Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I inform my colleagues I will not be offering a motion to table at 12:00 noon. Instead, as I understand it, we will continue to debate until the cloture vote at 1:45. We will have the opportunity to vote on this issue again in the days to come, so I don't see a need for another vote before our cloture vote. May I inquire of the Chair, am I correct that the time after 12:00 noon but prior to 1:45 will be equally divided?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, I will. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield up to 5 minutes to another of our tremendous cosponsors and supporters of this legislation, the distinguished Senator from Vermont.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. I just want to inform my colleague, we only have a total additional 16 minutes for other Senators, and that will bring some difficulty here unless I ask unanimous consent that an additional 10 minutes be added to our time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minute to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Prior to 1:45?

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do we have remaining on our side prior to 1:45?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished senior Senator from Maine.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to just take a moment of the time to point out that once again a case that the Senator from Kentucky has been discussing is a case that is appropriate in some situations but is not really applicable to the current provision of the McCain-Feingold bill that is before the body. The Senator can stand up and cite all kinds of cases about a lot of provisions, but the provisions are not in the bill at this time. So I hope those who are listening don't get confused about case law that has nothing to do with our actual amendment. Previous versions of the McCain-Feingold bill included a codification of the Furgatch decision, but with the passage of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment in February, the provision that we have before the Senate now simply doesn't include that approach. It takes a different approach to the issue advocacy problem. A number of constitutional scholars, including Dan Ortiz of Virginia Law School, believe this approach is constitutional. I understand the strategy--keep bringing up aspects of the bill that were concerns in the past, make people think those are still there and get people to be uncomfortable with the bill. I understand the strategy because we have 52 votes already for this amendment as it actually is being presented. So that everyone understands, these are arguments against a bill that is not before the Senate. I assume that is because they don't have very strong arguments against the bill that is, in fact, before the Senate. This afternoon we will vote once again on the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Twice before we have debated this issue and twice we have been blocked by filibusters--I might add, not just by filibusters conducted after an amending process has occurred, but filibusters used to prevent the legitimate and normal process of allowing Members of the Senate to amend a bill. Some may ask, Why do you keep bringing us back to vote on it? The reason, quite simply put, is that this is a crucial issue. It is a defining issue for the 105th Congress. After all, we spent an entire year investigating the campaign finance abuses of the 1996 elections. That investigation, as the distinguished Senator from Tennessee who led the investigation I am sure will tell us when he speaks today, showed beyond a shadow of doubt that reform is needed. Of course, in response to that, the House has passed a strong campaign finance reform bill, very similar to the amendment we have offered here. We owe it to the American people to finish the job. The American people elected us to be legislators, Mr. President, not just investigators. Investigations are fine and appropriate, but we will have failed in our duties as legislators if we do not enact laws to address the problems that our investigations uncover. With the House vote early last month, meaningful campaign finance reform is in sight. This Senate has an obligation to address the campaign finance issue, and the public expects us to act. We know that a majority here understands that obligation. The question is whether we can get closer now to the supermajority of 60 votes that we apparently will still need in order to end debate on this amendment and get to a vote on the merits. I hope that in the short time we have to debate this issue today we will actually debate our amendment, what is before the Senate. Again, yesterday we heard a number of opponents of the bill speak at length about cases that have nothing to do with the provisions that are actually in this bill. We heard a lengthy discussion of the history of campaign spending, with interesting, but really not very relevant, expositions about donors to an unsuccessful Presidential campaign 30 years ago. I really hope we hear an actual justification from those on the other side today, an actual justification for voting against a ban on the unlimited corporate and labor contribution to political parties known as soft money. I hope that when they wax eloquent again about the first amendment rights of citizens, they will actually direct their criticism to our bill, to the Snowe-Jeffords amendment on electioneering communications, rather than severely exaggerating the effect and intent of those provisions. To no one's surprise, the headlines this morning in the newspapers are not about campaign finance reform. The scandal that has occupied the Nation's attention for the past 