens is that the Coast Guard either absorbs these costs directly from within its own budget, creating service-related cutbacks, or it simply doesn't match benefits provided to other defense personnel. Neither scenario is ideal, and in the end, it is the Coast Guard personnel who lose. The Coast Guard is reaching the point where it is stretched so thin and the condition of its equipment is so poor that it is essentially cannibalizing equipment for parts, deferring maintenance, and working its people overtime--and this is just to sustain daily operations. This doesn't even take into account rapidly rising fuel costs, which have been exacerbating problems this fiscal year. We need to provide the Coast Guard with the resources necessary to restore normal operations through the normal budget and appropriations process. We need to adequately fund the Coast Guard on an annual basis so the American people can have the services that they not only expect, but require from our Coast Guard. Drug interdiction is one of those services and one of our Coast Guard's most important missions. As my colleagues all know, the scourge of drugs is a national and international challenge that threatens our communities here at home, as well as many fragile democracies in the Caribbean and South and Central America. I am very pleased to report, however, that with the help of additional funding provided by the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act, WHDEA, which my dear friend, the late Senator Coverdell and Senators Grassley, Graham, and I sponsored, our Coast Guard has increased cocaine seizures by an astounding 60 percent over the last two years. As my colleagues may recall, we passed the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act as part of the Fiscal Year 1999 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Through this legislation, we were able to allocate an additional $844 million to upgrade U.S. counter-drug and interdiction programs. Out of this funding, the Coast Guard received $276 million. Since receiving this added investment, our Coast Guard went from seizing 82,623 pounds of cocaine in Fiscal Year 1998 to seizing 132,800 pounds in Fiscal Year 2000 at an estimated street value of over $4 billion. That amount represents the value of nearly the entire Coast Guard annual budget. With adequate resources, this is the kind of success we can expect because we are able to level the playing field with the drug smugglers. In other words, the drug smugglers in the past have had the upper hand in terms of technology and resources to transport drugs into the United States. By giving the Coast Guard additional funding, we are giving them the means to fight against the drug traffickers, and the means to beat them. Resources allow the Coast Guard to seek innovative solutions to improve the efficiency of counter-drug operations in drug transit zones. Take for example, Operation New Frontier, which was conducted mainly in the Western Caribbean (Windward Passage, off of Haiti, Jamaica, and Colombia), and tested the concept of the Coast Guard's ``use of force'' helicopters and used Over-the-Horizon cutter boats to successfully seize six ``go-fast'' drug-smuggling vessels in six attempts. This is an unprecedented success rate. Similarly, the Coast Guard's Deployable Pursuit Boats, DPBs, high-speed, 38-foot, 840-horsepower fiberglass boats--have been operating as another tool to stem the threat posed by drug smugglers' ``go-fast'' boats. But unfortunately, despite recent successes, the fact is that we need to do more to help our Coast Guard in the long-term. Past funding shortfalls for the Coast Guard have had negative impacts on its operations. We need to do more. We need to make sure that every year our Coast Guard receives the funds it needs to continue its high level of service and necessary counter-drug operations. The Coast Guard must be able to perform routine and emergency operations, while still providing vital training and maintenance functions. The Coast Guard must do this within their annual budget and without placing an unreasonable workload on its people. I stand ready to continue working with my colleagues to make sure our Coast Guard has the funding and the support to meet its missions now and well into the future. amendment no. 244

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I agree wholeheartedly. I appreciate the comments from the Senator from Massachusetts, and I would like to mention a few more reasons why these funds are so important. Fully funding the GME program will enable our independent children's teaching hospitals to sustain their core missions medical care, teaching and research which benefit all children. These children's hospitals serve as the health care safety net for low income children and are often the sole regional providers of many critical pediatric services. Their teaching mission is also essential. Even though they comprise less than one percent of all hospitals, children's hospitals train 5 percent of all physicians, nearly 30 percent of all pediatricians, almost 50 percent of all pediatric specialists, and two- thirds of all pediatric critical care doctors. The research that our country's pediatric academic medical centers perform is also essential and the need for more pediatric researchers is growing. Fully funding the GME program within our children's teaching hospitals is an investment in children's health that I would urge my colleagues to support.

