Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Feingold pertaining to the introduction of S. 2621 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'')

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for 12 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I regret, even though this is the time that has been allocated by unanimous consent for the final debate on the nominations, particularly the nomination of Brad Smith, I regret there are no other Senators here to debate the nomination. However, I will proceed in any event because it is an important nomination, an important issue. There is an irony about the vote we are about to have in the Senate. The Senate is sure to close up shop at a reasonable hour today. Why? Because tonight the Democratic Party will host the largest fund-raiser in history at the MCI Center here in Washington. The party expects to rake in $24 million in one night, tonight. And this will surpass the previous record for a single fund-raiser of $21.3 million set less than 1 month ago by the Republican Party. That record fundraiser swamped the previous record, also held by the Republican Party, at an event a year earlier, of $14 million. We are in an arms race. The escalation is truly staggering. The insatiable need for bigger and bigger checks is turning our great political parties into little more than fundraiser machines. Forty- seven donors raised or contributed $250,000 or more to go to the fundraiser tonight that my party will hold. Back in April, 45 donors raised or contributed that amount to join the Republican Party leaders at the National Armory. A quarter of a million dollars. Can anyone honestly say the donors who give that money will get no special treatment in return? We all know this money can be corrupting. It certainly provides the appearance of corruption. The Supreme Court knows that contributions of this size can be corrupting. Let me quote the Court, once again, from the Shrink Missouri case decided a few months ago: There is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters. There is little reason to doubt the corrupting influence of large contributions on our political system, said the Court. At least one person doubts this. Professor Bradley Smith doubts it. Listen to what he wrote in a 1997 Law Review article: Whatever the particulars of reform proposes, it is increasingly clear that reformers have overstated the Government interest in the anticorruption rationale. Money's alleged corrupting effects are far from proven, Professor Smith says. Brad Smith sees nothing wrong with unlimited contributions to parties or even to candidates. He said in a newspaper article that ``people should be allowed to spend whatever they want on politics.'' In an interview on MSNBC he said: ``I think we should deregulate and just let it go. That is how our politics was run for over 100 years.'' That ``100 years'' he is referring to is the 19th century. That is the world Brad Smith would like to see; no contribution is too big for us to tolerate in the world he sees. I assure my colleagues that this is not some caricature of this nominee's views. These are not distortions nor are they words taken out of context. This is what this nominee believes. This is what he has said over and over and over again, including at his confirmation hearing before the Rules Committee. Brad Smith sees nothing wrong with the enormous soft money contributions that both parties are so greedily seeking, the kind of contributions my party will rake in, in the largest fundraiser in history, tonight, just a few hours from now. Not only that, he believes to ban soft money would violate the first amendment of the Constitution. Virtually no one still clings to that belief in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision in the Shrink Missouri case. Brad Smith does. This nomination may be just as important to the cause of campaign finance reform as any bill that has been before the Senate in recent years. This vote on this nomination is just as significant for campaign finance reform as many of the votes we have had on those bills. I submit to those Senators who have voted time and time again to ban soft money--and I do thank them for their votes, and I thank them for their support of the McCain-Feingold bill--those Senators should think very carefully about what they are doing here. To confirm Brad Smith to a seat on the FEC is to confirm a man whose most deeply held beliefs about the Federal election system are wholly at odds with the reforms we are seeking. If we somehow are able to get past the filibuster and pass a soft money ban this year, Brad Smith will be on the Commission that is charged by law with the duty to implementing that ban. I emphasize again I hold absolutely no personal animus toward Mr. Smith. This is not personal. It is not a matter of personality. I do not question Mr. Smith's integrity. I do not question his honesty. I certainly do not question his right to criticize the laws from outside his perch as a law professor and commentator. However, his views on the very laws he will be called to enforce scare me. It is simply not possible for me to ignore the views he has repeatedly and stridently expressed simply because he now claims he will faithfully execute the laws if he is confirmed. He may try to do that, but in matters of interpretation he will certainly come down on the side of big money in campaigns every time. In a 1997 opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, Mr. Smith wrote the following: When a law is in need of continual revision to close a series of ever-changing ``loopholes,'' it is probably the law, and not the people, that is in error. Most sensible reform is a simple one: Repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act. I cannot in good conscience vote to confirm a man to the FEC who believes the statute that created that body should be scrapped. I urge my colleagues to think about this very hard. Professor Smith's views are not anywhere near the mainstream of legal thought on this issue. Professor Smith may be a wonderful professor and scholar, but he should not be on the Federal Election Commission. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it is my understanding under the unanimous consent agreement I am allotted 10 minutes.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to keep a promise that I made on this floor a few months ago. In January, I came to the floor to talk about the tragic events that occurred last fall in East Timor. I spoke about the need to encourage the new Indonesian government in its commitment to reform and its resolve to reject the climate of impunity. I withdrew an amendment that would have codified the administration's suspension on military and security assistance for Indonesia East Timor, although I believed then and strongly believe today that Indonesia has not yet met the basic conditions that should be prerequisites for any restoration of military ties with Indonesia. At that time, Mr. President, I pledged to continue to monitor events in Indonesia and in East Timor closely. And I pledged to come to this floor if what I saw troubled me. Let me tell you what I see today. First, I am sorry to say, Mr. President, there have been no trials yet. No one has been brought to justice for the atrocities committed in East Timor last year. I recognize that the Indonesian government has taken some courageous steps in investigating the atrocities that took place in East Timor, and I commend the Indonesian government for its efforts to date. The Indonesian government and the U.N. have succeeded in signing an agreement to exchange witnesses and evidence that could lead to the prosecution of those responsible for the violence in East Timor. A number of dedicated individuals within the new government continue to work courageously for reform, justice, and accountability. But I note, that obervers have been disturbed by the number of civilian and military police officers that the government has appointed to the team charged with investigating human rights