Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure that will help ensure that all of our nation's veterans who earned benefits through their service receive those benefits. I am pleased to be joined today by the senior Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, he has long been a strong advocate for our veterans. Late last year the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) launched a statewide program called I Owe You. Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the I Owe You program encourages veterans to apply, or re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service to the United States. As part of this program, WDVA held an outreach event in Milwaukee where veterans could apply for benefits--more than 1,500 veterans and family members attended the event and many started the process of receiving the benefits owed to them. This was only the first of their ``supermarkets of veterans benefits'' that they plan to hold across the State. The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the Department of Veterans Affairs. These are federal benefits that we owe our veterans and it is the Federal Government's obligation to make sure that they receive them. Obviously, we must make a greater effort if more than 1,500 people in the Milwaukee area alone attended this event. This bill calls upon the Department of Veterans Affairs to take on the responsibility of better informing our veterans about the benefits and services they have earned. Under the National I Owe You Act, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs will develop and implement a plan to encourage veterans to apply for their benefits, identify those entitled to benefits who aren't currently receiving them, and notify veterans of any modifications to veterans benefits programs. The American people are indebted to our nation's veterans. As a result of their loyal service and sacrifice, we maintain our freedoms and rights. It's time that we do right by our veterans and honor the commitment that we made to the men and women who served our country in the Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the National I Owe You Act to ensure that this commitment is honored. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today I am introducing a measure that will help ensure that all of our nation's veterans who earned benefits through their service receive those benefits. I am pleased to be joined today by the senior Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond. As chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Veterans, Housing and Urban Development, he has long been a strong advocate for our veterans. Late last year the Wisconsin Department of Veterans Affairs (WDVA) launched a statewide program called I Owe You. Under the direction of Secretary Ray Boland, the I Owe You program encourages veterans to apply, or re-apply, for benefits that they earned from their service to the United States. As part of this program, WDVA held an outreach event in Milwaukee where veterans could apply for benefits--more than 1,500 veterans and family members attended the event and many started the process of receiving the benefits owed to them. This was only the first of their ``supermarkets of veterans benefits'' that they plan to hold across the State. The State of Wisconsin is performing a service that is clearly the obligation of the Department of Veterans Affairs. These are federal benefits that we owe our veterans and it is the Federal Government's obligation to make sure that they receive them. Obviously, we must make a greater effort if more than 1,500 people in the Milwaukee area alone attended this event. This bill calls upon the Department of Veterans Affairs to take on the responsibility of better informing our veterans about the benefits and services they have earned. Under the National I Owe You Act, the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs will develop and implement a plan to encourage veterans to apply for their benefits, identify those entitled to benefits who aren't currently receiving them, and notify veterans of any modifications to veterans benefits programs. The American people are indebted to our nation's veterans. As a result of their loyal service and sacrifice, we maintain our freedoms and rights. It's time that we do right by our veterans and honor the commitment that we made to the men and women who served our country in the Armed Forces. I urge my colleagues to support the National I Owe You Act to ensure that this commitment is honored. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment proposed by the Senator from Nebraska. The Hagel amendment is very simply antireform. Over the course of this debate, many Members of this body have proposed thoughtful, and even provocative, amendments that have made important contributions to the substance of the McCain- Feingold bill. I thank my colleagues sincerely for their efforts. But this amendment clearly does not contribute to the strength of the bill. On the contrary, the Hagel amendment would weaken McCain-Feingold beyond recognition. My colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, has said he can't imagine a system worse than the one we have today. I think we have found it today in the Hagel amendment. I am sorry to say that because I know my friend Senator Hagel is sincere in his attempt to improve the campaign finance system. As many colleagues know, the centerpiece of the McCain-Feingold bill is a ban on soft money. The ban on soft money defines the legislation. Banning soft money is the most vital reform we can enact and, without it, all the effort that the Senate has put into the bill would be meaningless. Make no mistake, as we vote on this amendment, the Hagel amendment simply guts the soft money ban. Under Hagel, the soft money that is so outrageous to the public, and that so few Members of this body are even willing to defend at this point, is suddenly, permanently, forever written into our law. That is unacceptable, and it is certainly not reform. We can't be credible to the American people if we are going to characterize as reform changes in the law that give even more power to the wealthiest people in our country. We are not here to sanction or institutionalize the soft money system. We are here to stop it. We did not fight for 6 years to get to the place where we are today, within a few days of passing a bill to ban soft money from our system, only then to step back at the last minute and say: Never mind; soft money creates a dangerous appearance problem for Members of this body. It is sad to say--you know it, Mr. President, and I know it--we pick up the phone to raise soft money with one hand and we vote with the other hand. Is the answer for the Congress to officially sanction this system, to say it is OK forever for Members of Congress to ask for $50,000 checks from corporations and unions, and make it live forever? That is what this amendment will allow. I think most of my colleagues understand that for this body to have any credibility with the American people, the answer to that question must be a resounding