Mr. DeWINE. I thank my friend from Ohio for yielding, and agree with his comments. The reason why we had to settle on limited language in last year's defense authorization bill is mainly because our initial legislation required mandatory, or direct spending, which must be provided for as part of the budget resolution. The actual direct spending involved, according to the Congressional Budget Office, amounts to $82 million through fiscal year 2011. So, as my colleague from Ohio would agree, we are seeking a minimal amount to provide the Defense Department with the maximum flexibility needed to meet its workforce challenges. We are hopeful that the Bush administration will call for this financing as part of the fiscal year 2002 defense budget, and for that reason, we have been working with the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, to ensure that the necessary direct spending amounts are assumed in this year's concurrent resolution. I see Chairman Domenici on the floor, and will yield to him at this time.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. I have no objection.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, let me briefly respond to my colleague from Vermont. Look, no one likes these ads. No one likes to be attacked. My friend said he is disturbed by these ads; they say terrible things, and they are inaccurate. I understand that. All of us have had that experience. All of us have been in tough campaigns. All of us have been attacked by what we consider to be unjustifiable. All of us have faced attacks where people have said things that we just shudder about and just can't believe that it is running on television. Our families do not like it. Our mothers do not like it. Our kids do not like it. But do you know something. That is part of the system. That is part of democracy. This is not some other country where we restrict campaigns and what can be said at the time campaigns take place. It might be easier. It might be cleaner. It might be easier to look at. No one ever said democracy was easy and wasn't sometimes messy. But that is the first amendment. That is not a justification to put a clamp on freedom of speech. My friends talk about disclosure. That is not the biggest problem with this bill. It is not a disclosure problem so much as it is a restriction on free speech within 60 days of an election. Let me repeat what it does. Within 60 days of an election, you can't run an ad that mentions a candidate's name or that has the candidate's image unless you are the candidate for that particular office. That is what it says. It is wrong to make it unconstitutional. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. DeWINE. I yield.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in a few moments the Senate will have an opportunity to vote on an amendment I have offered along with Senator Hatch, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, Senator Brownback, and Senator Roberts. This amendment is a very simple amendment. It strikes title II from this bill. This will be the last opportunity that Members of this Senate will have to strike what is blatantly and obviously a unconstitutional provision of this bill. We all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. I think it is one thing to say we are not sure how a court is going to rule. That is certainly true. We are never totally sure. It is one thing to say a provision of a bill may be held unconstitutional. But I do not know how anyone can look at the amended bill, which is no longer Snowe-Jeffords--it is now Snowe-Jeffords- Wellstone; it is fundamentally different--I don't know how anyone can look at this bill and not know it is blatantly unconstitutional. I think everyone knows when it leaves here it will be held unconstitutional and that is why we will have, later today, a debate about this whole issue of severability. We would not have to have that debate if people did not believe this provision is unconstitutional. What does it do? What does Snowe-Jeffords-Wellstone do? What will the bill say unless we amend it by striking this provision? It will draw an arbitrary, capricious, and I submit an unconstitutional line in the sand 60 days before an election, and it will say that within 60 days of an election free speech goes out the window. No longer can a corporation, no longer can a labor union, and most important and clearly the most unconstitutional part, no longer will citizen groups that come together to run ads on TV or radio be able to do that if they mention the candidate's name. That is an unbelievable restriction on free speech at a time when it is the most important, when it has the most impact--60 days before the election--and in the most effective way, on TV and radio. This Congress will be saying in this bill, if we pass it and if we keep this provision in, that we are going to censure that speech, we are going to become the free political speech police corps and we are going to swoop in and say you cannot do that. Groups that want to run an ad criticizing Mike DeWine or criticizing any other candidate will then go into a local TV station to run an ad talking about an issue and mentioning the name or putting up our picture on the screen and will no longer be able to do that. The station manager will have to say: I am sorry, you can't run that ad. People will say: Why not? The Congress passed a ban on your ability to do that. That is clearly unconstitutional. What is the criterion? What have the courts held necessary, before Congress can abridge freedom of speech? There are certain areas where clearly we can do it and the courts have held we can do it. What is the test? There must be a compelling State interest to do it. If it is done, it must be done in the least restrictive way. Least restrictive? What could be more restrictive than to say you can't go on TV, you can't communicate to people? If this remains in the bill, we will end up with a situation in this country where the only people who can speak in the last 60 days, to the electorate, will be the Tom Brokaws of the world, the TV commentators, the radio commentators, and the candidates. This is not a closed system. It is not an exclusive club. It is something in which everyone should be able to participate. That is the essence of free speech. The courts have held all kinds of things to be part of free speech. But the most pure form of free speech, the thing that absolutely must be protected, the thing that obviously the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they wrote the first amendment, is political speech in the context of a campaign when we talk about issues and when we talk about candidates. I do not like a lot of these ads. My colleagues who come to the floor--and by the way, every colleague who came to the floor to oppose the DeWine amendment, everyone except Mr. Wellstone--voted against the Wellstone amendment. Every single one of them did. I don't know why they did. I know why Mr. Edwards did. He said it was unconstitutional, and I think everybody in this Chamber knows it is unconstitutional. But that is what the restriction will be. It is blatantly unconstitutional. It