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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. Thank you, Mr. President. Privilege Of The Floor Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that during debate of H.R. 434 the following members of my staff have access to the floor: Mary Murphy, Tom Walls, Mary Ann Richmond, Linda Rotblatt, Sumner Slichter, and Michelle Gavin.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I understand that I am entitled to up to 1 hour under the rules at this point, or at any point during the debate on the motion to proceed. Is that correct?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to take the opportunity to state my position on S. 1692, and to explain the reasons why I will again oppose this legislation. I respect the deeply held views of those who oppose abortion in any circumstances. I have always believed that the decisions in this area are best handled by the individuals involved, guided by their own beliefs and unique circumstances, rather than by government mandates. Second, like most Americans, I would prefer to live in a world where abortion is unnecessary. I support efforts to reduce the number of abortions through family planning and counseling to avoid unintended pregnancies. I support Roe v. Wade, but I also understand that some restrictions on abortion can be constitutional when there is a compelling State interest at stake. I have previously voted to ban post-viability abortions unless the woman's life is at risk or the procedure is necessary to protect the woman from grievous injury to her physical health. That is why I will vote for the Durbin alternative to S. 1692. I conduct a Listening Session in every one of Wisconsin's 72 counties every year. In 1997 and 1998, hundreds of Wisconsin citizens came to talk to me about their serious and sincere concerns that, in some nearby states, abortions are being performed very late in pregnancy for reasons that they believe are not medically indicated. I support legislation that will actually reduce the total number of late-term abortions while providing reasonable exceptions when necessary to deal with serious medical situations. I am disappointed that the proponents of S. 1692 have steadfastly refused to accept any amendment, no matter how tightly crafted, which would include provisions to protect women's physical health. This intentionally polarizing approach is the reason people suspect that the objective of the bill is to further a political issue rather than change the law. I am concerned that S. 1692 will not stop a single abortion late in pregnancy. The bill, by prohibiting only one particular procedure, creates an incentive for an abortion provider to switch to a different procedure that is not banned. The Durbin alternative amendment would stop abortions by any method after a fetus is viable, except when serious medical situations dictate otherwise. I am supporting the Durbin amendment because it recognizes that, in some circumstances, women suffer from severely debilitating diseases specifically caused or exacerbated by a pregnancy or are unable to obtain necessary treatment for a life-threatening condition while carrying a pregnancy to term. The exceptions in the Durbin amendment are limited to conditions for which termination of the pregnancy is medically indicated. It retains the option of abortion for mothers facing extraordinary medical conditions, such as: breast cancer, preeclampsia, uterine rupture, or non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, for which termination of the pregnancy may be recommended by the woman's physician due to the risk of grievous injury to the mother's physical health or life. In contrast, S. 1692 provides no such exception to protect the mother from grievous injury to her physical health. At the same time, by clearly limiting the medical circumstances where post- viability abortions are permitted, this legislation prohibits these procedures in cases where the mother's health is not at such high risk. I also feel very strongly that Congress should seek to restrict abortions only within the constitutional parameters set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. I would have preferred that S. 1692 had been reviewed by the Judiciary Committee on which I serve, rather than having been placed straight on the Senate calendar. I believe S. 1692 raises significant constitutional questions, and with court decisions in 19 of the 21 states where state legislation similar to S. 1692 has been challenged, the Judiciary Committee should have reviewed this bill prior to its consideration on the Senate floor. S. 1692, by prohibiting a procedure whenever it is used, breaches the Court's standard that the government does not have a compelling interest in restricting abortions prior to fetal viability. However, I am also aware that some of the recent decisions on state legislation similar to S. 1692 raises questions about whether an exception for grievous physical injury may be too narrow. To date I have supported this very narrow definition of the exception necessary to protect the physical health of the woman while balancing concerns that abortion late in pregnancy should only be used in rare circumstances. I have specifically voted for the Daschle amendment last Congress, legislation which exactly reflects this position. The Durbin amendment contains similar language. The Durbin amendment goes farther than the Daschle amendment in ensuring that the exceptions to the ban on post-viability abortions are properly exercised. It requires a second doctor to certify the medical need for a post-viability abortion. The second