abuses in East Timor. And the simple fact remains--no one has yet been held accountable in a court of law for the acts committed by the military and militias in East Timor last year. A second concern is there has been no change in the situation in West Timor. Today, half a year after the referendum, some 100,000 people are still living in the refugee camps of West Timor, afraid of what will happen to them should they attempt to return home. Some will likely choose to stay in Indonesia, but all reports from the area indicate that many want to return home but do not because of continued intimidation from militia groups. Within the refugee camps, since January there have been about a dozen incidents in which international agencies attempting to deliver aid to the refugees were attacked. According to recent reports, one militia group is so well-organized that it prints a newsletter of fabricated horror stories aimed at dissuading refugees from returning to East Timor. This week the plight of these refugees--at this point the most vulnerable of the original masses--was made even more difficult as they contend with the heavy rains and floods that have already killed at least 148 people. Over a hundred are still missing. When the flood waters recede, these people should have every opportunity to put their lives back together, free from threats and from fear. I look at these facts and I consider that the administration has chosen to take a first step toward lifting its suspension on all forms of military assistance and contacts by inviting the Indonesians to particiapte in a joint exercise, and I am indeed troubled. Today I am introducing a bill, the East Timor Repatriation and Security Act of 2000. The bill codifies the suspension of military and security assistance to Indonesia until certain conditions are met--the same conditions that have been articulated in the past; the same conditions contained in last year's foreign operations appropriations bill. The bill would permit military and security assistance to resume only when the President determines and submits a report to the appropriate congressional committees that the Government of Indonesia and the Indonesian Armed Forces are: Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces and militia groups against whom there is credible evidence of human rights violations; Taking effective measures to bring to justice members of the armed forces against whom there is credible evidence of aiding or abetting militia groups; Allowing displaced persons and refugees to return home to East Timor, including providing safe passage for refugees returning from West Timor; Not impeding the activities of the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor; Demonstrating a commitment to preventing incursions into East Timor by members of militia groups in West Timor; and, Demonstrating a commitment to accountability by cooperating with investigations and prosecutions of members of the Indonesian Armed Forces and military groups responsible for human rights violations in Indonesia and East Timor. These certainly are not unreasonable conditions. They work in favor of the forces of reform within Indonesia. And by linking military and security assistance to these benchmarks, Congress will ensure that the U.S. relationship with Jakarta avoids the mistakes of the past, and that U.S. foreign policy comes closer to reflecting our core national values. To those who believe that all is well, to those who would prefer to forgive and forget, to those who think that the issue is yesterday's news, I would simply reiterate the simple facts. There have been no trials for the perpetrators of abuses in East Timor, and the situation in the refugee camps has remained unacceptable. Quite recently, Admiral Dennis Blair, commander in chief of U.S. forces in the Pacific, reaffirmed what Secretary of Defense Cohen articulated last year--the U.S. will not resume a military relationship with Indonesia until the military personnel responsible for the devastation in East Timor are brought to justice, and the U.S. will not resume a military relationship with Indonesia until the refugee crisis in West Timor has been resolved. Specifically, Admiral Blair called on the Indonesians to disband and cut off support to the militia members still terrorizing the refugees. It is critical that the U.S. insist on nothing less. In fact, we should insist on more--the militia members guilty of atrocities should be brought to justice. It is clear that these conditions have not yet been met. But the administration's new proposals for joint exercises with the Indonesians undermine Admiral Blair's words. The substance of the exercise currently being planned does not necessarily trouble me, but its significance does. The administration looks as if it suffers from a lack of resolve and from a wavering sense of commitment. Indonesia is an extraordinarily important country--strategically and economically. Its future course will undoubtedly affect the United States. For this very reason, we must stand firm, and insist upon rebuilding U.S.-Indonesian ties on the firm foundation of respect for the rule of law and for basic human rights. It is because I believe this so strongly--and I know that many of my colleagues share my views--that I have come back to the floor to raise this issue again. I am keeping my promise. I am watching the situation in East and West Timor very closely, and I still do not like what I see.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I simply thank both the leaders for their patience in working out this very difficult agreement. I appreciate the majority leader extending us time prior to the vote to summarize our arguments.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Tom McCormick, a legal intern on my staff, be granted floor privileges during the duration of the debate on the nominations that we are considering today and tomorrow.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized at that point to use such time as I am allotted.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, although this, too, is an uphill battle, it is a good feeling to be on the floor again with my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, not only to fight this nomination, but also to signal the fact that we are ready to move forward on the campaign finance issue and a ban on soft money. I think the debate today has turned out to be not only a good chance to review the inappropriateness of the Bradley Smith nomination, but to review what has happened this year on the campaign finance front, particularly the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Shrink Missouri case, and of course, more importantly, the tremendous profile the Senator from Arizona has given to the campaign finance issue through his courageous campaign for President. All of that is optimistic for the future. But today we have to continue the battle, as the Senator from Arizona has done, to try to prevent the Senate from making a terrible mistake with regard to the Federal Election Commission. In that regard, let me first elaborate on one item the Senator from Kentucky addressed. Earlier today, the Senator from Kentucky quoted from a number of letters from law professors, allegedly in support of the nomination of Professor Brad Smith. One of those letters was from Burt Neuborne, a professor at NYU Law School and Legal Director at the Brennan Center for Justice, somebody for whom I have tremendous regard and respect. The Senator from Kentucky took great pleasure in quoting that letter because the Brennan Center has been very effective and outspoken in its opposition to Professor Smith. I was a little surprised by the quote the Senator from Kentucky read from Professor Neuborne, although I noted that Professor Neuborne didn't seem to endorse Professor Smith for the FEC post in the portion of his letter the Senator from Kentucky read. In the interim, I asked my staff to look into the letter. Although we have not actually seen a copy, it seems the letter quoted by the Senator from Kentucky on