does not pass the Supreme Court's test of a compelling State interest. What is the compelling State interest to smash free speech within 60 days before an election? I will stop at this point and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, we will be voting in just a few minutes. Let me make a couple of comments. First of all, the disclosure that is required in this bill is constitutionally suspect. I don't think there is any doubt about that. But that is not the worst part of this bill. My colleague from Maine keeps skipping over what is the worst part. The worst part is this. Let's go through one more time what it does because it is so unbelievable. It basically draws an unconstitutional line of 60 days before the election that says labor unions can't run ads, corporations can't run ads, nor can any other group run ads if a candidate's name is mentioned or if a candidate's image appears on the screen. Yes, it is political speech. Yes, they are trying to affect an election. They are trying to affect the political discourse as the most effective way to do it right before the election when everyone is paying attention. This bill arbitrarily says that at the most crucial time when free speech and political speech is the most important, we are going to arbitrarily say you can no longer do it. It is absolutely unbelievable. This is the last time on this vote that Members of the Senate are going to have the opportunity to strike out what obviously the courts will later strike out. That is not Snowe-Jeffords, but it is now Snowe- Jeffords-Wellstone. It is unconstitutional. A vote for the DeWine amendment is a vote for freedom of speech, for the first amendment, and for the Constitution. I ask my friends when they come to the floor in just a minute to remember the oath that all of us took to support the Constitution. It is one thing for us to vote on things that are close. This one is not close. This one is unconstitutional. It needs to come out of the bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. DeWINE. I am not prepared to enter into a time agreement. I will tell my colleague that I don't anticipate it will be very long. We have a couple of speakers and we will be done. I don't want to enter into a time agreement, but I think the projection we see of votes at 6:30, I certainly think we will make that.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I have used about 30 minutes of my time and I think at this point I yield the opponents some of their time. For the information of Members of the Senate, we have one or two speakers who will not speak very long, and we will be prepared to vote.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, this is a very simple amendment, which I will explain in just a moment. I offer it on behalf of myself, Senator Hatch, Senator Hutchinson from Arkansas, Senator Brownback, and Senator Roberts. Our amendment is very simple. It is a motion to strike title II, the Wellstone-Snowe-Jeffords provision from the underlying McCain-Feingold bill. Mr. President, this amendment is necessary because title II draws an arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional line--a line that abridges the first amendment rights of U.S. citizens. Under title II, citizens groups--and I emphasize that this is currently in the bill and unless our amendment is adopted, it will stay in the bill--American citizens would be prohibited from discussing on television or radio a candidate's voting records and positions within 60 days before a general election or 30 days before a primary. That is right, Mr. President, and Members of the Senate. It would be illegal for citizens of this country, at the most crucial time, when free speech matters the most, when political speech matters the most-- that is, right before an election--this Congress would be saying, and the ``thought police'' would be saying, the ``political speech police'' would be saying that you cannot mention a candidate's name; you cannot criticize that candidate by name. It silences the voices of the people. It silences them at a time when it is most important for those voices to be heard. It restricts citizens' ability to use the broadcast media to hold incumbents accountable for their voting records. It says essentially that the only people who have a right to the most effective form of political speech, the only people allowed to use television or radio to freely express an opinion or to take a stand on an issue when it counts, when it is within days of an election, are the candidates themselves and the news media. But under the way the bill is written now, not the people--just candidates and the news media. Everyone else would be silenced by this unconstitutional, arbitrary line. Let's suppose for a minute that title II stays in the bill and it becomes law. Under this scenario, if you are a candidate running for Federal office and it is 60 days before the election, yes, you can go on the radio or the local television station and broadcast your message. If you are lucky enough to be Dan Rather, Tom Brokaw, or Peter Jennings, or the person who anchors the 6 o'clock news or 7 o'clock news in Dayton, OH; or in Steubenville, OH; or in Cleveland, you can also talk about the issues and candidates, and you can talk about them together. You can talk about the candidate's voting record. But if you don't fall into either one of these two categories--if you are part of a citizens group wanting to enter the political debate and engage in meaningful discourse, using the most wide-sweeping medium for reaching the people which is TV, under this provision you cannot do that. You simply cannot enter the debate using television or radio as a mode of communication. Title II of this bill makes that illegal. So if you would go in to buy an ad and say you want to criticize where the ad mentions the name of a candidate who is up for election within that 60-day period, the local broadcaster would have to turn to you and say, no, he cannot accept that. It is illegal because the U.S. Congress has said it is illegal. Title II would make it illegal for citizens groups to take to the airwaves and even mention a political candidate by name. It would make it illegal to state something as simple as to tell the voters whether or not a candidate voted yes or no on an issue. It basically just throws the rights of citizens groups out of the political ring. It throws them right out of the ring. I believe that is wrong and I think it is also unconstitutional. It represents a direct violation of the people's right to free political speech, the right guaranteed to us by the first amendment of the Bill of Rights in the Constitution of the United States of America. The language in this bill picks the time when political speech is the most important and restricts who can use that political speech, and who can engage in that political speech. Let me tell you an example from the real world. It is an example that could have involved me. I have been a proponent for something in Ohio we refer to as the Darby Refuge. It would be a wildlife refuge in central Ohio. I won't trouble or bother Members of the Senate now with the reasons