Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I am in favor of the amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, does the Senator from New Mexico yield 3 minutes? Mr. President, first, I say that if this amendment is adopted, I want to make it clear, given the concerns raised by the Senator from Connecticut, which I think are legitimate, that we have agreed on working together to work out a technical amendment package that is agreeable to all of us. We have an agreement as to the concept of the amendment, and we will make sure that if the amendment is added to the bill it reflects our agreement. Without that, I certainly agree with the Senator from Connecticut that there will be problems. There needs to be changes, and there needs to be some time to evaluate and make the changes. I thank everyone for all the hard work that was put into this. It is a very complicated issue. Senators have very strong feelings on it. Ever since the Buckley case held that Congress cannot restrict a candidate's spending of his or her own personal wealth, we have struggled and struggled with how to handle the situation where candidates have such disparate, unequal personal fortunes. Understandably, there is a great concern among Members of this body about the possibility of facing a very wealthy challenger. Many of us have had that experience, including myself. To the extent that an incumbent Senator is wealthy, it is very difficult to find a viable challenger. The amendment offered by Senator Domenici yesterday was certainly well intentioned, but it had at least two significant flaws. First, it allowed candidates who faced a wealthy candidate to raise unlimited funds from their contributors under increased limits. It even permitted, in my view, a very serious problem. It even permitted parties to pump unlimited funds into a race based on a situation where somebody would put over $1 million of their own money into a race. Secondly, it did not recognize the obvious fact that $500,000 of personal spending in Maine is much more significant than $500,000 of personal spending in a State such as California or New York. I am pleased that we have addressed both of these problems in this compromise. I am not happy with the idea that we are raising individual limits in this way. I believe this sets a dangerous precedent both for the future of this debate and for future debates, but the amendment is much improved, and in the spirit of compromise, I intend to support it. However, this is not an amendment that I believe is essential to reform. In fact, I would rather see that we address this problem in a different way. But this is a process in which we have to show some flexibility. So while I will vote for it, I fully understand that some very strong supporters of our bill must vote against it. That is fine. I want to assure those who are watching that a vote against this amendment is not, to my mind, an antireform vote. I also add that with regard to those who have worked so hard on this amendment, especially on the other side of the aisle, if they are successful, I hope those Senators will be part of our reform effort and will join us as this process proceeds with the common goal of passing-- I ask for an additional 2 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. The reason I am asking this question--the spirit of this amendment is very positive, as I have indicated. But what I am trying to determine is whether we would have a fair chance to send a bill over to the Supreme Court where, if for any reason you were right about the constitutionality about this, the rest of the bill could still stand. Is that something the Senator is open to?

Mr. FEINGOLD. What about a political committee?

Mr. FEINGOLD. First of all, I appreciate the spirit of the amendment. Our two States, Oregon and Wisconsin, are very similar in our pride and our reform history. Obviously, this amendment is offered in that spirit. I appreciate that. My questions are similar to those of the Senator from Arizona, but I believe the Senator from Oregon indicated he would consider a severability provision with regard to this amendment.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I completely agree with his remarks, as well as the Senator from Arizona. I am pleased that the Senator from New Mexico has recognized that his original amendment just goes too far and there needs to be some modifications. We should try to get together and work this out. There are a couple of items already in some of the modifications he is talking about that concern me. A tenfold increase seems to be an awfully high number. Perhaps there is another level that could work. On the question of what the threshold would be, $500,000, many people have said, is too low a trigger for these increases. In New York or California, there is a difference. I agree with the Senator from Connecticut that the way to do this is to table this amendment and then see what kind of agreement or modification or new amendment can be agreed upon by the Senator from New Mexico and the Senator from Ohio, who genuinely care about these issues. I share the concerns, but we need to do this in a manner that doesn't suddenly put together an act of modification that we don't completely understand. I ask that Members table this amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to one of our strong supporters and cosponsors, the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the Senator from Arizona 2 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, no State has contributed more to the cause of campaign finance reform than the State of the last Speaker and the Presiding Officer. Not only has the State of Maine come up with some of the most innovative State-level initiatives, but it has sent us two Senators who have been the stalwarts in our group throughout our entire process. We are grateful to the State of Maine for these two Senators being here and being such great advocates for this cause. With that, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I point out to the Senator from Kentucky, the Senator from Maine has arrived. I believe she has a brief opening statement for the remainder of the time, if that is acceptable to the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield such time as the Senator from Minnesota needs.