the floor was actually a letter in support of Professor Smith's effort to get tenure at his law school a few years ago. I hope I don't need to point out, Mr. President, that there is a big difference between tenure at a law school and a seat on the FEC. Law professors can be and often are provocative, even outrageous, in their views, but FEC Commissioners have to enforce and interpret the law as intended by Congress. It is a very different job from being a professor. So I want the Record to be clear. Professor Neuborne's comments were quoted at least a bit out of context, and those comments had nothing to do with the decision that will soon be before the Senate on Professor Smith's nomination. Now let me say a bit more about the nomination and its relationship to the issue of soft money, which the Senator from Arizona was addressing moments ago. I spoke earlier about some of the views of Brad Smith on our current election laws. Now I want to talk about his views on the major reform issue that faces the Congress this year, the proposed ban on soft money. Professor Smith believes a ban such as the one contained in the McCain-Feingold bill would be unconstitutional. That is another reason I believe he should not be confirmed. We have had a number of debates on the issue of campaign finance reform in the last few years. They have been hard fought and sometimes illuminating. Particularly interesting to me, I have noticed very frequently the arguments of opponents of reform have changed over time. The first few times the McCain-Feingold bill was brought to the floor, much of the argument was against the spending limits and benefits contained in the original bill. We heard the cry of ``welfare for politicians,'' over and over. Then, when the bill was modified and spending limits for candidates were dropped, opponents of reform focused on provisions that would have restricted the use of unlimited corporate and union money to pay for phony issue ads that were really nothing more than campaign ads in disguise. Opponents complained that these provisions violated the first amendment. Then the accusation on this floor over and over again became that we reformers were the so-called ``speech police'' and the ``enemies of free speech.'' Last fall, however, Senator McCain and I decided to exclusively focus our attention on the worst loophole in the law, the problem that has undermined the whole of our Nation's election laws, the unlimited soft money contributions to the political parties. We found few, if any, opponents who were actually willing to come to the floor during the latest debate to continue to press some kind of a constitutional attack on this bill. The reason was very simple. There is no credible argument that a ban on soft money would be struck down by the Supreme Court. That view was supported by a letter to Senator McCain and to me from 126 legal scholars. It was seconded by a letter from every living former president, executive director, legal director, and legislative director of the American Civil Liberties Union. Even one of the strongest and most consistent opponents of reform in this body, the Senator from Washington, Mr. Gorton, conceded on the floor that a ban on soft money is probably constitutional. He even conceded that. Then we had the Supreme Court weighing in earlier this year in the Shrink Missouri case, reaffirming a portion of the Buckley decision that upheld contribution limits and stating in very strong and clear language that the Congress has the power to limit contributions to protect against actual or apparent corruption, the Court said: There is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters. In my view, and I think in the view of any serious commentator on this subject, the Supreme Court's ruling in the Shrink Missouri case removes all doubt as to whether the Court would uphold the constitutionality of a ban on soft money. That is the centerpiece of the reform bill that has passed the House and is now awaiting Senate action. It is simply not credible to argue that this same Court that just a couple of months ago so strongly upheld the Missouri contribution limits would somehow completely change its jurisprudence and turn around and strike down an act of Congress that would outlaw soft money. It is simply not credible. But then there is Bradley Smith, the nominee before the Senate. In a paper for the Notre Dame Law School Journal of Legislation, published in 1998, he wrote the following: Regardless of what one thinks about soft money, or what one thinks about the applicable Supreme Court precedents, a blanket ban on soft money would be, under clear, well- established First Amendment doctrine, constitutionally infirm. Professor Smith makes the argument that since the parties use soft money to run phony issue ads and since phony issue ads are constitutionally protected, somehow a ban on soft money must be constitutionally suspect. The problem with this argument is that the justification for banning soft money has nothing to do with stopping the parties from running phony issue ads. The purpose of a soft money ban is to stop the erosion of public confidence in the political process that unlimited contributions from wealthy corporate, labor, and individual donors have caused--in other words, to put it in simple terms, terms that are not my own but those of the U.S. Supreme Court, to stop the appearance of corruption. Banning soft money is not about attacking speech, it is about attacking corruption. The parties can continue to run all the phony issue ads they want after soft money is banned; they will just have to use hard money to pay for those ads. Of course, Professor Smith doesn't agree that unlimited contributions can cause a corruption problem. But the Supreme Court most certainly does. A majority of this Senate has voted repeatedly in favor of a soft money ban. I cannot imagine that same majority will, tomorrow, vote to confirm a nominee who believes such a ban is unconstitutional. That is why the vote on Mr. Smith is not simply a vote on an executive branch nominee, it is a vote on campaign finance reform Here is the problem. If we succeed in passing a soft money ban this year, the FEC is going to have to promulgate regulations to implement that law. Numerous questions will undoubtedly arise on the mechanics of that ban. We need an FEC that will vote to enforce the law and to interpret it in a way that is consistent with congressional intent. I simply have no confidence that Mr. Smith will be able do that--how can he? It would be completely at odds with his own loudly professed principles. His view is that the whole exercise of prohibiting the parties from soliciting and receiving unlimited non-federal contributions is illegitimate. Shortly after his nomination, Mr. Smith was interviewed by the Capitol Hill newspaper, Roll Call. A story on February 14 of this year, stated as follows: But Smith said ``the reason most'' why he's agreed to take the position is to ``present the case that there's another way to talk about reform than reform being equivalent to more regulation.'' We are making a decision about putting someone on the Fec who is supposed to enforce the laws we pass. The purpose is not to send an advocate over to the FEC. That's right, this nominee most wants to be on the regulatory body in charge of administering the statutes that Congress passes in order to present the view that we do not need more regulation. Not to implement Congress's will in passing reform, but to show there is another way of talking about reform. I do not want that kind of Commissioner writing the regulations that will put the soft money ban of the McCain-Feingold bill into practice. I am not going to stand here and tell you that enactment of the McCain-Feingold bill is assured in this session of Congress. We have a lot of work still to do to convince enough of those who are now voting to permit a filibuster to block us to change their minds. But if you truly believe that soft money must be banished from our system, as you have voted so many times in the past few