Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. One other question, a point I am trying to make for the Record is I agree with the Senator from Kentucky that should we pass this legislation, this, of course, will go to the Supreme Court. I think it is very important that we acknowledge as we make this Record that they will review it, and that they will want to know exactly what our intentions were with regard to this legislation. I want to ask a question in terms of making this Record, following on the question of the Senator from Arizona. I will read the Senator from Kentucky an advertisement that supposedly was an issue advocacy ad, apparently legally treated that way, and ask him if he believes this is properly characterized as issue advocacy rather than express advocacy or campaign ad. The ad concerned a Winston Bryant. The announcement said, ``Senate candidate Winston Bryant's budget as attorney general increased 71 percent. Bryant has taken taxpayer-funded junkets to the Virgin Islands, Alaska, and Arizona, and spent about $100,000 on new furniture. Unfortunately, as the State's top law enforcement official, he has never opposed the parole of any convicted criminal, even rapists and murderers; and almost 4,000 Arkansas prisoners have been sent back to prison for crimes committed while they were out on parole. Winston Bryant: government waste, political junkets, soft on crime. Call Winston Bryant and tell him to give the money back. Does the Senator from Kentucky consider that to be an issue ad within the Supreme Court definition, or does he think it is possible-- possible--that the U.S. Supreme Court just might find that to be a campaign ad?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Kentucky yield?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, it is my hope they would accept them, but only voluntarily, so that not a single person in this country is forced to give up their free speech rights. That is not a part of our bill. The whole premise of reducing the amount of money in politics is not to deny anyone their rights, but, in appropriate cases, to encourage people to limit their spending so we can have fair races, so we don't have a scenario like the one that we have now where a Senate race, on average, costs $4.5 million or $10 million or $15 million. I would be curious if either the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Kentucky believe there is any amount of money that is inappropriate in terms of a U.S. Senate race?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I will be happy to respond to that question. First of all, of course, this provision is not what is before us at this point. Nevertheless, I do believe in the system of overall voluntary spending limits, and the real driving force behind that is a concern about television costs. Any modifications or changes in the formula that had to do with a State-by-State difference without a doubt had something to do with the question of what does it cost to run a television campaign in a U.S. Senate race. I find it slightly amusing that the Senators question me about language that my colleague from Arizona used about limiting spending in campaigns, when the Senator from Kentucky, in S. 7, 103d Congress, had a bill entitled ``To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reduce special interest influence on elections, to increase competition in politics, to reduce campaign costs, and for other purposes.'' The point is, actually all three of us agree that you should not mandatorily limit campaign spending.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Is the question being posed to me?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course, Mr. President, that is an inaccurate statement of what the bill does. It does not provide limits. It says only that if a person agrees to a stable or certain figure, depending on the size of the State, that those individuals would get the benefits provided by the bill. There is no automatic limit. Anyone can go over the limit if they want to, if they are willing to forfeit the benefits.