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I agree with the Senator from Arizona. This amendment is obviously very well intentioned. It tries to get at a problem in the original McCain-Feingold bill. We tried to address the issue of wealthy candidates being able to spend unlimited amounts while the others are constrained. The problem is, the Senator from New Mexico does have aspects of this that involve unlimited contributions in response. That is not the same as some of the other techniques we have talked about in the past. For example, when I first ran for the Wisconsin State Senate, under our State's public financing, if somebody spent too much money either from somebody else or their own, the State would provide some form of public financing benefit for someone who would limit their overall spending. What Senator McCain and I tried to do in our original bill was say, for example, if a wealthy person agreed not to spend too much of their own money but somebody else did, the people who constrained themselves would get the benefit of free television time or reduced cost for their television time. Those are very different ways to encourage this kind of activity and this kind of restraint than actually having unlimited contributions in response. I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this is not the way to go, as well intentioned as it is. I yield 30 minutes of our time to the distinguished Senator from Maine, Ms. Snowe.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Madam President.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I yield the Senator from Tennessee 12 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I again thank the Senator from Connecticut. I am extremely pleased to come to the floor today to begin the debate on the McCain-Feingold-Cochran bill. Of course, the Senator from Arizona has been the original inspiration on this issue and the person who was able to make this issue and this bill, in particular, something of national attention and something that actually was important in the discussions in the Presidential debates last year. I have greatly enjoyed these 6 years of working with John McCain on this issue. Let me also say, if I could have picked one Senator from the other side to sort of put us over the top, to change the dynamic of this, somebody whom I have always respected, although we have rarely agreed on the issues, that person is Senator Thad Cochran of Mississippi. His credibility and the respect of the Members of this body for him are so profound that when he became a major sponsor of this bill, it made it possible for us to have this debate. It is because he joined us, and I am grateful. This debate has been a long time coming. It is our first truly open debate on campaign finance reform in many years. We are no longer limited to a few days of speeches or parliamentary wrangling and a cloture vote or two. Instead, we are going to have an open amending process, a vigorous debate, and, in the end, I think we can pass a bill for which this body and the country can be proud. We have a rare opportunity before us. We also face a great test. The opportunity is clear. In the next few weeks we can take a major step toward closing the loopholes that have made a mockery of our campaign finance laws. We have the power to close these loopholes, and we have the duty to close them. The American people will be watching this floor over the coming days and weeks. They want to know whether we can finally do what is right. Can we finally close the door on the soft money system that leaves us so vulnerable to the appearance of corruption. The Senator from Kentucky was happy that so far in the debate the word ``corruption'' had not been mentioned. I am sorry, but the choice of the word ``corruption'' is not my choice. It is the standard that the U.S. Supreme Court has said we have to deal with if we are going to legislate in this area. It is not John McCain's word. It is not my word. It is the word of the Court. The Court said, in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC: Buckley demonstrates that the dangers of large, corrupt contributions and the suspicion that large contributions are corrupt are neither novel nor implausible. The opinion noted that the deeply disturbing examples surfacing after the 1972 election demonstrate that the problem of corruption is not an illusory one. I am sorry the Senator from Kentucky does not want us to talk about it, but the Court says we can't do a bill about it unless we do talk about it. So we are going to talk about it. We are going to talk about corruption, but, more importantly, what is much more obvious and much more relevant is the appearance of corruption. It is what it does to our Government and our system when people think there may be corruption even if it may not exist. Can we finally say, together, as legislators, as representatives of the people, that soft money isn't worth that risk, that it isn't worth risking the appearance of corruption to keep this big soft money system? That is the test we are about to take. This debate will test whether we can pull back from the soft money status quo to which we have become so accustomed over the past few years. This debate will ask whether we think this is really how our democracy is supposed to be. The public has already answered that question. The vast majority of Americans are outraged by the soft money system. They look at us and wonder why year after year, Congress after Congress, we let the soft money system chip away at our integrity. Day by day, with every vote we cast, people wonder was it the money. They doubt us, and we all know that. We see it every day. We open up the newspaper and read another story about how a powerful industry pushed through this bill or a union used a contribution to win this provision or a wealthy individual got special treatment on an amendment. It is getting to the point where it is difficult to debate any issue, any issue at all where these questions are not raised. Our parties raise unlimited money with one hand, and we cast our votes with the other. And we dare the public to doubt us every time we miss an opportunity to fix this system such as the one before us today. We cannot afford to keep taking this risk with the public's trust. The public's patience is not limitless, and it should not be. We have a moment here, a rare moment, to