years, you must vote against the nomination of Brad Smith. Otherwise, you may very well be responsible for ineffective FEC enforcement of the ban which will let soft money back into the system, nullifying all that we have worked so hard to accomplish. The Senator from Kentucky began his presentation this morning by in essence asking for sympathy for Professor Smith because he has inspired such strong opposition both in the Senate and from outside commentators. He suggests that because the opposition is so heated that it must be distorted. And he quoted from law professors who have written in to defend Professor Smith and criticize the opposition to him. He said that from all that has been said about Professor Smith, one would think he has horns and a tail. I want to reiterate this because I think this approach the Senator from Kentucky has used is unfair to all of us who have opposed Professor Smith. Frankly, I think it is I unfair to Professor Smith. The opposition to Professor Smith is not personal. There is not a shred of a personal element to it and there never has been. It is based on his views, and in particular on his writings as a law professor and commentator on the election laws. The quotes I have called attention to today are not distortions, they are not taken out of context, they are not a caricature or a misrepresentation. These are Professor Smith's views, and he has reaffirmed them over and over again, including in the hearings held by the Rules Committee on his nomination. Yes, as we saw earlier, he has a beautiful family, and a beautiful dog, but that does not make his views on Federal election law any more acceptable to me or others who care about campaign finance reform. Professor Smith has not disavowed the views he expressed in his many writings on campaign finance. He simply asks us to take on faith his promise that notwithstanding those views he will enforce the law. But it is not that simple. Issues come before the FEC that are not as clear cut as ``will you enforce the law or not?'' The FEC has to implement and administer the law. It has to promulgate regulations to cover complicated legal issue that come about because candidates and groups do their utmost to get around the law. It has to initiate investigations of suspicious activities, sometimes with great pressure brought by the parties to do nothing. I simply do not have confidence that an academic who holds the views expressed so clearly by Professor Smith will discharge his duties in a way that will uphold the spirit as well as the letter of the law. Let me also respond to the argument expressed by both the Chairman and the Ranking Member of the Rules Committee that his Senate is bound to rubber stamp the President's appointments because by tradition each party is entitled to choose the members of the Commission. First of all, I will say that I was very disappointed that President Clinton put forward this nomination. I expected more from a President who claims to support campaign finance reform. And I am pleased that Vice-President Gore has announced his opposition to the nomination of Professor Smith. I hope some day that we will have a President who will break with tradition--and that's all it is--tradition, and nominate independents or people who are not strongly identified with the parties to the FEC. I don't think the FEC or the country are well served by the kind of ``balanced'' Commission that we now have, where the Democratic and Republican Commissioners reliably line up on opposite sides of issues that have a partisan flavor, and line up in lock step together on issues that implicate the rights of third parties. I would like to see Commissioners on both sides who have an appreciation of the importance of the campaign finance laws and will vote to ensure fairness in elections. But until we have that kind of President, who is willing to stand up to the leadership of the parties, we still have the Senate's duty of Advice and Consent. Nowhere is it said in the Constitution that the power of Advice and Consent is any different for members of the FEC. Otherwise, why would we not just have the President nominate people and not have the Senate vote. It is an abdication of the Senate's duty, I believe, for us to give any less scrutiny to this nominee simply because it is paired with another nominee from the other party. The Senator from Kentucky also claimed that a nominee for a spot on the FEC has never been defeated on the floor, and that is true. But it is not true that the wishes of each of the parties has always been respected. In the mid-1980s, the Republican Party, under pressure from the National Right to Work Committee, blocked the reappointment of a Democratic Commissioner, Thomas Harris, because of his work as a lawyer representing unions. President Reagan refused to renominate Harris, and after a lengthy stalemate, another nominee was suggested. So much of the argument in favor of this nominee today has been based on this notion that to try to stop an FEC nomination is a complete break with precedent, that we have to simply rubberstamp this pairing of two FEC commissioners. The reality is contrary to the suggestion earlier today, the party of the Senator from Kentucky has not always acquiesced in the choice of the Democratic Party for its seats on the commission. Let me finally just dispel one misconception that I think some might have about the negotiations and agreements that led to this debate, which is clearly tied to various judicial and other nominations. There is no requirement here that Professor Smith's nomination be approved by the Senate in order for these other nominations to go forward. That is a misconception that some, particularly on our side, may believe. It is simply not the case with regard to the unanimous consent agreement and the negotiations between the majority leader and minority leader. In fact, it would be an abdication of our responsibility not to vote on the merits of this particular nominee regardless of the other nominations whose consideration was linked to the consideration of this nomination. With that I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor. Mr. President, I ask the time be charged equally as I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. Today we are debating a nomination that may be just as important to the cause of campaign finance reform as any bill that has been considered by the Senate in recent years. Tomorrow's vote on the nomination of Brad Smith may be just as significant for campaign finance reform as any of the votes we had on those bills. The issue here is the nomination of Brad Smith to a 6-year term on the Federal Election Commission, and I oppose that nomination. Like other speakers, I take note of the photograph of Brad Smith's family shown today on the floor only to make a point that this nomination is certainly not analogous to treatment that has been given to judicial appointments, where we have had to wait for years and years for a confirmation vote. Mr. Smith was just nominated a couple of months ago. So this has not been a long drawn out delay of his nomination that would do harm to him, his family, or anybody else. In fact, I rejected that kind of approach to his nomination because, as far as I know, Professor Smith is a perfectly reasonable man in terms of his integrity and his academic ability and the like. He deserved a vote on the floor and he is going to get it, a lot faster than many judicial nominees that President has sent to us. The problem is that Professor Smith's views on Federal election laws as expressed in Law Review articles, interviews, op-eds, and speeches over the past half decade are startling. He should not be on the regulatory body charged with enforcing and interpreting those laws. So when words are used on the floor such as ``vilification,'' or questioning his integrity, or any other excuse not to get to the real issue, I have to strongly object. This debate is simply on the merits of what Professor Smith's views are of what the election laws are or should be. Over the course of the