doctor requirement is intended to ensure that post-viability abortions take place only when continuing the pregnancy would prevent the woman from receiving treatment for a life-threatening condition related to her physical health or would cause a severely debilitating disease or impairment to her physical health. The Durbin alternative amendment strikes the right balance between protecting a woman's constitutional right to choose abortion and the right of the state to protect future life. It protects a woman's physical health throughout her pregnancy, while insisting that only grievous, medically diagnosable conditions could justify aborting a viable fetus. Both fetal viability and women's health would be determined by the physician's best medical judgement, as they must be, in concurrence with another physician. I hope, as we vote today, we do so in full knowledge of the strong feelings about this issue on all sides. We should respect these differences, avoid efforts to confuse or trick each other and the public, and maintain a level of debate that reflects the importance of ascertaining the truth about this issue and finding responses that are sensitive and constitutionally sound.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask I be yielded such time as I shall consume. I especially thank the Senator from Michigan for his great determination on this issue. I am certainly going to join him on this. I will vote ``no'' on the motion to proceed in a few minutes, but it is not because I oppose moving to the late-term abortion bill at this time. Supporters of campaign finance reform are prepared to move that bill by consent, which keeps the campaign finance bill as the pending business of the Senate--that is all we are trying to do--and thereby allows the Senate to return to it once the late-term abortion bill is completed. This vote we are going to have in a few minutes is not about whether we will debate late-term abortion. Everybody here is prepared to do that. It is about whether we will keep working on the campaign finance bill after a short hiatus to do other business. I want to be clear: Senator McCain and I are ready to move forward in debating our bill. I thought we had an exciting series of votes yesterday, the upshot of which is, we have three new supporters of reform. We need to keep up the pressure for reform. We did not have adequate time on the floor to do that. The majority leader promised on the record 5 days of debate. We had 4 days, and 1 of the days was yesterday when all we did was vote on cloture. I say to my Republican colleagues who say they want the chance to offer amendments, now that we have had those two cloture votes, we can do that. There is every opportunity now to offer amendments. There are a variety of ways to clear places on the amendment tree so the debate can proceed and we can see if we can work something out and actually pass the bill. I appreciate the candor of the Senator from Pennsylvania, who just said, as I understand it, we had a fair debate. This is not what some of the other Republicans said. He also indicated there had been an opportunity to offer amendments. That is what the Senator said. That is the opposite of what many of the opponents of reform said. Which is it? Was there an opportunity to offer amendments or not? Maybe it is an academic debate at this point. It is a very interesting difference in the way the last few days have been characterized. What really counts is that amendments can be offered right now. If there is any Senator out there who is saying he has not had that chance to offer amendments, they should vote to have the Senate continue on the campaign finance reform bill and come down and offer an amendment. Now is not the time to put campaign finance reform back on the calendar, which in this case means the back burner. It is time to come together and work to find a consensus. Whatever different spin is put on this issue, the bottom line is this: The soft money system is wrong and it must be ended. Mr. President, 55 Members of this body have now voted for reform. The time has come to finish the job. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this motion to proceed and help the Senate take a step toward doing that. I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask the time be equally divided.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time remains on the Democratic leader's time?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the assistant minority leader for his very kind remarks and his very strong remarks on the need to stay on this bill. I also thank the leader, Senator Daschle, for his strong remarks in support of reform in the presence of so many Democratic colleagues on the floor at that time right after the vote was taken. Of course my gratitude goes to the Senator from Arizona for continuing to fight. We are making progress. The story has not yet been told on this floor of what just happened on this vote. Certainly I do not share the interesting account of the Senator from Kentucky, who seems elated that three Republicans who have stuck with him all the way did not vote with him this time. That is what just happened. That is what nobody is pointing out. Day after day after day in this effort I am asked: What other Republicans are you going to get to support you, Russ? I am never sure because, obviously, each Senator makes his or her own decision. They often do not make their decisions until the last minute because these issues are often tough calls. But we finally had a vote where we found out we have a lot more support than some people thought. This is why games have been played