regain the public's trust. I know it won't be easy. Real change never is. But the time is right and the will of the people is behind this reform. All eyes are on this Senate. Either we rise to the occasion and meet the test before us or we let the American people down again. Either we finally ban soft money in the next few weeks or we let them conclude that we are so addicted to this system, so tainted by corruption or at least the appearance of corruption that, once again, we cannot change. As my colleagues know, the centerpiece of this bill is the ban on soft money. In this regard, let me especially thank my colleague, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for her tireless effort in working with me to meet with individual Senators to persuade them to join us on the bill and with some significant success. As she and I know, the rise of soft money has been so recent and so rapid that one has to sort of take a minute and look at how rapid it has been. When I came to the Senate in 1992, I wasn't even sure what soft money was, or at least I didn't know everything that could be done with it. After a tough race against a very well-financed incumbent who spent twice as much as I did, I was mostly concerned when I came here with the difficulties of people running for office who were not wealthy. I am still concerned about that and still think we need to address it, and we should get on to it after we do this. My commitment to campaign finance reform was forged from that experience. Since I came to this distinguished institution, soft money has exploded, with far-reaching consequences for our elections and the functioning of the Congress. As the chart I have shows, soft money first arrived on the scene of our national elections in the 1980 elections after a 1978 FEC ruling opened the door for parties to accept contributions from corporations and unions who are barred from contributing to Federal elections. The ruling intended these donations to be used for what the FEC termed ``party building,'' meaning purposes that are unrelated to influencing Federal elections. The best available estimate is that the parties raised under $20 million in soft money in the 1980 cycle, and it didn't change much in 1984. The loophole remained pretty much dormant. In 1988, soft money nearly doubled when both parties began raising $100,000 contributions for both the Bush and the Dukakis campaigns, an amount that was unheard of prior to 1988. By the 1992 election, the year I was elected to this body, soft money fundraising by the major parties had doubled yet again, rising to $86 million. Of course, the $86 million raised in 1992 was a lot of money. It was nearly as much as the $110 million that the two Presidential candidates were given in 1992 in public financing from the U.S. Treasury. There was growing concern about how the money was spent. Despite the FEC's decision that soft money could be used for activities such as ``get out the vote'' and voter registration campaigns without violating the Federal election law's prohibition on corporate and union contributions in connection with Federal elections, the parties sent much of their soft money to be spent in States where the Presidential election between George Bush and Bill Clinton was close or where there were key contested Senate races. Still, even in 1992, soft money was far from the central issue in our debate over campaign finance reform in 1993 and 1994. And then in 1995, when Senator McCain and I first introduced the McCain-Feingold bill, our bill included a ban on soft money, but it wasn't even close to being the most controversial provision of our bill, and actually nobody paid any attention to it in 1995. Then, as we all know, came the 1996 election and the enormous explosion of soft money fueled by the parties' decision to use the money on phony issue ads supporting their Presidential candidates. As you can see from the chart, the total soft money fundraising skyrocketed as a result of that judgment. When the parties had raised $262 million in soft money in 1996, that was appropriately considered an incredible sum. And it was. There were 219 people who gave $200,000 or more in soft money in that cycle, 1996. But today, if you can believe it, only 4 years later, 1996 looks like a small-time operation compared to the 2000 cycle. I think they are still counting from the year 2000. But I believe we know now that the parties raised $487.5 million in soft money in the year 2000. That dwarfs the amount raised in 1992, and it comes close to doubling the amount raised in 1996. The Wall Street Journal reported the other day-- and I say this in response to the comments of the Senator from Kentucky about the average soft money contribution being $500--that nearly two- thirds of that gigantic total I showed you of nearly $500 million was given by just 800 donors who gave at least $120,000 each. That is a far cry from an average of $500--800 donors, giving an average of $120,000 each. That is what was the core of the last election. This chart shows the huge growth of the megadonors over time. It is exponential. A select group of wealthy people, unions, and corporations whom the parties have come to depend on for these huge sums of money is who is dominating this fundraising. That brings us right back to the item we have to talk about--even though some don't want us to talk about it--and that is the perception of corruption. People are uncomfortable with the parties and, by extension, all of us, relying on a concentrated group of wealthy donors for a significant part of our fundraising. The American people are troubled by that, and so are many of us. Recently, our colleague, Senator Miller from Georgia, wrote an opinion piece in the Washington Post on his deep misgivings about the current fundraising system. He wrote that he doesn't sleep as easy as he used to when campaigns weren't defined by how money can be raised and spent. I would like to read a passage from Senator Miller's op-ed, where he describes what fundraising is like today: I locked myself in a room with an aide, a telephone, and a list of potential contributors. The aide would get the ``mark'' on the phone, then hand me a card with the spouse's name, the contributor's main interest, and a reminder to ``appear chatty.'' I'd remind the agribusinessman that I was on the Agriculture Committee; I'd