Mr. FEINGOLD. You are asking about the total amounts for all the States put together?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I don't believe it is my language that there is such a thing as too much money. It is all in context, and the context is this: If somebody chooses, as they may under their constitutional right, to spend as much as they want, I believe we should establish a system whereby a person who is challenging that person has a chance to at least get their message out. So I don't have any theoretical limit that I believe in. If Michael Huffington wants to spend $30 million in California, that's his right, but it is my belief that we ought to provide some kind of incentive to those who would voluntarily limit their spending so they could have a fair chance to get their message out. I don't accept the premise of the Senator's question, that I believe there is some sort of a magical number. What I want is some kind of fairness in the system, some kind of leveling the playing field so not just multimillionaires would get to participate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. It is not correct that I like mandatory spending limits, Mr. President. I believe that under the Buckley versus Valeo decision--which the Senator knows I accept because I oppose a constitutional amendment that would require mandatory spending limits-- I believe that under that decision, it is permissible and appropriate to offer voluntary spending limits, and that is the kind of spending limit that I would support. I would not support a constitutional amendment, for example, to require mandatory spending limits.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me respond to that in a slightly different way. Another point I wanted to clear up in response to that question, the Senator from Kentucky is suggesting that there are no spending limits in our base bill. That is incorrect. Our bill, the modification that was just offered, does provide that a candidate who wants to get the coordinated party expenditure benefit from their party has to limit their personal wealth contribution to no more than $50,000. So the fact is that provision, which these 126 constitutional scholars have suggested is perfectly constitutional, is in our base bill. The Senator is, of course, correct, that we do intend to add--in fairness to his comment--we do intend to add an amendment that would go further, that would, in fact, bring back some of the other proposed voluntary limits that would then be coupled with what we hope would be an incentive for reduced cost for television time. We hope to add that to the bill, but the concept is already in the base bill.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Of course the Senator from Kentucky is correct. The very reason we would have asked for such a letter to be signed by 126 constitutional scholars is that for years the Senator from Kentucky has said that it is unconstitutional to ban soft money, even though the Senator from Kentucky proposed a bill in the 103d Congress that would ban soft money himself. He has stood on the floor of the Senate repeatedly, year after year, and said that a system that would provide an incentive to a candidate to limit his or her spending is unconstitutional because, in his words, ``It would put a gun to the head of a candidate, in effect forcing him or her to do so.'' So watch the shifting constitutional argument. First, the Senator from Kentucky focused his debate last year against our bill on the PAC ban, which is no longer in the bill. Then he focused on the soft money ban. Then he focused on the issue of whether or not voluntary incentives could be given. In each case, the Senator from Kentucky concluded emphatically, on the floor and off the floor, that it is plainly unconstitutional. He does not have a leg to stand on anymore; 126 constitutional scholars have said to him: Wrong, wrong, and wrong. So now he is moving to another discussion. Now he is going to put up another figleaf in front of this obvious attempt to keep the current system in the form of a----

Mr. FEINGOLD. That is right, Mr. President, because this is nothing but a red herring. The Senator from Kentucky does not like what the letter says, so he is trying to pretend that we actually said it said something else, and then get me to say it did not say that. Let me ask the Senator from Kentucky whether he, in reviewing the letter, recognizes that there are two main points to the letter, one is the view of these 126 scholars that a ban on soft money is constitutional; and, second, that a system that would provide voluntary incentives to candidates who agree to some limits on their spending would also be constitutional?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Kentucky. I just want to go over a couple of points relating to the Brennan Center for Justice letter of September 22. First of all, the Senator from Kentucky made a statement a few days prior to the release of that letter on national television. He said something to the effect as follows: Russ does not have one single constitutional scholar who supports his position. So I can understand the Senator from Kentucky being a little tender about a letter signed by 126 constitutional scholars that says exactly what it says. I would first like to ask the Senator from Kentucky if he ever heard any of us, either at the news conference or otherwise, purport that that letter included references to the issue of issue advocacy versus express advocacy?