no. When this body succeeded in stopping the appearance of corruption in the past, we did not do it with half-hearted measures that sanctioned our own behavior. When the Senate responded to concerns about the honoraria system, the Senate banned honoraria. It did not say we would just take a little less in speaking fees than we did before. When the Senate responded to the public's concern about Members receiving lavish gifts from outside interests, we enacted the gift ban. We did not say the system that was in place was OK and open a new and permanent loophole. We did not take the easy way out in those circumstances because we knew the American people would see through any attempt to dodge the reforms that needed to be made. Those were important moments where the Senate acted to renew the people's faith in us and the work we do. We sent the message with those reforms that we understood that just because something is standard practice around here does not make it right. We understood that our inaction fostered the appearance of corruption, and so on those occasions we took decisive action to change the system. I say to my colleagues, we are only going to get credit where credit is due. The American people may not be following every nuance of this debate and every detail of each amendment, but they know phony reform when they see it. If we simply engrave soft money into law and allow soft money to continue to flow unchecked to State parties, we are not fixing the system; we are perpetuating it. We are continuing to allow, in effect, two sets of books: The hard money system and the soft money system; if you will, a second secret-secret fund that involves enormous amounts of money. That is not why we are here. I for one cannot go home to Wisconsin to one of my listening sessions and town meetings and say to a constituent: We just passed campaign finance reform in the Senate; isn't that great? It used to be legal for a couple to give up to $100,000 in an election cycle to candidates, parties, and PACs, and now it is $540,000 per cycle. That is what the Hagel bill does. That is what the Hagel amendment does. It allows every couple in America to give $540,000 every 2 years of hard and soft money combined. I do not know about the other States--actually, I think I do. It would seem ridiculous to the people of any State to suggest you could have a campaign finance reform bill that allowed any couple in America to give $540,000 every 2 years. I could not say it with a straight face, and I think every other Member of this body would be in the same boat. My friend from Nebraska says this amendment at least limits the amount of soft money. I am sorry to say that just is not the case. While it is true the Hagel amendment caps what a corporation or union or wealthy individual can give to the national parties in soft money, that same soft money can still be raised and spent by the State parties--by the State parties--on Federal elections. It leaves a gaping, complete loophole for wealthy donors to funnel unlimited money to the States. In contrast, the State loophole is sealed shut in the McCain-Feingold bill, and it is not even addressed by the Hagel bill. McCain-Feingold does not prohibit States from spending their money on campaigns as long as it does not relate to Federal elections, but when it comes to States spending money on Federal elections, soft money is strictly prohibited. I know this provision in our bill has led to a new argument, a new charge that I have had some fun debating with the Senator from Nebraska. The new charge is that our bill ``federalizes" State election law. Let's put this matter to rest right now. We only address State spending on Federal elections--on Federal elections. Federal elections should be conducted under Federal rules, and that is what McCain- Feingold ensures. You cannot leave open loopholes that we already know exist, as the Hagel amendment does, and somehow purport to be doing something about or limiting soft money. It just is not true. That is just a roadmap. The Hagel amendment is just a roadmap to the parties to just restructure their operations and continue what they have been doing. I ask my colleagues whether they think the donors on this chart might send soft money donations to the States under the Hagel amendment. What do they think? Look at the growth under each of these amounts. For donors of $200,000 or more, $400,000 or more, or $500,000 or more, one can see the enormous growth from 9 people who gave $500,000 or more to 167 people giving $500,000 or more. Do we really think these donors will just reduce their contributions to $60,000 per year if the Hagel amendment becomes the law? Of course they will not, and they will not have to because the Hagel amendment tells them exactly how to get the rest of that cash to whom they want it to get to just running it through the State parties that can spend it freely on Federal elections, every dime under the Hagel amendment. It is a roadmap for continuing to exert influence over the Congress and the administration by contributing all that money to the State parties and then having it spent on the Federal elections. I thought this category of donor deserved its own chart because this is phenomenal. Since the 1992 election cycle, the number of $1 million donors--I say to the Senator from Connecticut, when I came here, I could not even imagine--and I came here only 8 years ago--the idea of a $1 million donor. I did not think it possible to even give $25,000. Million-dollar donors have developed in the last few years, and it has gone through the roof. This chart shows the astronomical growth of these mega-donors. There was only one in 1992. I did not know about it when I got here. It sure did not help me. In 1996, it rose to seven--seven $1 million donors. In the year 2000 cycle, it was really moving: 50 different groups, interests, corporations, unions, or individuals gave over $1 million-- 50. I have a feeling that some of these donors would be very happy to exploit the State loophole under the Hagel amendment. Members of Congress will, unbelievably, still be able to ask for these contributions. Members of this body are allowed under the Hagel amendment to call somebody up, to call a CEO, or the president of a labor union or an individual and say: We need a million-dollar check from you. That is what the Hagel amendment would permit; it just has to be done through the State laws. They will still be able to ask for them because, unlike the McCain-Feingold bill, the Hagel amendment does not contain any restriction on Federal officials or officeholders raising soft money, and to me that is the very worst thing about this whole system, that people elected to this institution are allowed not only to do this, but they are pressured into asking for those contributions every day by their political parties and by their political leaders. Finally, I think some of these donors would certainly be giving soft money to the States under the Hagel amendment. I think this chart shows better than any how savvy soft money donors are. They can have it both ways because they can give unlimited amounts