in the last couple of days. This is why we had the Senator from Kentucky voting not to table a soft money ban last night. I don't think he has changed his mind. But he urged every one of his Republican colleagues last night to, in effect, vote to ban soft money after they just stood out here for 2 or 3 days and argued against a ban. Why? Why would they do that? Why did we not meet this morning? Why didn't the Senate do anything this morning? Here we are, near the end of one of the most difficult floor periods in a Congress, with appropriations bills and many other matters before us, with the leadership telling us over and over again we need to get all this work done, but we did not meet this morning. I will tell you why. Because the Senator from Kentucky knows his support is slipping. He may have even known we would pick up the support--and I say this to members of the press and others who always ask me this: Who is going to support you? This time we had Senators from Delaware and Arkansas and Kansas vote with us, including Senators who have never voted with us before. I recognize there are still some tough issues to resolve for some of the Senators who voted with us. But this is an exciting development. Last year the big deal was we had not gotten a majority. Then we got a majority. The natural question is, How do you get to 60 votes? My answer is, one at a time. But today we took three steps in that direction. I think that tells you what is going on. They want to move off this bill because we are moving in the right direction. We are not there yet but, boy, we are getting closer. What will bring us to the end of this process, a fair end of this process? First of all, the understanding we had is that we would have 5 real days of debate and amendment. You cannot count starting at 7:30 at night on a Wednesday when Senators had left the Capitol as a day. So we are entitled, under this understanding, to come back in here the rest of today and tomorrow and debate this issue. We had three full days on this bill--Thursday, Friday, and Monday. On two of those days we had no real votes. Then today, the fourth day, we didn't come in until 1:15 pm. That is not the five days of debate that we were promised. I know there are other Senators on the Republican side who want to join us, who want to add to the 55. But they want something every Senator has a right to want. They want a chance to offer amendments. They have some ideas they would like to add to this soft money ban that I think could be acceptable, and they could finally help us break down this absurd roadblock to banning this form of corruption that is affecting the Senate. Make no mistake, three new Senators have voted with us. They do not represent an ideological group from the left or the right. They are just different Senators who, I believe, have finally had it with this soft money system. This is why the Senator from Arizona and I used the strategy of simplifying this bill, of saying let's at least have an up- or-down vote on soft money. That is what we just had. I find what these Senators did very encouraging. I thank them because it takes guts. It is tough to stand up to your leadership on this. They did it. I am grateful for this vote. It is very significant. So we should not leave the issue now. This is the time to let those Senators, and other Senators who have indicated an interest in banning soft money, come to the floor, offer their amendments, and see if we can fashion a compromise that could cause the Senate to be proud and to join the House in trying to actually do something about this problem. I thank all the Senators who will assist us in preventing this matter from coming off the floor. It belongs on the floor. It is the most important issue before this country, and we need to continue to work on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleagues in congratulating my dear friend and colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, on his 10,000th vote cast as a member of this body. What a great milestone Senator Leahy has reached. What a great testament to the commitment of my dear colleague to his duty as a representative of the people of the state of Vermont. Senator Leahy now joins an exclusive group of only a handful of Senators who have cast at least 10,000 votes. At a time when many Americans are skeptical of Congress and the political process, it is re-assuring to know that my colleagues, like Senator Leahy, take their responsibility to their constituents seriously. Even with modern transportation, it is a challenge not to miss this important responsibility of casting votes. Senator Leahy has been an exemplary Senator. And it's not just the act of voting that matters. I also commend Senator Leahy for his hard work, dedication, insight and adept ability to work in a bipartisan manner--skills that he has brought to this floor, as well as to his role as ranking member of the Judiciary Committee. His leadership has been invaluable to the work of the Committee, as well as the work of moving bills on the Senate floor. As a member of the Judiciary Committee, I have been proud to work with him on innumerable pieces of legislation affecting everything from civil rights to immigration to crime. Mr. President, I once again congratulate my dear colleague, Senator Leahy, and wish him well in continuing his outstanding work for the American people.