why I have been a strong advocate for this, but I have been. I think it is the right thing to do. There are also citizens in the State of Ohio who live in that area of the State who don't think it is such a good idea. They have exercised their first amendment rights time after time to explain to me and to other citizens in Ohio who are driving down the highway that it is not such a good idea, and that this proposed wildlife refuge is not the thing to do. We have seen signs up--and I think they are still up-- which say ``No Darby, Dump DeWine.'' We have seen signs that say ``Get Mike DeWine Out of my Backyard.'' That was on a T-shirt. Other signs have been around also. Obviously, I didn't particularly like the fact that these signs were there. What was my response to people when they said, What about those signs? I tried to explain why I was for the Darby, but I also said: The first amendment is there; it is alive and well, and people are exercising their constitutional rights. Let us suppose this citizens group--actually there are two formal citizens groups that oppose the Darby and have been very vocal about it. Let us suppose that within 60 days prior to the last November election--I was up for reelection last November --let us suppose they had put some money together, and let us suppose they went to the Columbus TV stations and the Dayton TV stations. Let us also suppose this title II was law. Let us suppose they took their money and went to buy an ad, and what they wanted to talk about in that ad was why the refuge was a bad idea. Let us suppose also they wanted to convey another message, and that message was: Call Senator Mike DeWine and tell him he is wrong. Call Senator Mike DeWine and tell him that you oppose the refuge and you think he should as well. I would not have liked that. It probably would have irritated me. But they have a constitutional right to do that if they want to do it. Under the bill as now written, they could not do that. The TV station in Dayton or the TV station in Columbus would have had to turn to them and say: Oh, no, you cannot say that; there are only certain things you can say. You can talk about the refuge being a bad idea, but you cannot mention Mike DeWine's name. That is when it would become apparent to these citizens that their first amendment rights were being abridged, and the person who ran the TV station, the general manager, would have had to tell them: Congress said you cannot run this type of ad. I submit that is wrong. As much as those of us who have been in public office and who have faced tough elections do not like criticism, as much as sometimes we think political ads that attack us are unfair, as much as we sometimes think they distort, as much as sometimes we think they only tell half the story, that is just part of the political process. That is what the first amendment is all about. The fact is that today in a State such as Ohio, my home State, if you want to reach the people of the State, there is really only one way to effectively do it, and that is the use of television. You have to be on the air, and you have to get your message across. That is true whether you are running for office and you are the candidate or whether you are a group of citizens who decide they want to convey a message, they feel strongly about an issue and want to link that issue with a person who is running for office. Today they can do that. The way the bill is now written, they cannot. The fact is, given today's national political discourse in the modern age of technology, television and radio play the primary, if not the key, role in the spreading of political messages. The whole reason we use the names of candidates in political speech on television is to emphasize policy positions and alternative policy options. Doing so enables people to evaluate and support or criticize incumbents' voting records and their positions on issues. That is the basis, the very essence, of political speech and debate. Messages about the candidates, about their voting records and their positions on the issues, speak louder and have a greater impact on voters than just generic issue ads about Social Security or about Medicare, tax cuts, or whatever is the issue of the day. Constitutionally, we cannot deny citizens groups access to the most effective means of reaching the largest number of people for the least amount of money, and that is TV and radio. We cannot deny them the ability to communicate through television and radio during the time period most vital to deciding the outcome of an election, the time when they can have the most impact. We should not deny them a voice in the political debate, but, unfortunately, title II effectively does just that. Ultimately, political speech is directly tied to electoral speech. We cannot escape that. We cannot escape, nor should we try to escape, the fact that our Constitution protects the rights of people to support or to criticize their Government or the people running for Federal office. The founders of this country recognized that. They knew from their own personal experience in forming this Nation that political speech is of the highest value, particularly during the election season, and it must be protected. Given that, the last thing we should be doing is restricting 60 days before an election the people's right to get the word out to voters about the issues and about the candidates. Such a restriction is absurd. Such a restriction is wrong. Such a restriction is blatantly, certifiably unconstitutional. I realize that criticism, very often part of political speech, makes incumbents uncomfortable. It makes us all uncomfortable. I know this. I have been there. Do I like to be criticized? No. Does anyone like to be criticized? No. Do we like to see our voting record picked apart? No. The fact remains that no matter how much those in public office do not like to hear negative political speech, our Constitution protects that very speech. Federally elected officials are here to serve the people, and the people deserve the right to cheer us or to chastise us, particularly during an election campaign. Are we, as Members of this body, becoming the political speech police? Are we becoming the guardians of incumbent protection? Are we so worried about tough criticism from outside groups, American citizens? Are we so concerned about what we consider to be unfairness and the potentially misleading nature of their message that we are willing to curtail their basic, constitutional, first amendment rights? I hope not, and I hope we adopt this amendment and pull back from this infringement on people's constitutional rights. We all should be offended by the attempt to do that. The fact is that the limits imposed by title II on political speech, limits on legitimate political discourse, debate, and discussion will hurt voters. The voters will have less opportunity to make informed choices in elections. It is the voters and the public who ultimately will lose. Allow me to read directly from the Bill of Rights--and we are all familiar with it--amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. I repeat, ``Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech. . . .'' These are very simple words, but they are some of the most powerful and certainly most important words in the Bill of Rights and in our Constitution. I am certain that my colleagues in the Senate all realize our Founding Fathers, when crafting our Bill of Rights and our first amendment protections, had political speech--political speech specifically--in mind. They knew how important and vital and necessary free speech is to our political process and to the preservation of our democracy. They knew that democracy is stifled by muzzles and gags. They knew that free speech was necessary for our political system--our open, free political system--to function and, yes, to flourish. They knew that liberty without free speech is really not liberty at all. We all understand that none of our rights is absolute. In fact, there are constitutionally acceptable limits on political speech. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government has an interest in regulating political speech when there is a clear and present danger that the speech will result in the imminent likelihood of violence. Also, the Court has said that defamation laws apply to political candidates, so as to protect them from statements that are knowingly false. In such situations, the government has a compelling interest in restricting the speech. I ask my colleagues: What is the government's overriding and compelling interest in restricting core political speech 60 days or less from an election--at the time most crucial to the public's interest in hearing and learning about candidates and their positions and incumbents and their voting records? How will restricting the most important speech at the most important time further our election process and political system? It clearly will not. The bottom line, Mr. President, is that core political speech is different from other forms of speech. It lies at the heart of the first amendment and deserves the highest--the utmost--level of protection. To that extent, I agree with Justice Thomas who said that political speech is the very speech that our founding fathers had in mind when actually drafting our Bill of Rights and our first amendment protection. Justice Thomas further argued that the key time for political speech is during campaigns. He wrote: The Founders sought to protect the rights of individuals to engage in political speech because a self-governing people depend upon the free exchange of political information. And that free exchange should receive the most protection when it matters the most--during campaigns for electrive office. The Supreme Court, in Buckley v. Valeo, emphasized the importance of protecting political speech. The Court wrote: The First Amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In the free society ordained by our Constitution, it is not the government, but the people--individually, as citizens and candidates, and collectively, as associations and political committees--who must retain control over the quality and range of debate on public issues in a political campaign. The Court was telling Congress, essentially, to stay out. It was saying don't diminish the first amendment rights of citizens and organizations to participate in political debate. Don't restrict the means by which the people of this nation make informed decisions about candidates running for federal office. The fact is, Mr. President, in order to embrace the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment, we must allow others to exercise those freedoms. Title II runs counter to that, and in the process, violates our Constitution. Title II hugely undercuts the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. It has turned the campaign finance debate on its head. It has turned the debate into a clear struggle over the soul of the first amendment, and ultimately, the preservation of our democracy. If we are to protect and preserve our democracy, we must allow the people to be heard. Voters cannot make informed decisions about candidates when political speech--when ideas and information about candidates--is restricted at the most pressing time. As voters, we make better decisions when there are more voices, more information, and more ideas on the table. Ideas competing with one another. That is the essence of democracy. That is the basis for political debate and challenges to public policy. That is the basis for how we make changes in our society--for how we make the world a better place. With all of the complexities of today's election laws and competing campaign finance reform plans, I think that Ralph Winter, the respected judge and former law professor, said it best when he noted that the greatest election reform ever conceived was the first amendment. He was right. Unfortunately, title II strikes at the first amendment by restricting the dissemination of information to voters and the open exchange of ideas that we so much treasure. The exchange of those ideas, Mr. President--through core political speech, whether it's two years, two months, two weeks, or two days before an election--is a prerequisite for democratic governance. That is the basis of our Constitution. We in Congress have an obligation to protect that Constitution--to protect our first amendment and the free flow of ideas. That, after all, is the spirit--the essence--the foundation of our democracy. What all of this means is simply this: If you are a citizens group, you are an American citizen, and you don't like what I am saying today or what this amendment does, or what my vote will be on final passage of this bill, under this bill, as currently written, you could not talk about any of this if it were right before a Federal election. You could not use the airways and the TV and radio to criticize me or to talk about this vote and to talk about this amendment. If we accept this, it will silence a citizen's ability to tell the public about our voting records. What this language says is that we are afraid to let people tell the outside world what we do in the Senate. We can't do that. Rather, I believe we must protect the rights of the people. We must preserve our Constitution. We must not let that great Constitution, that great Bill of Rights, that first amendment be chipped away by efforts clearly aimed at protecting the self-interests of the incumbent political candidates. To do any less, as we change this, as we amend it, to do any less would fly in the face of our democracy and the American people whom we are here to serve. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DeWINE. Let me inform the Chair and my colleagues, I do not intend to take that entire time. I am sure the Chair is pleased by that. I do request of the Chair, though, in case I do get carried away, if the Chair would notify me when I have 10 minutes remaining. I don't expect to get to that point. If the Chair will do that, I would appreciate it. I have listened to my colleagues from Vermont and Maine, Arizona and North Carolina. I agree with a lot of what they have had to say. I don't like a lot of these ads either. I have the same fear that every incumbent does; that is, that the next time I run there is going to be a group that will come in and spend a whole bunch of money on Ohio TV and tell people what a bad Senator Mike DeWine has been. We all live in fear of that. We all live with a lot of money coming in, and we have the fear of very tough ads that use our name, that use our picture, and tell the voters why we are not doing such a good job. We have that fear. The problem is, the Snowe-Jeffords-Wellstone amendment is unconstitutional. There is the first amendment. Even though we may not like it when people say things about us, that is part of their rights under the first amendment. I will respond specifically to a couple comments that have been made. My colleague from Maine and before that my colleague from Minnesota made the statement about former directors of the ACLU. Let me respond to that by referencing a letter from the current ACLU opposing this language, opposing the bill. In part, in referencing this section of the bill, they say: Simply put, the bill is a recipe for political repression because it egregiously violates longstanding free speech rights. There is more to the letter, but that is the essence of it. With the exception of my colleague from Minnesota, everyone who has come to the floor this afternoon and this evening to argue against the DeWine amendment, each one of those individuals, while I have a great deal of respect for them and while they were all very eloquent, each one of them, with the exception of Senator Wellstone, voted against the Wellstone amendment. I can't tell my colleagues why in each case, but each one of them did. The fact we must remember, and I ask my colleagues to remember, is we no longer are dealing with Snowe- Jeffords. We now are dealing with Snowe-Jeffords-Wellstone. That is what is in the bill, not the original Snowe-Jeffords. Ninety percent of the debate we have heard this evening is about Snowe-Jeffords. That is not where we are. I didn't come to the floor to offer an amendment to take out Snowe-Jeffords. It has been changed. It has been fundamentally changed. Members need to think about it. My friend from North Carolina who voted against the Wellstone amendment said this in his closing statement when he argued why he was going to vote against it: So the reason Senator Feingold and Senator McCain are opposing this amendment is the same reason that I oppose this amendment. It raises very serious constitutional problems. The U.S. Supreme Court, in fact, in 1984, specifically ruled on this question. That is what Senator Edwards said on this floor a short time before we voted on the Wellstone amendment. Every person who has come to the floor, with the exception of Senator Wellstone, every one who opposes the DeWine amendment opposed the Wellstone amendment. There had to be a reason. Again, what we are dealing with now is a changed bill, a changed playing field. It is a different ballgame. It is a different bill. I say to each one of you who took an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it is a different bill that we now are going to be voting on tomorrow or the next day. My amendment makes it a better bill. It makes it a constitutional bill. Now, where are we? What does the new bill with the Wellstone amendment now say? It has the original provisions of Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords: 60 days out, corporations, unions no longer can engage in express advocacy. They no longer can run ads that are now allowed by law. That is a fundamental change. It is a gag on unions for the last 60 days during the period of time when it counts the most. The bill now goes further. Not only does it cover unions for 60 days, not only does it cover corporations for 60 days, now it says virtually nobody can run an ad that mentions the candidate's name except the candidates. And no one can engage in discussion about candidates' voting records when they mention their names. I don't know how you discuss a candidate's voting record without mentioning their name, but you can't talk about a candidate's voting record within 60 days of an election unless you are the candidate or the other candidate, or unless you own a TV station, or unless you are the commentator for the nightly news. Everybody else, every other citizen is silenced for 60 days. Do we really want to do that? Putting aside whether it is constitutional or not constitutional--I think it is blatantly unconstitutional, certifiably unconstitutional, but even if it wasn't-- do we still want to do that in this country and say within 60 days before the election all these people can't talk anymore? I don't think we do. Yes, speech is effective. My colleague from Maine in essence says it is too effective. She didn't use those words, but she said it is having an impact. Yes, it is having an impact. That is what political speech is all about. It is supposed to have an impact. Everything seems to be reversed. At the crucial time when political speech matters most to the voters, those who hear it or see it, the bill as now written says: You can't do it. Sixty-one days out, you could run one of these ads, and you could talk about Mike DeWine's record. Fifty-nine days out from the election, you no longer can do it. And 3 days before the election, when everyone is paying attention, you can't run those ads. During the period of time when it is most effective, you can't run the ad. Not only does it pick out the time when it is the most effective, but the bill also picks out the way candidates today communicate on TV and radio and says that is one method of communication you can't use. That is how we get our messages across. Whether we are candidates or whether we are opposing candidates or whether we are issue groups, whoever we are, we get it across through TV. You can't compete and you cannot reach people in the State of Ohio unless you are on TV. That is a fact. Whether you are an issue group attacking Mike DeWine or whether you are an independent expenditure group, whoever you are, you can't reach people, or whether you are the candidate, you can't reach people unless you are on TV. So they pick the most effective way to do it and the most important time, and they have taken those off the table and said during that period of time, you can't be on TV. It is a direct, absolute attack on the first amendment. What I have a hard time understanding is some of my colleagues and my friends who, on other days are the most vehement advocates for the first amendment, somehow don't think this violates the first amendment. Mr. President, it is a direct attack on the first amendment. I talked this afternoon about my own campaign, my last campaign. I want to get back to that. I emphasize, most of what my colleagues fear and have said I agree with. Each one of us lives in fear of a group putting an ad on TV that criticizes us. We don't become any less human when we get into politics or when we come to the Senate. No one likes criticism. And no one likes criticism that they think is unfair. Do you know what. That is part of what we do. That is part of what you have to accept in the United States of America if you run for office--maybe not in some