remind the banker I was on the Banking Committee. And then I'd make a plaintive plea for soft money--that armpit of today's fundraising. I'd always mention some local project I gotten--or hoped to get--for the person I was talking to. Most large contributors understand only two things: what you can do for them and what you can do to them. I always left that room feeling like a cheap prostitute who'd had a busy day. These are Senator Miller's words. Those are powerful words, and they are hard to stomach. I deeply admire the Senator from Georgia for many reasons, but especially for being willing to write what we all know to be true. Many colleagues have told me privately they are uncomfortable with this system. One Senator told me here on the floor that he felt like taking a shower after he had made a call for a $250,000 contribution. We have Senators who can't sleep; we have Senators who feel they have to take a shower after doing fundraising calls. We have a pretty bizarre system. This system cheapens all of us. The people in this body are good people; I know that. They care deeply for this country. We have to get rid of this soft money system before it drives the good people away from public service and drives the public even further away from its elected leaders. Senator Miller also wrote in his op-ed that while he supports McCain- Feingold, he thinks it is not enough, that it is only a step in the right direction. I agree. After we pass this bill, I hope we will do more, and I look forward to working with the Senator from Georgia and others on broader reform. Senator Miller's words are brutally honest. I think when we are honest with ourselves about what our system has become, real change can't be far behind. Money should not define this democracy, and it doesn't have to. We don't have to pick up the paper and read headlines such as ``Influence Market: Industries that Backed Bush Are Now Seeking Return On Investment.'' That headline ran in the March 6 Wall Street Journal. I think we all know what that means, and so does everyone else. The assumption that we can be bought, or that the President of the United States can be bought, has completely permeated our culture. The lead of this article reads: For the businesses that invested more money than ever before in George W. Bush's costly campaign for the Presidency, the returns have already begun. This is a new administration. It is a new start. And then you have to read that, which is quite an accusation. But it is one that people don't hesitate to make these days. Whether we are Democrat or Republican, we should all be saddened by such an accusation, perhaps angry at it, but we can't ignore it or just blame the media for it. There is an appearance problem here, Mr. President. No one can deny that. But the newspapers didn't create it; we did. I am reminded what the great Senator Robert La Follette, from my home State of Wisconsin, said in response to those who argued that the press of his day, the early 1900s, was spreading hysteria about the power of the railroads over the Congress. He said: It does not lie in the power of any or all of the magazines of the country or of the press, great as it is, to destroy, without justification, the confidence of the people in the American Congress. It rests solely with the United States Senate to fix and maintain its own reputation for fidelity to the public trust. It will be judged by the record. It can not repose in security upon its exalted position and the glorious heritage of its traditions. It is worse than folly to feel, or to profess to feel, indifferent with respect to public judgment. If public confidence is wanting in Congress, it is not of hasty growth, it is not the product of ``jaundiced journalism.'' It is the result of years of disappointment and defeat. Mr. President, I think Senator La Follette had it right. It is not the media or the public's fault if what goes on here looks corrupt. It is our fault. We have to do something about it. In the next 2 weeks, we have a golden opportunity to do something about it. Here's another recent example of the public's distrust of our work: ``Tougher Bankruptcy Laws--Compliments of MBNA?'' That headline appeared in Business Week magazine on February 26th. The article goes on to say, ``MBNA is about to hit pay dirt. New bankruptcy legislation is on a fast track. Judiciary panels in the House and Senate have held perfunctory hearings, and a bill could be on the House and Senate floors as early as late February.'' Again, the implication is clear. It is widely assumed that the credit card issuers called the shots on the substance of the bankruptcy bill that we passed last Thursday. Isn't it troubling that people are so quick to assume the worst about the work we do here on this floor? I think it's a real crisis of confidence in our system. And that's why we are taking up this bill--because 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 we don't deserve one. The appearance of corruption is rampant in our system, and it touches virtually every issue that comes before us. that's why I have Called the Bankroll on this floor 30 times in less than two years. Because I think it's important for us to acknowledge that millions of dollars are given in an attempt to influence what we do. Because that's why people give soft money, and I don't think anyone would even try to dispute that. I won't detail every bankroll here--because that would take all day. But let me just review some of the issues they addressed, to show how far reaching this 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 Y2 K Liability Act, the Passengers' Bill of Rights, MFN for China, PNTR for China, and the tobacco industry. I have talked about agriculture interests lobbying on an agriculture appropriations bill, telecommunications interest lobbying on a tower-siting bill, and railroad interests 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 Called the Bankroll on the Patients' Bill of Rights--twice, the Africa trade bill--twice, the oil royalties amendment to the fiscal year 2000 Interior appropriations bill--twice, and I have Called the Bankroll on three tax bills, and four separate times on the bankruptcy reform legislation that we just passed. People give soft money to influence the outcome of these issues, plain and simple. And as long as we allow soft money to exist, we