to both parties. They pay tribute to both of the parties and exert influence on the entire Congress. These are the kinds of donors who will choose to take the State soft money route mapped out for them under the Hagel amendment-- Federal Express, Verizon, AT&T, Freddie Mac, Philip Morris--all giving to both parties, covering their bets. Believe me, they will proceed through the loophole in the Hagel bill with every dime they want to contribute. We can hardly be naive enough to think that just because the soft money to the national parties would be capped, soft money donors would not give heavily to State parties, as plenty of soft money donors already do. As I mentioned, there is another crucial difference between McCain- Feingold and the Hagel proposal. We prohibit officeholders and candidates from raising this soft money. The Hagel amendment does nothing to address this problem. Under the Hagel bill, for the first time in American history, we would legitimize soft money, having politicians call up every CEO and every corporate head, saying ``I need your $60,000.'' That is what you can give. That is the price of admission. It has been the wisdom of the Nation for 100 years, starting with Teddy Roosevelt, that we should not do that. Under the Hagel amendment, it becomes the norm; it becomes standard procedure. Call up the union and say it is time for your $60,000. Call up a corporation and say it is time for your $60,000. I hope we do not go down that road. I have been asked whether I think the Hagel bill is better than nothing at all. With all due respect to my colleague from Nebraska, that is exactly how I feel. The Hagel amendment doesn't pass the commonsense test. If there is one thing Americans have plenty of, it is common sense. We can't support the Hagel amendment and call the bill reform. If anybody wants to go home to their State to tell people that our answer to the soft money problem was to sanction soft money and ensure that it lives forever, good luck. You will need it. The Hagel bill also triples the hard money limits from the current $2,000 a donor can give a candidate per cycle. To most Americans, $2,000 is still a large sum of money; $2,000 is what an individual can give to a single candidate in an election year under the current law. They can give $1,000 in the primary and another $1,000 in the general election. This bill is about closing loopholes that allow the wealthiest interests in our country to exert undue influence in our political system. As I said before, it is only a first step to cleaning up the system. There are many provisions we can consider down the road that affect our campaigns. I know some in this body would like to increase the amounts that donors can give to our campaigns. But a tripling of the hard money limits, combined with a codification of the soft money system, is simply beyond the pale. There is no way a bill that contains those two provisions can be called reform. Finally, what is most troubling about the Hagel amendment is that it allows corporations and unions to give directly to parties. That is what writing soft money into the law would achieve. It actually sends the campaign finance laws back in time to the very beginning of the 20th century before the Tillman Act banned direct corporate donations to the parties and before Taft-Hartley banned direct labor contributions to the parties. I know this is understood with the Hagel amendment. People don't seem to give it a second thought. I think it is worth pausing to consider just what a throwback the Hagel amendment really is. How often do lawmaking bodies consciously dismantle reforms that have stood for nearly 100 years. The Hagel amendment isn't just a codification of the soft money status quo; it is actually a step backward in time. Teddy Roosevelt signed the Tillman Act in 1907, in the days when the public was so concerned about the power of certain corporate interests, the power of railroads and the trusts. It was a landmark reform that has helped to shape everything that has come after it. It wrote into law the understanding, the most important part about this whole bill, that direct corporate contributions to the parties create enormous potential for corruption. With the stroke of a pen, Teddy Roosevelt wrote that into law and now we are considering whether to write it out of the law. I say to my colleagues, that would be a grave mistake and an embarrassment for this Senate. I hope my colleagues will take a careful look at the amendment, and I hope the Senate will soundly reject it. The Hagel amendment undermines McCain-Feingold in every conceivable way. McCain-Feingold bans soft money while Hagel makes sure we can have it forever, unlimited amounts through a loophole to the State parties. Hagel combines the codification of soft money with a tripling of the hard money limits, allowing a couple to give $540,000 in donations to a given cycle. I almost can't say it without laughing at that amount of money. Finally, the Hagel proposal would undue the ban on corporate and union contributions to the parties that are at the very foundation of the campaign finance reforms of the last 100 years. There are some reform proposals in the Hagel bill that deserve some consideration, but a vote for the Hagel amendment is simply a vote to unravel the most basic reforms of the McCain-Feingold bill. The Hagel amendment would remove the ban on corporate and union contributions to the parties, replacing it with a soft money system that would have the Senate's stamp of approval. I urge my colleagues to think about what it means to turn back the clock on the laws that protect the integrity of this government. This campaign finance debate is about moving forward, not going back. We must defeat this amendment and bring this debate to a conclusion. It is time to pass real reform. The Hagel amendment must not be adopted.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the remaining time to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me be clear. When the Senator from Illinois argues that there is a severability clause, the fact is there is going to be an effort on this floor to make this entire bill nonseverable. That raises the stakes to the point of threatening the entire piece of legislation because if any one piece of this bill--if we lose on nonseverability--is determined to be unconstitutional, the whole bill falls. I think we are going to win on the severability issue, but if we do not, this amendment raises the very distinct prospect, which I believe all of us fear, that the entire effort will fall if the U.S. Supreme Court finds one defect. This is a critical amendment in that regard.