other countries but here you do. That is what makes us different. I told a story this afternoon about a group in Ohio--several groups that are mad at me over my proposal and support of a wildlife refuge in Ohio, the Darby Refuge. I happen to think it is a good idea; they don't. For some period of time, throughout the roads that I travel close to my home, and up through the different counties it takes me to go through where this refuge would be in Madison County, I see an awful lot of signs which say, ``Dump DeWine.'' I see signs that say, ``No Darby, No DeWine,'' and variations of that. I don't like it. But do you know what. That is part of the first amendment. If those people who put those signs up had decided to run TV ads, it seems to me they ought to have a right to do that. Again, I would not like it, but I think they have a right to do that. I think they have the right to pick the most effective way to get their message across, during the most crucial time, when people are really focused and paying attention, which is 60 days before the election, and to get their message out. If they want to put out a message on TV that basically says, ``Dump DeWine, `` or, ``Call Mike DeWine and tell him Darby is a bad idea,'' or variations of that, they ought to have a right to do that--as much as I would not like it. It is a question of the first amendment. There has been a lot of talk, not just on the floor but among my colleagues for the last at least 3 days, almost nonstop, about the issue of severability. It is an issue we are going to get and vote on tomorrow. We would not have that discussion if it weren't so abundantly clear that the Wellstone provision, which is now part of Snowe-Jeffords, is unconstitutional. Members know it. They tell you that privately. Some have said it publicly. But virtually everyone gets that it is unconstitutional and the Court is going to throw it out. This big debate tomorrow on severability and whether or not when one part of the bill goes down, another part should go down, or whether we should fence off one part of the bill-- that discussion, and a fairly close vote tomorrow, will come about because people know the Wellstone amendment is unconstitutional. If it weren't so, we would not be having that debate. That is going to be the thing that is unspoken tomorrow when we get to that debate. I want to talk for a moment about my colleague from North Carolina, who is a very good lawyer. He and I had the opportunity, during the impeachment hearings, to work together, along with Senator Leahy and others. I saw how good he is. My colleague came to the floor this evening and talked about the constitutionality of Snowe-Jeffords. I respect what he has to say. Again, I point out, though, that this is the same Member of the Senate--not much more than 24 hours ago--who came to the floor and basically said the Wellstone amendment was unconstitutional. I understand that his comments tonight were about Snowe-Jeffords; but the problem is that title II is no longer Snowe- Jeffords, it is Snowe-Jeffords-Wellstone, and it contains that provision which Senator Edwards said is unconstitutional, or certainly implied it. I read it in the Congressional Record. My colleague from North Carolina went through the tests that have been laid down by the Supreme Court. There are tests as to whether or not you can basically infringe on the first amendment. The courts will look at any restriction on the first amendment from a strict scrutiny point of view. One of the tests is, is there a compelling State interest? In other words, the burden upon someone asserting that it is constitutional to prohibit speech. That person has to prove to a court's satisfaction that there is a compelling State interest to do that, to restrict that speech, because the presumption is you can't restrict speech. I talked this afternoon about that. There were some areas where the courts have acknowledged that it is constitutional to restrict speech, but they are very narrow. They have held that it has to be a compelling State interest, and the burden of proof is on those who assert the constitutionality. It also has to be narrowly tailored. In other words, when the language is written to restrict speech, it has to be narrowly tailored. I have failed to hear any discussion of any convincing nature of what the compelling State interest is. What is the compelling State interest that permits the U.S. Congress to say that within 60 days before an election we will stifle--shut off --free speech? What compelling State interest is there, and how is it narrowly drawn for Congress to say no speech within 60 days that mentions a candidate's name? How is that narrow? That is a sledgehammer that comes down on the first amendment and shatters it. It is certainly not narrowly tailored. And certainly the proponents of the constitutionality of this provision have not shown there is any compelling State interest. Now, the Court talked, in Buckley, about the appearance of corruption. Proponents of this constitutionality provision have made the flat assumption and assertion that there is an appearance of corruption. Yet that is all they say. I don't know what the evidence is of that appearance of corruption. They made the flat out assertion that there is corruption, or there is the appearance of corruption, and that gives them authority to write this type of legislation. I think they have failed in their burden of proof. Again, I state what the law is. The law is that they have a burden of proof. Again, in conclusion, my amendment will strike article II of the bill. Article II prohibits what I believe is constitutionally protected free speech on TV, within the last 60 days of an election, by labor unions, corporations and, most importantly, by all outside interest groups, by all groups of U.S. citizens who have come together to talk in the one way that is the most effective; that is, on television. It bans that. There is no compelling State interest to do it. It is clearly unconstitutional. My friend and colleague from Maine also made another interesting comment. She said, ``I want to control my own campaign.'' I am sure the Presiding Officer thinks the same way. I can tell you I think the same way. I want to run my own campaign. I have had a lot of experience doing it. I have won some and lost some. I want to run my own campaign. She also said that this debate should be between the candidates themselves. Debate goes back and forth on TV. I sort of agree with that, too. At least I understand what she means by that. You run against someone and you want to have that debate between the two of you. You start to get nervous when someone else gets involved in the debate. They may be trying to help you or your opponent. You do not know what they are doing. Sometimes they do not know what they are doing. I understand where she is coming from. This is not an exclusive club we are talking about. There should be no walls built up in the political arena to keep people out. This is America. This is the United States. We do have a first amendment. One of the basic beliefs of our founders was that public discussion of issues is essential to