debate--and I note that a number of my colleagues will be joining me on the floor to set out the case against Professor Smith--we will explain, and I hope convince, our colleagues and the public that this nomination has to be defeated. Let me again make it clear, because I think there was some attempt to suggest the opposite, that I hold no personal animus towards Professor Smith. It is not a matter of personality. I am sure he is a good person. I do not question his right to criticize the laws from his outside perch as a law professor and commentator. But his views on the very laws he will be called upon to enforce give rise to grave doubt as to whether he can carry out the responsibilities of a Commissioner on the FEC. It just isn't possible for us to ignore the views he has repeatedly and stridently expressed simply because he now says he will faithfully execute the laws if he is confirmed. We would not accept, nor should we accept, such disclaimers from individuals nominated to head other agencies of government. Sometimes a cliche is the best way to express an idea. Professor Smith on the FEC would really be the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. Let me illustrate this by pointing out the views of Bradley Smith that caused me and many others who care about campaign finance reform to have a lot of concern about his being on the FEC. Professor Smith has been a prolific scholar on the first amendment and the Federal election laws, so there is a rich written record to review. Let's start with one of his most bold statements. In a 1997 opinion in the Wall Street Journal, Professor Smith wrote the following: When a law is in need of continual revision to close a series of ever changing ``loopholes,'' it is probably the law and not the people that is in error. The most sensible reform is a simple one: repeal of the Federal Elections Campaign Act. That is right. The man who we may be about to confirm for a seat on the Federal Election Commission believes the very laws he is supposed to enforce should be repealed. Thomas Jefferson said we should have a revolution in this country every 20 years. He believed laws should constantly be revised and revisited to make sure they are responsive to the needs of citizens at any given time. Yet Professor Smith sees the need for closing a loophole in the Federal elections laws as evidence that the whole system, the whole idea of campaign finance reform laws, should be completely scrapped. In other words, what would be the purpose of the Federal Elections Commission under his view of the world? A majority of both the House and the Senate have voted to close the loophole in the law known as soft money. We know that loophole is undermining public confidence in our elections and our legislative process. We have seen that loophole grow until it threatens to swallow the entire system. Many Members think it already has. A majority of the Congress wants to fix that problem. We are willing to legislate to improve an imperfect system. But Brad Smith wants to junk the system entirely and let the big money flow, without limit. So what are we doing? We are about to put somebody with that view on the body charged with enforcing laws we pass. I don't think this makes any sense. Another statement by Professor Smith that I think should give us pause, in a policy paper published by the Cato Institute, for whom Professor Smith has written extensively, he says the following: The Federal Election Campaign Act and its various State counterparts are profoundly undemocratic and profoundly at odds with the First Amendment. Of course, this is consistent with his views that the Federal Election Campaign Act should be repealed. The FEC has loopholes and doesn't work. Not only that, it is profoundly undemocratic and profoundly at odds with the first amendment. How can a member of the FEC, how can Brad Smith, reconcile those views with his new position as one of six individuals responsible for enforcing and implementing the statute and any future reforms that Congress may pass? He has shown such extreme disdain in his writings and public statements for the very law he would be charged to enforce that I just don't think he should be entrusted with this important responsibility. Let me repeat, this nominee says that the Federal Election Campaign Act is profoundly undemocratic and profoundly at odds with the first amendment. Every bit of it. I am sure this body doesn't agree. Is it profoundly undemocratic to believe that the tobacco companies, the pharmaceutical companies, and the trial lawyers shouldn't be pouring money into campaigns through the parties, while they seek to influence legislation that affects their bottom lines? Is it profoundly undemocratic to believe that $20,000 per year is enough for a wealthy person to be able to contribute to a political party? Is it profoundly undemocratic to argue that the spending of outside groups to attack candidates should be reported? That the public has a right to know the identities and financial backers of groups that run vicious, negative ads against candidates just weeks before an election? I, for one, take great pride in being a strong defender of the first amendment. I wouldn't vote for a bill that was ``profoundly at odds with the first amendment,'' and I don't think my colleagues, who form a majority of the Senate in support of campaign finance reform, would either. But we are being asked to confirm to a seat on the body that will implement these laws someone who views these laws and our views as totally illegitimate. Professor Smith does believe, apparently, that disclosure is a good thing, but that is all the regulation he wants to see in our elections. In another article, Professor Smith writes: I do think that Buckley is probably wrong in allowing contribution limits. He believes and he reaffirmed this belief in the hearings on his nomination held by the Rules Committee that contribution limits are unconstitutional. Professor Smith's view, as quoted by the Columbus Dispatch, is that people should be allowed to spend whatever they want on politics. Whatever they want. He thinks there is no problem with unlimited contributions, none. Congress need not concern itself with that issue at all, apparently. In an interview at MSNBC he said: I think we should deregulate and just let it go. That is how our politics was run for over 100 years. Think about what this is. We are asking somebody to enforce our election laws who says, literally, ``just let it go.'' That is some enforcement. Professor Smith would have us go back to the late 19th century before Theodore Roosevelt pushed through the 1907 Tillman Act and prohibits corporate contributions to Federal elections. The limits on contributions from individuals to candidates--the very core of the campaign finance law that the Supreme Court upheld in Buckley v. Valeo and again in Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC-- Brad Smith would junk these provisions along with the very statute that created the FEC, the body on which he now seeks to serve. Professor Smith thinks that contribution limits are expendable because, in his view, the concerns about corruption are just overblown. Let's look at what Mr. Smith has to say about that: He wrote in a 1997 law review article: Whatever the particulars of reform proposals, it is increasingly clear that reformers have overstated the government interest in the anticorruption rationale. Money's alleged corrupting influence are far from proven. Well it just so happens, Mr. President, that the U.S. Supreme Court doesn't agree. Just a few months ago, the Supreme Court issued a ringing reaffirmation of the core holding of the Buckley decision that forms the basis for the reform effort. The Court once again held that Congress has the constitutional power to limit contributions to political campaigns in order to protect the integrity of the political process from corruption or the appearance of corruption. In upholding contribution limits imposed by the Missouri Legislature, Justice Souter wrote for the Court: [T]here