8 months has reached a new and critical phase with the delivery of the Starr report to the House of Representatives. Many Senators are understandably very much concerned about how the impeachment process will play out. But for now, the report is on the other side of the Capitol. We still have a job to do here. We have many things to do here. But first on the list has got to be to somehow address the scandals that occupied our attention for much of 1997. Of course, the matters of 1998 have to be addressed, but are we just going to leave the scandals of 1996 behind, let them be washed away as if nothing wrong was done? The biggest threat to our democracy still comes from this out-of- control campaign finance system, notwithstanding the very serious news of the day. Let us not be distracted from our duty to address that threat. There are many Senators who support reform who would like to speak today, and our time is limited. So let me conclude by putting my colleagues on notice. The vote this afternoon on cloture will not be the end of the effort to pass campaign finance reform this year. I am sorry if this is an issue that is inconvenient or uncomfortable for some Senators to deal with. The American people didn't send us here for our convenience or for our comfort. They sent us to do a job, and we are going to do it. This amendment that is pending will continue to be pending. I hope it will become the subject of a legitimate legislative process. What I mean by that is, when there is an amendment that has a majority of support in this body, at the bare minimum Senators should be allowed to offer amendments, offer their ideas and their concepts about how to make it better. I understand the argument that you need 60 votes to pass it anyway. That has a lot of truth to it. But this process has repeatedly and cynically denied us the chance to simply amend the bill. That is how they passed it in the House. Everybody didn't love the bill right away. They adopted a number of amendments. They were allowed to offer their ideas and vote on them. We have been prohibited from improving this bill beyond the Snowe- Jeffords amendment. Of course, we know why. When we did Snowe-Jeffords, lo and behold, we got three more votes and we had a majority. Then the game was declared over. That is not a legitimate legislative process. That is not a fair process. That is the intentional denying of the majority of both Houses their right to fashion a bill that they can send on to the President. So I am not denying the right to filibuster. But denying the right to amend this amendment is well beyond the norm in this body, especially when we have demonstrated that 52 Senators are already committed to this amendment as it currently stands. So they continue to deny the majority even the right to make a reasonable change, to ask each other, ``What change would you like in order to make this bill acceptable to you?'' I think that is highly inappropriate. So the only way to avoid this discomfort is for Members to vote for cloture and let the majority do its will on this issue. Mr. President, if the Senator from Maine is interested, I will yield to her. How much time does the Senator need?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to control the time on our side.

Mr. FEINGOLD. In light of the fact we have limited time, I ask that any time that is open here, a quorum call time, be charged to the other side.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to reflect for a moment on recent events in Northern Ireland, highlighted by the President's trip there last week. As every member of this body knows, the violent political and religious conflict in Northern Ireland has claimed the lives of more than 3,200 people since 1969. In April of this year, after many failed attempts at a political solution to this violence, a settlement was announced that was deemed acceptable to all sides of this conflict. The so-called Good Friday peace agreement is an historic achievement in the struggle for peace in Northern Ireland. It seemed that finally, peace had won out over war and intolerance, and that the children of Northern Ireland, both Protestant and Catholic, would finally be able to move hand-in-hand toward a shared future. As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, I have closely monitored that Northern Ireland peace process, and I welcomed this peace agreement, which was expertly brokered by our former colleague, and the former Majority Leader of this body, Senator George Mitchell. In a May 22, 1998, referendum, a convincing majority of the people of Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic embraced this peace plan. On June 25, 1998, the people of Northern Ireland went to the polls and elected representatives from Protestant, Catholic, and non-sectarian parties to sit in the newly created Assembly, which will gradually assume rule of Northern Ireland from Great Britain. This election was perhaps one of the most historic aspects of the Northern Ireland peace agreement. For the first time, the people of Northern Ireland elected representatives for an Assembly that will not be located in Westminster, but rather in Northern Ireland itself. The British Parliament must still draft and adopt legislation that will transfer the necessary powers to the Assembly that will make that body truly independent from Westminster, and I hope this will be done at the earliest possible time. This brief but promising time of peace and cooperation was shattered on July 5, 1998, during the annual and often contentious ``Marching Season,'' during which time it is common for Protestant groups to conduct sectarian marches throughout Northern Ireland. Tensions rose as many would-be marchers resisted a Parades