democracy. They did not have TV in those days, obviously. They did not have radio. The main method of communication was the printed press, posters being put up, or speeches directly given and directly heard, but the principle is the same. The more people you can involve in political discussion, the better it is. There can be no walls built around the political arena where we say no one else can enter except the candidates. No one can participate except the candidates. No one can talk about issues in relationship to candidates, except the candidates. That is just not what we do in the United States. That is not what this country is about. That is not how our political debates should take place. In essence, in a very revealing comment, my friend and my colleague from Maine certainly implied that. That is part of the problem with the way this bill is currently crafted. This is the United States. I know many times when our campaigns drag on and on and they get pretty messy, and they get pretty rough, a lot of people say: Gee, why don't we do it the way this country does or that country, such and such a country. They do not mess around. They call an election in 6 weeks. They were strict when you could be on TV. They have their election, and it is over. Much as we might long for that sometimes when our campaigns drag on, or when Presidential campaigns start basically a couple months after one Presidential election is over and Senate races start several years in advance and House races seem to never stop, much as we long for that tranquility and the order, if we really thought about it, I do not think we would really want it. As long as the Wellstone amendment stays in the bill, clearly this bill is going to be held to be unconstitutional. What is different about us and other countries is our first amendment. It is our first amendment that is at issue. Many countries do not have the equivalent of our first amendment that protects political speech, that protects free speech. We do and we are much better for it. Our political discussion is much better for it and it is more informed. We are different. I hope when Members of the Senate think about this tonight and prepare to vote tomorrow, they will remember the importance of the first amendment. They will vote for the DeWine amendment. They will vote to make this a better bill. They will vote to give this bill a much better chance of being held to be constitutional. It is not just a question of the Constitution; it is also a question of public policy. Putting aside the constitutional issue, I do not think we want to be in a position where this Congress says, basically as the thought police in this country, political speech police, that within 60 days of the election we are going to dramatically restrict who can speak in the only way that is effective in many States, and that is to be on TV. I do not think we want to do that, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, in a moment I will yield to the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch. I do want to briefly respond to the comments of my friend from Maine, my friend from Vermont, and my friend from Arizona. I appreciate very much their comments. One thing they did not mention and that is important for us to remember, as we look at this amendment and as we look at how the bill is currently written, is that Snowe-Jeffords is now Snowe-Jeffords- Wellstone. It is fundamentally different than the original provision about which my colleagues have talked for the last 20 minutes or so. Very simply, Snowe-Jeffords, as originally written, did this: Under current law express advocacy is not restricted for unions and corporations. What Snowe-Jeffords did is to say that 60 days out from an election, unions and corporations--it is usually unions who are doing it--would be prohibited from mentioning the name of a candidate. It is a major change in what is going on today, a major restriction on a union's ability to communicate, a fundamental change in the law. Under Snowe-Jeffords, express advocacy is expanded to include any message with the candidate's name 60 days before the election and, if they do that, it is illegal. That is not what we are talking about. Snowe-Jeffords is now Snowe- Jeffords-Wellstone, and it has been dramatically changed and expanded. I think the original language, quite candidly, you can argue either way whether it is constitutional. Frankly, no one in this Senate is going to know until the Supreme Court tells us. The Wellstone language that is now a part of Snowe-Jeffords is absolutely unconstitutional. I have talked to a number of Members on the floor who voted on both sides of the original Wellstone amendment. I haven't found one yet--I am sure someone will come to the floor in a minute; I am sure my colleague from Minnesota may come--who will tell me it is constitutional because what does it do? It takes the original Snowe-Jeffords and expands it and says, not only will labor unions not be able to do this within 60 days of an election, not only will corporations not be able to do it, but now everybody else can't do it. Any groups that want to get together and buy an ad that mentions the candidate's name will no longer be able to do that. So within 60 days of an election, at the time when political debate should be the most respected, when political debate has its greatest impact, the Snowe-Jeffords-Wellstone amendment now says, no, you can't do it. That is absolutely unconstitutional. That is the state of the bill today. That is what Members have to ask themselves when they vote on this amendment. Are you willing to accept a bill that in all probability is going to pass that has a provision in it that is blatantly unconstitutional? I hope on reflection my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, when they look at that, will say: I don't want to do that. I don't want to cast a vote for a bill that is blatantly unconstitutional. The only chance Members are going to have to correct that is with the DeWine amendment. I yield at this time to the distinguished chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume consideration of the DeWine amendment regarding advocacy ads tomorrow morning. There will be up to 15 minutes of debate prior to a vote at 9:45 a.m. Following that vote, there will be up to 2 hours on a Harkin amendment on volunteer spending limits. Therefore, a second vote will occur before 12 noon on Thursday. Further amendments will be offered. Votes will occur throughout the day, and it is the intention of the managers and leaders to conclude this bill by tomorrow night. Therefore, votes could occur late into the evening tomorrow.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Thursday, March 29. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then resume consideration of the DeWine amendment to S. 27, the campaign finance reform bill.

Mr. DeWINE

Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination reported by the Foreign Relations Committee: Calendar No. 23, Grant Green. I further ask unanimous consent that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the Senate then return to legislative session.