is little reason to doubt that sometimes large contributions will work actual corruption of our political system, and no reason to question the existence of a corresponding suspicion among voters. Mr. Smith thinks the dangers of corruption are overblown. The Supreme Court says they are obvious. Professor Smith's disdain for campaign finance reform is so great that he won't even admit the most basic fact about our political life. That at some point, in some amount, contributions can corrupt. Or at least they look like they corrupt, which the Supreme Court recognized is just as good a reason to limit contributions to politicians. The appearance of corruption, Mr. President. We all know it's there. We hear it from our constituents regularly. We see it in the press, we hear about it on the news. But Brad Smith says the corrupting effect of money on the legislative process is far from proven. Back home if I said that at any town meeting that is a laugh line. Americans scoff at the notion that big money is not corrupting our system. The Supreme Court held, and by the way, this wasn't a narrowly divided Supreme Court decision in the Shrink Missouri case. This was a 6-3 decision, with a majority containing four Justices appointed by Republican Presidents including Chief Justice Rehnquist. The Supreme Court held as follows: Buckley demonstrates that the dangers or 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. ``The problem of corruption is not an illusory one,'' said the Court. The Supreme Court got it 25 years ago. Brad Smith still doesn't believe it. Professor Smith says: ``Money's alleged corrupting influence are far from proven.'' That's what this debate is all about, Mr. President. If someone can't even see the danger in unlimited contributions, how can he adequately fulfill his duties as an FEC commissioner? The campaign finance laws are not undemocratic. They are not unconstitutional. They are essential to the functioning of our democratic process and to the faith of the people in their government. As the Supreme Court said in the Shrink Missouri case: Leave the perception of impropriety unanswered, and the cynical assumption that large donors call the tune could jeopardize the willingness of voters to take part in democratic governance. Democracy works `only if the people have faith in those who govern, and that faith is bound to be shattered when high officials and their appointees engage in activities which arouse suspicions of malfeasance and corruption. Now, in the wake of that clear declaration by the Court, how can Bradley Smith continue to rationalize the gutting of the Federal Election Campaign Act? And how can we allow him the chance to carry it out as a member of the FEC? We need FEC Commissioners who understand and accept the simple and basic precepts about the influence of money on our political system that the Court reemphasized in the Shrink Missouri case. We need FEC Commissioners who believe in the laws they are sworn to uphold. We need FEC Commissioners who will be vigilant for efforts to evade the law, to avoid the clear will of the Congress. We need FEC Commissioners who will be alert to the development of new and more clever loopholes, tricks by candidates or parties or advocacy groups to avoid constitutionally valid limits on their activities or requirements that they operate in the light of day. We do not need FEC Commissioners who have an ideological agenda contrary to the core rationale of the laws they must administer. As any American who has been watching ``The West Wing'' in recent weeks knows, nominees to the FEC come in pairs, one Democratic, one Republican. And the members of the Commission by tradition are suggested by the congressional leadership to the President. Now it would be a pipe dream to think that the President would actually nominate two Commissioners at once who favor campaign finance reform, as has happened on TV. No, for reality to imitate art to that extent that would be too much to hope for. But at least we shouldn't put the foremost academic critic of the election laws on the Commission. Surely the Republican leadership can suggest another qualified individual for this post who doesn't believe the election laws should be repealed. We all know this nomination was made as part of an agreement to get a vote on the confirmation of another presidential nominee last year. I am sorry that the Senate's great responsibility to advise and consent to nominations has become a game of political horse trading. In the end, I think the country suffers when these kind of games are played, but I know it goes on, and I did not stand in the way of this most recent agreement to bring Mr. Smith to a vote as part of a larger package of nominations. But we still have a duty of advise and consent on each nomination, and I ask my colleagues to take a very hard look at this particular nomination and after doing so I hope you come to the conclusion to vote no. The public is entitled to FEC Commissioners who they can be confident will not work to gut the efforts of Congress to provide fair and democratic rules to govern our political campaigns. The time has come for the Senate to say no. The nomination of Brad Smith should not be approved. I reserve the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President I rise today to honor the dean of the congressional print reporters here in Congress. Frank A. Aukofer has worked in the Washington Bureau of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and its predecessor, the Milwaukee Journal, since 1970. Frank has also served in other capacities for the paper since 1960. Sadly, for those of us who have read his stories through the years, Frank has decided to retire at the beginning of next month. During his long and distinguished career, Frank has reported on the issues that have defined the last 40 years in America and around the world. He was the civil rights reporter for the Journal at the height of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Since arriving in Washington, Frank's coverage of State, national, and international issues has included stories on six Presidents, 15 Congresses, and the nomination hearings of 11 Supreme Court justices, including every member of the current Court. Coverage of these important events has not kept Frank tied to his desk here in the press gallery. In the 1980s, he traveled to Mexico, Colombia, Cuba, and Central America to cover such stories as the trial of Eugene Hasenfus in Nicaragua which led to a nomination for a Pulitzer Prize. He was also one of the first journalists to report from Saudi Arabia in 1990 when U.S. troops were deployed after Iraq invaded Kuwait. On top of all this he has still found time to write a weekly automobile review column entitled, ``DriveWays.'' I thank Frank Aukofer for his years of service to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, and the people of Wisconsin and I wish him all the best in his well-deserved retirement.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I find it hard to believe in these few years that the nature of what we do out here has changed this much. I wonder if there is any way that the number of Senators on both sides of the aisle, who remember, who valued that, could sort of come together and talk about restoring this institution to what it was.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I understand. What the Senator did was absolutely essential. We need to get out here and talk about what is happening. I remember when I first came here. The Senator from Minnesota was here several years before I was--I believe two. But I remember when we were in the majority, Senators on the other side were allowed to freely amend bills. I learned a great deal from my colleagues, the Senators on the other side. When they offered an amendment, I sometimes agreed with them. Usually I wouldn't. I learned a great deal about what they were thinking, and about what my constituents might think. I, in particular, give credit to the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm. He is a superb Senator in terms of his ability. For us to be deprived because of this kind of a process of benefiting from the knowledge and thinking and sentiments of our colleagues on the other side is a terrible loss to the Senate. I have not been here that long, but I remember when it used to be different that it was better.