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will not object, having had the chance to express my dismay at this schedule, which is nothing but a way to avoid the issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. We see here the unbelievable desire to avoid the issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President. I find it hard to understand, as we have just had a vote, which was supposed to be an up-or-down vote on the question of whether or not we are going to ban soft money. The opponents of reform obviously did not want to face that vote. Quite a number of them had come out to the floor this afternoon to say they were against banning soft money. So they had a chance to vote not to ban soft money. Why didn't they do that? They threw the vote. They all came out here and unanimously voted not to table the McCain- Feingold bill, which simply bans soft money. Now they do not want to have us meet tomorrow morning. We are not going to do our job tomorrow morning. We are not even going to debate, not going to take up amendments. We are just going to take the morning off.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am wondering why. It would be a good idea to take up this bill that we have before us and work on it, take up amendments in the morning, instead of losing a half a day. Is there some substantive reason why we are not working on a Tuesday morning, after we started the voting process already on Monday night?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask the Senator from Washington why the Senate is not convening until 1:15?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is true. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I say to the Senator from Nevada, we have not been thwarted by the majority, only thwarted by that portion of the majority which is actually a minority seeking to filibuster this issue and defy the will of the majority of the people, which, of course, involves more Democrats than Republicans.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I certainly thank the Senator from North Carolina who in the few months he has been here has become a strong voice in the campaign finance reform debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Clearly not. In fact, the only thing that can defeat us on this is partisanship. That is why I worked for 5 years, not only with Senator McCain but I have gotten to know a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--people such as Senator Thompson of Tennessee and Senator Collins of Maine. These are Republicans who I have grown to know and enjoy working with who together have worked to try to do something to ban soft money. So this is an example of how this institution can work well in terms of our cooperation and bipartisanship. Let's make sure that partisanship doesn't defeat our efforts.

Mr. FEINGOLD. There is nothing more important than passing a ban on soft money in this Congress. In a few minutes we will have the first vote, I say to the Senator from North Carolina, the first vote ever on the question of whether we are going to allow party soft money or not. This is not one of these votes that you have every once in a while, a bed check vote on a Monday night. This is the real thing. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for distilling it down to the perspective of one farmer in Rice Lake, WI, who might be watching and saying: Are these guys going to clean this place up or not?

Mr. FEINGOLD. We absolutely have to. I don't know how we convinced ourselves in the end of the 20th century of something that was the opposite conclusion at the end of the 19th century, early 20th century; and that is that unlimited contributions corrupt the process and make the individual farmer or individual homemaker or any other person almost a nonfactor in the political process. We have to send this message and we have to do even better. We have to actually pass a ban on soft money as a first signal to that farmer that we will do the rest of the job and actually return the notion of one person-one vote to that farmer.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I don't think there is any possibility that he feels his voice is as strong as it used to be. A typical farmer in Wisconsin with a certain amount of cows and a certain amount of acreage and a family, those are things that he had. He knew he had those things, and he had his vote counting the same as everybody else's. That is where the whole progressive movement in Wisconsin and the efforts of Robert La Follette came from--a lot of these farmers who were able to put their votes together to elect people who would really represent them.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from North Carolina for his question. The example of the farmer is a wonderful example, because of what has happened in Wisconsin in the last 18 years. We have lost something like 18,000 dairy farmers, so farmers in my State are in no position to be giving even $10 or $25 contributions. When they hear, as the Senator is suggesting, that a person can give even $1,000, the possibility of doing that is pretty much off the charts. When they hear that somebody can actually for the first time in this century give $100,000, it is absolutely disappointing. And it must make them even more despondent. They have enough problems already. But to think they can't have their vote count for what it used to count--we always had in Wisconsin the notion that the farm vote kind of shifted the balance, it is the swing vote traditionally in Wisconsin. But in this kind of system where soft money ads can make a farce out of an election, they feel--I know from firsthand conversations--quite left out of the process and quite dispirited.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I go to listening sessions in every one every year.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Seventy-two counties.