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. The amendment was offered in good faith. I see no reason to avoid the request, and instead of moving to table at the appropriate time, I will simply ask my colleagues to vote no on the Wellstone amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, this is a situation that is very similar to what happened in the other body when they sought to pass the Shays- Meehan bill. There were times that amendments that were very attractive had to be defeated to maintain a coalition to pass the bill. They were tough votes. Members of the House on both sides of the aisle stuck together and made sure the most important consideration was that the reform package pass. We also face a political test with this amendment. Those who remember the debate we had a few years ago will remember that Senators Snowe and Jeffords developed their provision and then joined the reform effort while under enormous pressure to kill reform by voting for the so- called paycheck protection proposal. They agreed to work with us and to vote with us to defeat those unfair proposals once the Democratic caucus agreed to the Snowe-Jeffords language. And our entire caucus voted to add this provision to the McCain-Feingold bill in place of the previous provision that would have treated 501(c)(4) advocacy groups the same as for-profit corporations, similar to the approach and effect of the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. I think we saw last week that the Senators from Maine and Vermont, along with other Republican supporters of reform, have been true to their word. If we adopt this amendment, in a way, we will be going back on our word. I have worked for years with the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Vermont on this bill. I know how sincerely they want to pass it. So I stand with them to defend the Snowe-Jeffords provision which I have come to believe is our best chance of making a significant difference on this issue of phony issue ads and also the best chance we have, as the Senator from North Carolina has so well expressed, to actually have this provision approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the inevitable court challenge that will ensue if we manage to get this bill all the way over there. Once this bill has been enacted and upheld by the courts, and once we see whether and how the Snowe-Jeffords provision works, I would have no objection to revisiting the issue with the Senator from Minnesota and others to see if there is a way we can constitutionally expand this to include these other groups that have traditionally been treated by the courts differently from the corporations and the unions. For now, I think we should stick with the provision that is in our bill and vote against this well-intentioned amendment. I understand under the unanimous consent agreement it is only appropriate to have an up-or-down vote on this amendment; is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reluctantly, I move to table this amendment, both for concerns of its constitutionality and also the practical considerations of what it will take to get our piece of legislation through this Senate and maintain the bipartisan spirit and reality that it has had. With regard to the issues of constitutionality, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I know we are not debating the bankruptcy bill when I am in agreement with the Senator from Utah and the Senator from Alabama. We clearly moved not only to campaign finance reform but today to a very worthy discussion about the advisability of adopting an amendment to the U.S. Constitution concerning campaign financing. I oppose Senate Joint Resolution 4, but I do so with some reluctance, given the tremendous respect I have for the Senator from South Carolina. I appreciate the sincerity in which he offers this resolution. But more importantly, he has been passionate on the issue of campaign finance reform for a very long time--long before I came to this body--and I have always looked up to him on this issue. I understand the frustration and realities he is looking at that lead him to propose a constitutional amendment, and I know both the Senator from South Carolina and the Senator from Pennsylvania, who also supports this resolution, are strong supporters of campaign finance reform. I thank them for that, and I thank them specifically for their help on this bill, and I appreciate the comments of the Senator from South Carolina, who, of course, is concerned about what the U.S. Supreme Court will do with the McCain-Feingold bill if they get it but who at least left open the possibility that they may look upon it favorably. There are just two reasons I am uncomfortable voting for this constitutional amendment. The first has to do with my belief that it does actually amend the Bill of Rights for the first time in our Nation's history. I understand the arguments that this is such a serious problem it is justified. When I first came to the Senate, I actually voted for the Hollings amendment the first time. Then in 1994, a group of Congressmen and Senators were elected in what was known as the Contract With America Congress, and they proposed so many amendments to the U.S. Constitution, it made your head spin. In fact, a lot of them were going to amend the Bill of Rights. I disagree with the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee who says the flag amendment does not amend the first amendment but this does. Both of them do. Both would be the first changes to our fundamental doctrine of the Bill of Rights in our Nation's history. I am uncomfortable with this approach. I understand how people get to the point where they don't believe we can ever deal with the problems of our campaign financing system and they want to do it. My belief is that it is better not to tamper with the Bill of Rights and to solve the problem legislatively. That leads to my second point. I am more optimistic, more sanguine about the possibility that we will prevail; that McCain-Feingold, if it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, will be held constitutional. In fact, I can't really believe anyone on the floor is seriously arguing anymore that the most important provision of the McCain-Feingold bill, the ban on party soft money, will be held unconstitutional. It is not credible. In the Missouri Shrink PAC case in January of 2000, the Court ruled 6-3 that even a $1,000 contribution in Missouri today is a sufficient figure to justify the possibility of the appearance of corruption. Surely a $100,000, $200,000, $500,000, or $1 million contribution would be regarded the same by that very strong, 6-3 majority in that Court. I believe, although certainly our bill doesn't solve a lot of the problems that have been discussed today, at least regarding the abuse of soft money in our society, that the U.S. Supreme Court--this U.S. Supreme Court--would see it our way. I believe this bill can solve some of the problems that have been identified in the system. For those reasons, I will oppose this constitutional amendment. I do not think we need to amend the Constitution in order to have effective campaign finance reform. Our colleague Senator Hollings has been calling for meaningful campaign finance reform but perhaps longer than any other Member of the Senate. I disagree with this particular approach. But I want to pay tribute to his sincerity and commitment to reform. This resolution was a constitutional amendment is a serious proposal, not casually offered, and not offered in hopes of sabotaging our bill, as some amendments have