risk damaging our credibility when we make the decisions about the issues that 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 that have a profound impact on their lives. That's a responsibility that we take very seriously. But today, when we weigh the pros and cons of legislation, many people think we also weigh the size of the contributions we got from interests on both sides of the issues. And when those contributions can be a million dollars, or even more, it seems obvious to most people that we would 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 accused us of corruption, and in our failure to pass a real reform bill, we confirmed their worst fear. The bill before us today offers a different path. If we can support the modest reforms in this bill, we can show the public that we understand that the current system doesn't 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 would be prohibited from raising soft money under our bill. That's a very significant provision because the fact that we in the Congress are doing the asking is what 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 here. 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. Under the bill, labor unions and for-profit corporations would be prohibited from spending their treasury funds on radio or TV ads that refer to a clearly identified candidate and appear within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. 501(c)(4) non-profit corporations can make electioneering communications only as long as they use only individual contributions. Disclosure is significantly increased for these (c)(4) advocacy groups, and across the board for anyone who spends over $10,000 in a calendar year on these kinds of ads. I'm sure Senators Snowe and Jeffords will describe this provision of the bill in greater detail as we go forward, and we will have a spirited debate about whether it should be strengthened or even removed from the bill altogether. Let me just say that I believe the Snowe- Jeffords provisions 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. In this bill, we also codify the Beck decision and strengthen the foreign money ban. The bill strengthens current law to make it clear that it is unlawful to raise or solicit campaign contributions on Federal property, including the White House and the United States Congress. We also bar Federal candidates from converting campaign funds for personal use, such as a mortgage payment or country club membership. I recognize that some of our colleagues are concerned about the coordination provision, which specifies circumstances in which activities by outside groups or parties will be considered coordinated with candidates. I want to let our colleagues know that we are listening, and we are working on a modification of that section of the bill. We will offer an amendment during this debate that I hope will satisfy most of the concerns that have been raised. Throughout this process, we have welcomed the input and suggestions of our colleagues, and we will continue to do so throughout this debate. Over the next two weeks, every Member of the Senate will have an opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I hope each of us will. There are 100 experts on campaign finance law in this body. We've all lived under this system. We know how campaigns work. The success of this reform depends on a vigorous and informed debate, and I think we will have it. Mr. President, I'm 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 don't know yet now 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'm 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. 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 looks awful. The eyes of the Nation are on this Chamber. This group of 100 Senators can prove to the public that we are the Senate that the people want us to be. But the public's patience is wearing very thin. We cannot pick up the phone to raise soft money with one hand, and cast our votes with the other for much longer. The harm to the reputation of the Congress is simply too great. If we fail to pass real reform, we choose soft money over the public trust. That's a risk we cannot afford to take. We have a rare opportunity before us, and a great test. Let us seize the opportunity for reform, and meet the test before us with a firm commitment to restoring the public's faith in us and the work we do. The public doubts whether we can do it, Mr. President, but I believe that we can, and I believe that we must. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, in the beginning, when nobody jumped for the ball, I was happy to commence my talk. But it is music to my ears to hear leaders such as Senators Dodd and Reid come out here in the beginning of the debate and talk about the importance of this issue. They have been with us every step of the way. As Senator Reid has indicated, I am extremely grateful for the kind of support we have had. This is when we need it, more than any other time. This is a great way to begin. I will give my longer statement later. It is better to get into the process.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I will yield back my time to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time remains?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield my time to the Senator from Connecticut and then ask if I could speak after him.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As always, I defer to my commander on this, the senior Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Jeff Lehman, an intern in my office, be granted privileges of the floor during the debate on S. 27, and that privileges of the floor be granted for the duration of the debate on S. 27 to the members of my staff whose names appear below: Bill Dauster, Ari Geller, Farhana Khera, Trevor Miller, Mary Murphy, Brian O'Leary, Mary Frances Repko, Thomas Reynolds, Mary Ann Richmond, Bob Schiff, Sumner Slichter, Kitty Thomas, Tom Walls, Adam Waskowski, Hilary Wenzler.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, as the Senator from Alabama suggested, I don't think either one of us is entirely happy with the outcome of this. I hope we have something that takes a more reasonable approach to the landlord-tenant situation.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I would just need a couple minutes to offer that as well.