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

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

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to begin by once again expressing my admiration and gratitude to the senior Senator from Arizona for his extraordinary leadership on the issue of campaign finance reform. This effort has already been a long and difficult one, but it is all about his courage and his exceptional commitment to the good of this country. He is in a more difficult situation than I am in as a member of the majority party. But the fact is he is one of the greatest Republicans of our time. And they are lucky to have him. Mr. President, I also want to thank Senator Lott, the majority leader, for helping us get this bill up to the floor. And I also appreciate the fact that he took some time this morning to say a little bit about how he got here; about what it was like for him to try to be elected to the U.S. Senate. I think those kinds of stories and accounts are going to be very important as this debate proceeds because we need to tell the American people just what is involved in running for the Congress these days. We need to tell them the truth about how many people are truly invited to participate in a process that is so awash in money that almost every American must feel like they are not invited to participate. I also want to, of course, especially thank my leader, Senator Daschle, not only for his powerful statement on behalf of our bill but also for his leadership in working diligently to make sure that all 45 members of the Senate Democratic caucus are in support of the McCain- Feingold bill; a bill that has been initiated by a member of the other party. That is a great tribute to him and to the cause of bipartisanship in favor of campaign finance reform. I also want to do something that may not be terribly popular out here as the debate goes on. I want to thank the President of the United States, because the fact is he has been diligent, consistent, and persistent in support of this particular piece of legislation. He has offered his personal help. He has offered the help of his staff. Before it is finished, before we claim our final victory on this issue, I am going to certainly repeat the fact that President Clinton has been fighting for reform. Mr. President, it was just over 2 years ago that the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and I began this long, sometimes tortuous, journey on the path to campaign finance reform. In fact, it was September 1995 when we first introduced our bipartisan reform proposal, a proposal that is centered on the premise that it is imperative that we reduce the role and influence of money on our electoral system. For 2 years, though, Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona and I have been stymied by opponents of reform who desperately cling to the absurd notion that the more money you pour into the political system that our democracy somehow gets better. Sometimes the comparison is made that we spend as much money on elections as we spend on potato chips. I don't know what this has to do with the question of political reform but it is an argument we are treated to anyway. Of course, no one outside the Washington Beltway believes in that argument. No one outside of this town thinks we need more money spent on the political process. In fact, if you talk to any average American they will tell you they are just horrified by the amount of money that is spent on our electoral system. But they are tired of excessive spending. They are tired of the onslaught of negative attack ads all throughout a campaign season. And, yet, they are even more tired--they are sick and tired--of the ongoing revelations of abuse and wrongdoing related to elected officials and campaign fundraising. Nonetheless, our opponents, such as our colleague and our friend, the junior colleague from Kentucky, continue to argue that more campaign spending somehow strengthens democracy and expands citizen participation. Of course, I disagree with him on this point. And so do the facts. The facts say this: The 1996 election speaks for itself. In 1996, candidates and parties spent in excess of $2 billion. That was an all- time record amount of campaign spending. In a year where we spent more money on Federal elections than in any other year in our history, let's ask the question: Was democracy strengthened? Did we expand citizen participation? We all know the answer. Mr. President, we did not. Almost a year after the fact we are still feeling the fallout from the 1996 elections. After months of hearings by the Governmental Affairs Committee, led by the Senator from Tennessee, it is clear that we had widespread abuse and wrongdoing on both sides of the aisle. We have had congressional investigations, a Justice Department investigation, an FBI investigation, and even a CIA investigation, all relating to the way we elected our representatives. That doesn't sound like the strengthening of democracy to me. As for participation, we had the lowest voter turnout in 72 years--a clear sign that the electorate was not exactly energized by all this campaign spending. We know the truth. They were turned off. Perhaps most disheartening, our campaign finance system just lacks any sense of fairness anymore. In 1996, incumbents outspent challengers by ratios of 2 to 1 and 3 to 1, and to no surprise. The reelection rate for Members of the House and Senate remained well above the 90 percent level. As the Senator from Arizona has said, the time for reform is right now. Over the course of the last several months, the Senator from Arizona and I have had two clear consistent messages. The first was that our preference was to work with the majority leader in scheduling debate on bipartisan reform legislation. Thankfully for the kind of cooperation that serves this body very well, we have achieved that. Of course, the majority leader has already begun the debate. He says we should not shift the subject. He wants to focus instead on the White House. But I think what we ought to focus on is the whole system. We ought to focus on the question of whether this system has anything to do with the principle that everybody's vote should cost the same. We are already hearing talk about filibusters--about ways to make sure