been. But I must oppose it. Back in 1993, Senator Hollings offered a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to take up a constitutional amendment similar to the one before us today. After a short debate, I voted with the Senator from South Carolina on that day. I did so because I believed that other than balancing the Federal budget, there was no more fundamental issue facing our country than the need to reform our campaign finance laws. And I was frustrated at that time with the failure of the Congress to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. But I immediately realized, even as I was walking back to my office after voting, that I had made a mistake. I started rethinking right away whether I really wanted the Senate to consider amending the first amendment. Later, I was privileged to join the Senate Judiciary Committee, and then the 104th Congress became a teeming petri dish of proposed amendments to the Constitution. On the Judiciary Committee, I had a good seat to witness first hand the radical surgery that some wanted to perform on the basic governing document of our country, the U.S. Constitution. It started with a balanced budget constitutional amendment, and soon a term limits constitutional amendment, a flag desecration amendment, a school prayer amendment, a super majority tax increase amendment, and a victims rights amendment, and on it went. In all, over 100 constitutional amendments were introduced in the 104th Congress. This casual proliferation of amendments has tapered off somewhat, but persists to this day. As I saw Members of Congress suggest that all sorts of social, economic, and political problems, great and small, be solved with a simple constitutional amendment, I chose to oppose this serious and earnestly considered constitutional amendment from Senator Hollings, along with others that have casually and sometimes recklessly threatened to undermine our most treasured founding principles. The Constitution of this country was not a rough draft. We have sometimes lately been treating it as such, and Senator Hollings' worthy effort appears in that context, so I believe we should oppose it, lest we encourage less serious efforts. Even if we were to adopt this constitutional amendment, and the states were to ratify it, which we all know is not gong to happen, it will not deliver effective campaign finance reform. It would empower the Congress to set mandatory spending limits on congressional candidates that were struck down in the landmark Buckley v. Valeo decision. And if this constitutional amendment were to pass the Congress and be ratified by the States, would campaign finance reformers have the necessary 51 votes--or more likely the necessary 60 votes--to pass legislation that includes mandatory spending limits? Probably not--let's remember that it took us years to get to 60 votes on the McCain-Feingold bill. But this week we have before us a bipartisan campaign finance proposal that has been meticulously drafted within the guidelines established by the Supreme Court. We are confident that the McCain- Feingold bill is constitutional and will be upheld by the courts. Our original proposal, unlike the law that was considered in Buckely v. Valeo, included voluntary spending limits, but the centerpiece of our bill is a ban on soft money, the unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals to the political parties. There is near unanimity among constitutional scholars that the Constitution allows us to ban soft money. The Supreme Court's decision in the Shrink Missouri case makes it abundantly clear that the Court will uphold a soft money ban. We don't need to amend the Constitution to do what needs to be done. Until this year, the desire of a majority of Senators to bring a campaign finance reform bill to a final vote has been frustrated by a filibuster. So the notion that this constitutional amendment will pave the way for legislation that includes mandatory spending limits simply ignores the reality of the opposition that campaign finance reformers would face here in the Senate if they tried to enact those limits. This proposed constitutional amendment would change the scope of the first amendment. I find nothing more sacred and treasured in our Nation's history than the first amendment. It is the bedrock of the Bill of Rights. It has as its underpinning the notion that every citizen has a fundamental right to disagree with his or her government. I want to leave the first amendment undisturbed. Nothing in this constitutional amendment before the Senate today would prevent the sort of abuses we have witnessed in recent elections Allegations of illegality and improprieties, accusations of abuse, and charges of selling access to high-ranking Government officials would continue no matter what the outcome of the vote on this constitutional amendment. Only the enactment of legislation that bans soft money contributions will make a meaningful difference. The Senate will have another opportunity to address this issue. We have had many debates on campaign finance reform, and if we pass the McCain-Feingold bill, the general issue of campaign finance will reappear from time to time. But, today, in March 2001, the way to address the campaign finance problem is to pass constitutional legislation, not a constitutional amendment. We are poised to give the people real reform this year, not seven or more years from now. I urge the Members of the Senate to vote against the resolution for a constitutional amendment of the Senator from South Carolina. It is not necessary to amend the Constitution to accomplish campaign finance reform. I greatly admire the sincerity and commitment of the Senator from South Carolina, but ultimately I do not think his amendment will bring us any closer to achieving viable, real reform in the way that political campaigns are financed in the United States. I conclude by thanking the Senator from South Carolina for his leadership and knowledge on this subject.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against this amendment. I, too, thought we had finished with the antilabor amendments yesterday when we agreed to remove the codification of the Beck provision from the bill. The debate on this campaign finance reform bill is not the proper forum to address labor law issues. I think these kinds of amendments have, at this point, become distractions. Sooner or later, those who oppose this bill are going to have to quit trying to change the subject and face up to the real issue, the corrupt soft money system that they have defended by standing in the way of reform. Sooner or later, we are going to get to the point where people realize a majority of this body wants to pass this reform, a majority of the House wants this reform, and most importantly, the American people want this reform. This amendment requires a notice to be posted in every workplace telling union members that they have a right to quit their union. That is not balanced and is not evenhanded. So what is next? I guess we should require all companies to send a notice to their shareholders letting each and every one of them