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I couldn't agree more. First, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his discussion of the problems we are having in the Senate, and for that important statement. But I also certainly will not accept his apology for what he did yesterday, for what he did was right.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Minnesota for his efforts on each and every issue I tried to raise to try to constantly point out that this place is supposed to be where we can deliberate and actually talk about these issues and offer amendments. He is probably the best example of a person who understands the need to do that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest that is one way that a person can come to the conclusion that the Senate should operate this way. However, there are others who would believe that government sometimes has to stop things that are bad that other levels of government or perhaps the other body would want done. I ask the Senator if he does not agree that the Senate has a role from another philosophical point of view; I think it is called the ``saucer'' that Thomas Jefferson spoke of, the saucer that goes with the cup in order to cool the Senate. Whether this reflects a belief that government does not have a function, or whether it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what the Senate is supposed to be, I wonder if the Senator would react.

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right. I would ask the Senator how he would react to that.

Mr. FEINGOLD. If he will yield for a question, I suggest to the Senator that if I tell a group of my constituents that I cannot find a vehicle, they would offer me a ride. They would say: Do your job; here is your ride. That is the problem. I ask the Senator if he would agree, if we are forced to talk to our constituents about the minutia of Senate procedure, and if that is the kind of conversation we have to have with our dairy farmers in Wisconsin instead of talking to them about what we should be talking about, the substance of the legislation--let us worry about the Senate procedure--then really the opponents of any kind of change have won because that is not something they should have to concern themselves with. It is very interesting; great. But that is not what dairy farmers in Wisconsin need. They have some great ideas about how to do things differently, and we should be able to come out here and have an amendment or a bill. In fact, I ask the Senator from Minnesota if he would agree with this. We are not used to getting a lot of votes sometimes. Sometimes we don't get many votes on our amendments. Sometimes there is a little laughter about how Wellstone and Feingold only got 10 or 12 votes. But at least we got a chance to get some votes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Minnesota would respond to a question.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin amendment and in support of the Warner-Byrd amendment to the military construction appropriations bill. The Warner-Byrd amendment to the Military Construction Appropriations bill. The Warner-Byrd amendment, which was accepted in committee, would require Congressional authorization for the continued presence of U.S. troops in Kosovo beyond July 1, 2001. In other words, it would require this Congress, finally, to debate and to decide on the issue of U.S. troops in Kosovo, as I believe that we are required to do under the War Powers Resolution. I am sure that some opponents of this measure will paint a picture of a power-hungry Congress, eager to wrest authorities away from the executive in an attempt to gain leverage over the White House. But this is about more than power, Mr. President. It is about responsibility. Approximately 5,900 U.S. troops are currently serving in an apparently open-ended operation in Kosovo. Fifty- nine hundred Americans are operating in often dangerous conditions in the pursuit of a policy that this Congress has not authorized. Fifty- nine hundred families are sacrificing. We cannot continue to suggest to the American people, to our constituents, that this is none of our business. Congressional approval is essential to the commitment of U.S. troops in dangerous situations abroad. Still other opponents of this measure paint a grim picture of the consequences that will follow should Congress insist on authorizing a large-scale deployment like that in Kosovo. Because they believe that Congress would act irresponsibly, they prefer that Congress not act at all. Again, this is a simply unacceptable abdication of responsibility. What does it say about the state of the this body that we do not trust ourselves to make tough decisions? What kind of leadership do we exercise when we dodge accountability for a policy of such critical importance to this country? The decision that this legislation would force upon the Congress--a decision to either remain in or withdraw from Kosovo--is exactly the kind of choice that we are here to make. It, Mr. President, is our responsibility. I urge my colleagues to shoulder it with care, as fifty-nine hundred dedicated men and women are counting on us to do our duty. The Warner-Byrd amendment would also mandate the burden-sharing that was supposed to be at the heart of the U.S. approach to Kosovo. The U.S. bore the lion's share of the burden in NATO's military campaign of last year. I did not agree with that policy; I believed then and I believe now that the leading role was Europe's to fill. But I was heartened by the promise that Europe would take the lead when it came to securing the peace, and that Europe, and not America, would provide the vast majority of the resources required to meet Kosovo's enormous needs. There have been a lot of suggestions that this legislation does a lot more than it actually does. All this legislation does, Mr. President, is hold our valued friends and allies to their word. Kosovo's reconstruction and return to civil authority cannot be allowed to become a U.S.-led project. Certainly, Mr. President, while the U.S. fails to intervene in equally compelling crises around the globe, we make the case--and it is, in my view, a very strong case--for regional leadership in regional conflicts. African solutions to African problems--that is often our prescription for the conflicts and challenges of that troubled continent. In East Timor, we stood back, allowed a regional force led by Australia to take the lead, and then played a supporting role in that effort. This, Mr. President, is the most promising recipe for U.S. engagement in the world today. And it should be followed when it comes to Kosovo. But there have been problems, Mr. President, with the timely delivery of Europe's pledges. This amendment makes the U.S. position crystal clear--our allies must fulfill their responsibilities if they are to continue to count on U.S. support. This is the right message and the right thing to do, and Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will remember how right this is the next time the tables are turned and it is our country that is failing to honor our international commitments, be it at the U.N. or elsewhere. So I urge my colleagues to face up to our shared responsibility when it comes to the U.S. involvement in Kosovo, and to insist that our allies do the same. The fifty-nine hundred American men and women in Kosovo cannot dodge reality or duck responsibility. Neither should our European allies, and neither should we. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am very pleased that the Senate today will pass H.R. 371, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act. I was proud to join my colleague from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, as an original co-sponsor of S. 890, which was companion legislation to H.R. 371. I commend Senator Wellstone for his leadership on this issue and for his persistence in pressing for the Judiciary Committee and the full Senate to consider the bill. By passing this legislation today, the Senate recognizes the contribution of Hmong and Lao immigrants who risked their lives to support U.S. interests in Southeast Asia. The Senate not only recognizes the valor of Hmong and Lao veterans, but also helps them achieve their goal of citizenship. Mr. President, Wisconsin is home to the third largest Hmong community in the United States. We are proud of the Hmong veterans and their families who sacrificed so much for U.S. national security during the Vietnam War and have done so much to enrich Wisconsin and the United States. I have had the opportunity to meet many Lao and Hmong veterans and their families as I travel throughout Wisconsin. I am struck by the profound importance they place on becoming citizens of the United States. The most important thing to many of these individuals is to become legal citizens of the country they risked their lives to help and that they now call home. This bill is the least we can do to help repay the huge debt we owe these brave individuals This legislation is truly long overdue. The Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army should not have had to suffer for so long in obscurity after the end of the Vietnam War. It should not have taken so long for the United States to finally dedicate a monument in Arlington National Cemetery to the Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army, when it did so in May 1997. Mr. President, the monument at Arlington National Cemetery to the Hmong veterans contains important language for us to remember as we pass this legislation today in the Senate. The monument in Arlington Cemetery, dedicated by many of the Hmong veterans and their families from Wisconsin and across the United States, reads as follows: Dedicated to the U.S. Secret Army in Laos 1961-1973 In memory of the Hmong and Lao combat veterans and their American Advisors who served freedom's cause in Southeast Asia. Their patriotic valor and loyalty in the defense of liberty and democracy will never be forgotten ``You will never be forgotten. (in Laotian and Hmong)--Lao Veterans of America, May 15, 1997.'' Mr. President, I am particularly proud of the Lao Veterans of America chapters throughout the state of Wisconsin--in Milwaukee, Green Bay, Madison, Wausau, Stevens Point, Sheboygan, Oshkosh, Eau Claire and elsewhere. They played a positive role in helping to establish this monument as well as pressing the Congress to enact this legislation. They have also worked with the national headquarters of the Lao Veterans of America and its chapters across the United States to reconstruct many of the records of the veterans, which were destroyed in Laos at the end of the Vietnam War. More than a thousand Hmong veterans from Wisconsin were in Washington, D.C. last week to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the end of the Vietnam War in Laos and the passage of this legislation in the House of Representatives. Over four thousand Hmong veterans marched down Pennsylvania Avenue and attended ceremonies at the Vietnam War Memorial, the U.S. Capitol and Arlington National Cemetery. Mr. President, during the course of our consideration of this bill in Committee, an objection was raised to a provision of the bill that specifically mentions the Lao Veterans of America as an organization whose certification of the eligibility of an individual veteran as eligible for the benefits of this bill could be considered by the Attorney General. Given that there is reason to believe that the federal government has few remaining records of which Lao and Hmong participated in the U.S. Secret Army, I think it is entirely reasonable for the Attorney General to consider documentation provided by the Lao Veterans of America or other Lao or Hmong veterans' organizations. In fact, I understand that the Lao Veterans of America was named in the House legislation because it has maintained extensive records of the Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army. Frankly, I do not understand why this provision became such a sticking point, but in order to move this bill along and get it to the President's desk as quickly as possible, I agreed to a modification of this provision. I am pleased that we reached agreement that this provision should not be removed in its entirety. And I emphasize, and I know that the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee agrees, that a negative inference should not be drawn from the fact that the name of this specific organization, the Lao Veterans of America, was removed from the bill. Even though its name was removed from the bill, the Lao Veterans of America can still provide documentation to the Attorney General, and the Attorney General may consider it. Mr. President, I again want to thank Senator Wellstone, Senator Kohl, and Senator Hatch for their work to facilitate passage of this important legislation that will help Hmong veterans finally attain their well-deserved goal of U.S. citizenship. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, for his assistance in getting this legislation to the floor. I concur with Senator Hatch that a negative inference should not be drawn from the fact that the bill was amended to remove reference to a specific organization. Given that there is reason to believe that the federal government has little, if any, remaining records of which Lao and Hmong participated in the U.S. Secret Army, I think it is entirely reasonable for the Attorney General to consider documentation provided by the Lao Veterans of America or other Lao or Hmong veterans' organizations. In fact, I understand that the Lao Veterans of America was named in the House legislation because it has maintained extensive records of the Hmong and Lao veterans of the U.S. Secret Army.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to call for Senate action on reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. Earlier this week, the Supreme Court in its decision in United States versus Morrison struck a specific provision from the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. But that decision leaves intact the bulk of this landmark law. For the past five years, VAWA has funded and promoted significant innovations in federal, state and local programs to assist victims of violence, enhance prosecution of domestic violence and sexual assault crimes, and prevent violence against women and children in their homes and on our streets. This support has enabled shelters, rape crisis centers, health care professionals, schools, police forces and communities across the country to address and prevent violence against women. I commend my distinguished colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, for his authorship of the original Violence Against Women Act and for his commitment to ensuring that this important legislation is re-authorized. Women across the nation, including in my home state of Wisconsin, have benefitted from this important legislation. Women's lives have been saved. Countless victims of domestic violence or sexual assault are receiving the services they need. Police are participating in training programs to arrest and bring abusers to justice. Both men and women are learning about the problem of domestic violence and sexual assault. In short, women are safer today because of this legislation. Our nation's progress in preventing violence against women, however, is now in serious jeopardy. Authorization for the Violence Against Women Act ends this year. I understand that Senators Biden and Hatch have been working closely to craft a compromise re-authorization bill. I commend both of my colleagues for their commitment to this issue. But with only weeks remaining in this abbreviated session, I urge the Senate leadership to take action on this legislation without further delay.