Commission decision to reroute a march through a Catholic neighborhood in Drumcree planned by a Protestant group to commemorate the Battle of the Boyne, a 1690 skirmish in which the Protestant King William III of Orange defeated the Catholic King James II. The ensuing riots and violence culminated in a firebombing on July 11 in Ballymoney that left three young Catholic brothers dead. Both the Protestant and Catholic communities denounced this attack, which has been attributed to a loyalist paramilitary group. This senseless attack was particularly ironic because it appears that the house of the three young victims was targeted because their family was mixed--part Catholic and part Protestant. Violence ripped through Northern Ireland again one month later, on August 11, when a car bomb exploded in a busy marketplace in the town of Omagh. Twenty-eight people, including an elderly woman, her pregnant daughter, and her young granddaughter, were killed, and more than 200 were injured. It is ironic that the most horrible act of violence to occur in the last 30 years in a country that has suffered so much throughout its tumultuous history occurred just as the people of Northern Ireland finally embarked on the road to peace. Reports indicate that a warning was issued to police prior to the bombing, but that the terrorists gave false information which lead police to move those in the marketplace to the site where the bomb was located, thereby increasing the number of casualties. A fringe group which calls itself the ``Real IRA'' has claimed responsibility for this monstrous attack. This group, and one other anti-British fringe group, have since announced cease-fires. It is my strong hope that those responsible for this cowardly act will be identified and prosecuted for their crimes. Recently, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern recommitted themselves to the success of the Northern Ireland peace agreement and vowed that this attack would not destroy the progress of the last several months. They also announced new security measures that will be put in place to help prevent future attacks, and that the British Parliament plans to take a hard look at ways to improve security. I am pleased that President Clinton visited Northern Ireland, and the town of Omagh, last week and met with some of the victims of the attack in Omagh and their families, as he did last Thursday. The United States has invested much in the long and sometimes harrowing journey toward a lasting peace in Northern Ireland, and we must remain engaged there and continue to offer our encouragement and friendship to the people of Northern Ireland. While tremendous progress has been made in the last year, there is still much work to be done as the people of Northern Ireland strive to live and govern together in peace.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks of the Senator from West Virginia, obviously, as fundamental a matter as we can have before us, but I share the Senator's view that prior to the release of the report, there are many matters that need our attention. First on that list is what we have been debating today and will be debating tomorrow, and that is the extremely urgent need to pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Because I was not certain in light of your remarks.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I want that clear for the record.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I believe I heard several comments to the effect that he would be prevented from doing that. I just want the record clear that the only concern the Senator from Utah has at this point in light of the effect of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment is the amendment's effect on what he can give to parties.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I have a question about that very point. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Utah. Many of his remarks were devoted to the proposition that Mr. Hiatt couldn't give to various groups; independent groups.

Mr. FEINGOLD. As I understand it, he would still be able to do it for the types of ads the Senator was indicating. The question that I would ask is, if you have a concern with regard to the bill at this point concerning individuals and groups that are not corporations or unions, the whole purpose of the Snowe-Jeffords amendment was to make it clear. And in the spirit of compromise that it would not affect what the individuals have been able to do in the past in that area, I just wanted to make sure the record is clear, because much of the comments of the Senator from Utah have to do with individuals who are not restricted in the way that the Senator has suggested.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the Senator realize that under the Snowe-Jeffords amendment, which is included in the version of McCain-Feingold that is before the Senate, at this time there is no restriction on individuals such as Mr. Hiatt? Are you aware that was the rule by a majority vote of this body?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator from Utah yield for a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, that is exactly what we would hope to determine with the passage of this bill. We would find out if in fact the Supreme Court would find that an ad that does everything to promote a candidate or attack a candidate but say ``vote for'' really is an issue ad. That would be a matter for the Supreme Court to determine. Mr. President, I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator from Washington in responding to a series of questions. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Bryan, be added as a cosponsor of the McCain-Feingold amendment before the body.