know they have a right to sell their shares if they do not like the political spending of the corporations. That is the logical implication of this. I think it is fitting that our last vote of this week will be to table this amendment. If we learned nothing else this week--actually, I think we have learned a lot, but if we learned nothing else, we now know for sure the Senate is not going to add antiunion amendments to this bill. And it is not going to do that not because it wants to protect labor but because it wants to protect reform. I thank my colleagues, especially on the Republican side of the aisle where the pressure to take a shot at labor is intense, for standing firm against these distracting and irrelevant amendments and moving us ever closer to passing the McCain-Feingold bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I also have no problem with the amendment proposed by the Senator from Oklahoma. I appreciate the opportunity to meet with him today. He made his case, and, in a spirit that I hope will continue to permeate this Chamber, we listened to what he had to say and agreed that perhaps the best course, as the Senator from Michigan suggested, is to delete this provision from the bill. I also appreciate the fact the Senator from Oklahoma has indicated to me, at least in terms of his amendments on the bill, that this will conclude the so-called paycheck protection part of this debate on campaign finance reform. It is in recognition of the fact that the votes are not there to include a paycheck protection provision that would be directed only at labor or even ones that would include both labor and corporations. I appreciate that assurance from the Senator from Oklahoma because I know he feels very strongly about this. But this is the nature of the process. We do need to move on to other issues. There really is no need to debate the question of whether section 304 does or does not codify the Beck decision. The only reason this language is in the bill is that the Senator from Kentucky and the majority leader in the past have insisted for years that campaign finance reform legislation was not complete without a provision to deal with the activity of organized labor. Proponents of that view, of course, offered the so-called paycheck protection provision as their solution. In fact, I remember a few years ago when we reached an agreement to debate campaign finance reform, the majority leader introduced a base bill for that debate, and his entire bill was the paycheck protection provision that is not prevailing in this discussion today. No changes to our current corrupt soft money system were proposed-- just paycheck protection. Paycheck protection--or, as I like to call it, paycheck deception--has always been a poison pill for reform. It is an unfair and unnecessary attack on organized labor. But we were willing to include in the bill a provision that purported to reflect current law with respect to fees paid by nonunion members in lieu of dues. So we added section 304. Even though this has been in the McCain-Feingold bill for 3\1/2\ years, we are told that from the point of view of those who favor paycheck protection, the current law is preferable to this section in our bill. In light of that history, I have no problem with removing the provision because the issue really doesn't belong, and never really belonged, in the campaign finance legislation. The whole question of how labor unions collect and use dues money from their members is a matter of Federal labor law, really, not Federal election law. I am pleased to support the amendment of the Senator from Oklahoma. I think and hope this will bring an end to the amendments we have seen for years and years that are aimed at interfering with the internal workings of labor unions and the relationship between a union and its membership. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, are we under controlled time at this point?

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we have had a good debate on a number of amendments this week. It has been very pleasant to cover a lot of ground. We have made good progress on the bill. I hope we can finish work on this bill next week, as our agreement in February contemplated, and as the majority leader has said he wanted. Getting a final up-or- down vote on this legislation is what we set out to do, and it is what we will do once Senators have had a chance to offer amendments and improve the bill. Sometimes when we spend a few hours on an amendment, we can get bogged down in the minutia. When I say ``minutia,'' I don't mean any disrespect. This is very important. This is how the laws actually work. This is how campaigns will be conducted. So we have to go through this action. But I think sometimes when people observe us from afar, or on television, they wonder, what are we talking about? What is the big picture? I want to take us back to why we are here in the first place. Why are we spending 2 weeks on this issue? What is this bill all about? We are here because we have a crisis of confidence in this country and in this Congress. We labor long and hard on legislation, and I am afraid the public doesn't trust us to do the right thing. For example, here is a headline in Business Week's February 26 issue: ``Tougher Bankruptcy Laws--Compliments of MBNA?'' The article says: MBNA is about to hit pay dirt. New bankruptcy legislation is on a fast track. Judiciary panels in the House and Senate held perfunctory hearings, and a bill could be on the House and Senate floors as early as late February. The implication is clear that it is widely assumed the credit card issuers called the shots on the substance of the bankruptcy bill we passed right before we started this debate on campaign finance reform. Isn't it troubling that people are so quick to assume the worst about the work we do on this floor? That is why we are taking up this bill; we have to repair some of that public trust. Our reputation is on the line. We aren't going to get a pass from the American people on this one and, frankly, we don't deserve one. The appearance of corruption is rampant in our system and it touches virtually every issue that comes before us. I know my friend from Oregon is familiar with this because we have talked about it. That is why I have called the bankroll on the floor 30 times in less than 2 years. I do it because I think it is important when we debate a bill to acknowledge that millions and millions of dollars are given in an attempt to influence what we do. That is why people give soft money. I don't think anyone would seriously try to dispute that. I won't detail every bankroll here. It would actually take me all day. But let me review some of the issues they address to show how far reaching the problem really is. I have called the bankroll on mining on public lands, the gun show loophole, the defense industry's support of the Super Hornet and the F-22, the Y2K Liability Act, Passengers' Bill of Rights, MFN for China, PNTR for China, and, of course, the tobacco industry. I have talked about agricultural interests, lobbying on an Agriculture appropriations bill, railroad interests, and lobbying on a Transportation appropriations bill. I have talked about contributions surrounding the Financial Services Modernization Act, nuclear waste policy, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the ergonomics issue. I have also had the chance to call the bankroll on the Patients' Bill of Rights twice, the Africa trade bill twice, and the oil royalties amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill twice. I have called the bankroll on three tax bills, four separate times, and on our most recent legislation, the bankruptcy reform legislation. People give soft money to influence the outcome of these issues. That is plain and simple. As long as we allow soft money to exist, we risk damaging our credibility when we make decisions about the issues the people elected us to make. They sent us here to wrestle with some very tough issues. They have vested us with the power to make decisions and to have a truly profound impact on their lives. That is a responsibility that every one of us takes seriously. But, today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation, many people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we get from interests on both sides of the issue. When those contributions can be a million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people that we will too often reward our biggest donors. That is the assumption people make, and we let them make it. Every time we have had the chance to close the soft money loophole, this body has faltered. If we can't pass this bill, history will remember that this Senate faced a great test and we failed; that the people had accused us of corruption and, in our failure to pass a real reform bill, we actually confirmed their worst fear. Fortunately, the bill before us today offers a different path. If we can support the modest reforms in this bill, we can show the public we understand that the current system does not do our democracy justice. This is just a modest bill. It is not sweeping. It is not comprehensive reform. It only seeks to address the biggest loopholes in our system. The soft money ban is the centerpiece of this bill. Our legislation shuts down the soft money system, prohibiting all soft money contributions to the national political parties from corporations, labor unions, and wealthy individuals. State parties that are permitted under State law to accept these unregulated contributions would be prohibited from spending them on activities relating to federal elections, and federal candidates and officeholders fortunately and finally, would be prohibited from raising soft money under our bill. That is a very significant provision because the fact that we in the Congress, those who are elected to Congress, are doing the asking is what I believe and many people believe gives this system an air of extortion, as well as bribery. McCain-Feingold-Cochran also addresses the issue ad loophole, which corporations and unions use to skirt the federal election law. This provision, originally crafted by Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords, treats corporations and unions fairly and equally. I want to be clear. Snowe-Jeffords does not prohibit any election ad, nor does it place limits on spending by outside organizations, but it will give the public crucial information about the election activities of independent groups, and it will prevent corporate and union treasury money from being spent to influence elections. Senators Snowe and Jeffords described this provision of their bill earlier in the week. As this debate proceeds, we may debate whether it should be strengthened or even removed from the bill altogether. I believe the Snowe-Jeffords provision is a fair compromise and the right balance. It fairly balances legitimate first amendment concerns with the goal of enforcing the law that prohibits unions and corporations from spending money in connection with Federal elections. I am sure most of my colleagues are aware of the serious political crisis underway as we speak in the nation of India. Journalists posing as arms dealers shot videos with hidden cameras on which politicians and defense officials were seen accepting cash and favors in return for defense contracts. Those pictures have caused a huge scandal. The Indian defense minister has resigned, and we do not know yet how great the repercussions will be. One thing that struck me as I read the news reports of these events was two of the people caught on tape were party leaders, including the leader of the ruling party, the BJP, Mr. Bangaru Laxman. Let me read from an AP story of March 16: Laxman denied that the journalists identified themselves to him as defense contractors or discussed weapons sales. He said they were presented as businessmen and that accepting money for the party is not illegal in India. I am not going to say that what is happening in India is the same as the system we have in the United States, and I am certainly not going to comment on the guilt or innocence of any party leader or political official in that sovereign country. But the Government of India is hanging by a thread based on possibly corrupt payments of a few thousand dollars by people posing as defense contractors. In our country, we have literally hundreds of millions of dollars flowing to our political parties from business and labor interests of all kinds. And our defense, like Mr. Laxman's is, ``it's legal.'' We have a system of legalized bribery, a system of legalized extortion, in this country. But legal or not, like the videotaped payments in India, this system look awful. It may be legal, but it looks awful. Our debate this week has shown time and time again that we have a strong majority in this body that wants to pass reform. We are ready to do it. I am eager to continue our work, and get the job done. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield myself 10 minutes on our side of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased I was on the floor to hear the remarks of the Senator from Maryland. She has been incredibly helpful on this issue of campaign finance reform. I had the honor last Friday, with Senator McCain, to go to her State and visit Annapolis. The mere mention of her name in general produced a tremendous response, but in particular, when I shared with the audience how she has been with us every minute of the way for all these years on this issue, with such enthusiasm, there was a great response. I thank my colleague and appreciate so much the fact that she is helping us get the bill through.

Mr. FEINGOLD. For a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the Hatch amendment and I urge all supporters of the McCain-Feingold bill to do the same. Once again, the effort of the Senator from Utah to treat unions and corporations equally sounds good but just doesn't work. There is no doubt that increased disclosure of election spending is a laudable goal. The Buckley decision explicitly upheld the disclosure provisions in the Federal Election Campaign Act. Disclosure is aimed at increasing the information available to the voter. That is a good thing. No one questions the benefits of disclosure. But disclosure requirements have to be clear and well drafted. They have to actually work. They can't be too burdensome or they will chill constitutionally protected speech. And they can't be one-sided, aimed at one player in the election system and not at others. I am sorry to say that the provision offered by Senator Hatch fails all of these tests. First of all, his provision only applies to unions and those corporations that have shareholders. It doesn't cover businesses that don't have shareholders. It doesn't cover membership organizations such as the NRA, the Sierra Club, National Right to Life, or NARAL. Why should unions have to report to their members how much they are spending on get-out-the-vote drives, while all of these advocacy groups do not? The disclosure requirements are also incredibly burdensome and confusing. A union is required to send a report to all of its members, and nonmember employees every year on the spending not only of the union itself but all international, national, State, and local affiliates. And this is not a one-way chain either. Nationals have to report everything that locals do, and locals have to report everything that nationals do. A corporation has to report on the activities of all of its subsidiaries. Now remember, this amendment is not a requirement that these entities file a report once a year to the FEC. No, the reports have to be sent to every union member or corporate shareholder. A corporate PAC has to send a report every year to all of the shareholders of the corporation that is connected to the PAC. The content of the report is mostly going to be what the PAC has always reported to the FEC. What is the point of that? Now as to what has to be reported, the amendment is vague, almost unintelligible. Direct activities such as contributions to candidates and political parties have to be reported. I understand what contributions are, but what else does the term ``direct activities'' contemplate? The amendment is silent on that. In the definition of ``political activities,'' which is what the general disclosure requirement covers, the amendment includes the following language-- ``disbursements for television or radio broadcast time, print advertising, or polling for political activities.'' That is a circular definition. What broadcast expenditures have to be reported? Certainly not commercials for products, but the amendment gives us no real guidance. Public communications that refer to and expressly advocate for or against candidates are covered, but corporations and unions are prohibited from making those kinds of communications, and PACs already disclose their spending to the FEC. Finally, Mr. President, no matter how hard the Senator from Utah has tried to make this amendment seem evenhanded, there can be no doubt that the real purpose of this amendment is to try to get information from unions about their political spending. There is nothing inherently wrong with that, but any such disclosure requirements just have to be evenhanded. These are not, so I must oppose the amendment and ask my colleagues who support reform to join me in voting to table it.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am pleased that the distinguished ranking member of the Budget Committee is still on the floor because I rise at this point not to talk about campaign finance reform but to strongly agree with the comments he has made. I am very pleased to be a member of the Budget Committee. It is something I wanted to have an opportunity to do when I came here because it was the issue on which I ran originally--and I believe the issue on which the Senator from North Dakota ran--getting this country's fiscal situation under control. That is actually the most important thing we can do. If you care passionately about campaign finance reform, nothing is more important than the appropriate and thoughtful budgeting of the people's resources. I am grateful for his extremely skilled leadership on our side in the Budget Committee. I am pleased to join with the ranking member of the Budget Committee and my colleagues on the committee to talk about the need for the markup in our committee of the concurrent budget resolution. I, too, was disappointed to hear our chairman indicate that he may not convene a markup. I believe his stated reason is that he does not want to conduct a markup unless he can be assured the resulting product will have the support of a majority of the committee. I very much hope the chairman will reconsider his decision. The principal work of a member of that committee and the reason we are so eager to be a part of that committee and, frankly, one of the best parts of being in the Senate for me has been the experience of going through the markup of a budget resolution. It is extremely interesting, and it is extremely important in terms of the priorities of our country. Forgoing a markup renders membership on that committee much less meaningful. As many of my colleagues may know, the inability of the Budget Committee to muster a majority to report out a bill would not prevent the Senate from considering a budget resolution. The precedents of the Senate provide for just such gridlock. Unfortunately, it appears that this very precedent will be used to circumvent the committee entirely, leaving the writing of the budget resolution to unelected staff. While this might have little practical effect on just about any other bill where debate and amendment are much more open, debate on the budget resolution is severely constrained. We are warning our few colleagues, including the Presiding Officer, that we are about to experience ``vote-arama'' where we vote on scores of amendments with just a few minutes' notice because of the inability to find time and to have time for people to actually fully debate amendments on the budget resolution. Stringent germaneness standards severely restrict the ability of the body to amend the resolution, and those standards flow form the baseline resolution that comes to the Senate. This makes the work of the Budget Committee on the resolution all the more important. The threshold for adopting an amendment can be a simple majority, or a supermajority, depending on the underlying structure of the concurrent resolution crafted by the Budget Committee. The chairman has considerable say in the way the concurrent resolution is structured even with a committee markup. But others on the Budget Committee should have a say as well. We are in an unusual posture with an evenly divided Senate and evenly divided committees. Perhaps we are the victims of some ancient curse, having to ``legislate in interesting times.'' But these ``interesting times'' are all the more reason to respect the rights of Members to participate fully in their respective committees. I simply wanted to rise to strongly agree with the ranking member that we need to have a markup in the Budget Committee. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, is the Hollings amendment being handled as an amendment to this legislation or as a separate piece of legislation?