the legislation does not pass. But I do want to say that I am very impressed with the way in which this bill came to the floor, and I am grateful. Our first choice always was the cooperative approach. Mr. President, our second message was one that the Senator from Arizona just made very plain once again. That is our willingness and continued willingness to make the changes that need to be made to do the right thing. We demonstrated this willingness to compromise when we worked with the junior Senator from Maine who suggested a number of changes to our bill that I think actually strengthen the bill. I think there may be amendments out on the floor by either party that can make the bill stronger, and a better reform bill. That is the spirit in which Senator McCain and I come to the floor. We know that this bill isn't perfect. It is not the ideal Feingold bill. It is not the ideal McCain bill. That is how we got together--by compromises and trying to come up with a reasonable passage. Prior to the August recess, the Senator from Arizona and I stood here on the Senate floor with some of our colleagues and expressed the hope that this debate would occur. We also said that if we were unsuccessful with that effort we would bring the legislation to the floor in September. Mr. President, for opponents of campaign finance reform, for those Washington interest groups--whom I like to refer to as ``the Washington gatekeepers''--who joined with the Senator from Kentucky in opposing any changes to our current system, it is September. It is a Friday in September. And we hope for all of those who have declared this bill dead over and over again that today will be remembered for them as ``Black Friday.'' For the rest of the country, for the 90 percent of the Americans who believe we should be spending less on our elections, for the underfunded challengers who are consistently blown out of the water by well-entrenched incumbents, and for those who believe that the first amendment is a right belonging to all Americans, not just a commodity for the wealthy few, I hope this Friday will be remembered as the day we took the first step in providing with this reform proposal the first real opportunity to fundamentally change the nature of our political system. The base package of reforms the Senator from Arizona and I have pieced together represents a solid first step on the path to more comprehensive reform. As he has already highlighted, the package will ban so-called soft money. That means that the Washington soft money machine that has fostered the multihundred-thousand dollar contribution from corporations and labor unions and wealthy individuals will be shut down forever. The American people won't have to hear about outrageous levels of contributions that they couldn't even dream of giving even once in their lives. The base proposal also modifies the current statutory definition of ``express advocacy.'' It does not affect issue advocacy. It redefines in an appropriate manner ``express advocacy'' to provide a clear distinction between expenditures for communications used to advocate candidates and, on the other hand, those used to advocate issues. And that is all it does. It does not do, as the majority leader has suggested, ban billboards. Of course, it doesn't. It doesn't touch voter guides. We explicitly provide that voter guides are permitted. And it doesn't ban one single television or radio ad, ever. It simply does not do that. And we will repeat that statement as often as it needs to be repeated. Candidate-related expenditures will be subject to current Federal election laws and disclosure requirements. Of course they will. But that is all. No form of expression will be prohibited. That statement is simply inaccurate. The proposal will require greater disclosure of campaign contributions and expenditures, and provide the Federal Election Commission with the tools to better enforce our campaign finance laws. It includes a strict codification of what is known as the Supreme Court's Beck decision, thus requiring labor unions to notify nonunion members that they are entitled to request a reduction of the portion of their agency fees used for political purposes. Of course, I find it laughable that anyone could believe that the central problem in the campaign finance system is an issue of union dues. That is laughable on its face. What about corporations? What about all of the other special interest groups? Does anyone really believe that labor is the only problem? Nonetheless, we try to reasonably and appropriately address this issue rather than ignoring it. Finally, the base package includes a provision that for the first time encourages candidates to abide by some kind of a voluntary fundraising restriction. That is a significant step. As my colleagues know, the Supreme Court ruled in the decision in Buckley versus Valeo that it is fully consistent with the first amendment to offer candidates incentives to encourage them to voluntarily limit their campaign spending. In fact, the Buckley Court specifically upheld the Presidential system that we have today which offers public financing in exchange for candidates agreeing to voluntary spending limits. The Senator from Arizona and I have added a provision to this base package that tracks that concept. Under current law, Mr. President, political parties are permitted to make expenditures in coordination with the Senate candidate up to a certain limit. That limit is based on the size of each State. In California, for example, the parties are each permitted to spend about $2.8 million in coordination with the candidate. Our proposal provides that candidates who decide to pour a great deal of their own personal funds into a campaign would simply no longer be entitled to those party expenditures on their behalf. Specifically, if a candidate agrees to limit their personal spending to less than $50,000 per election, they will continue to receive help from their party committees. If they don't, they just won't receive that money. It is a basic concept. If you want to pour millions and millions of dollars of your personal money into a campaign to try to buy a Senate seat, you should be able to do so. We don't disagree with Buckley versus Valeo on that point. We don't disagree. We just do not think you should get some kind of a benefit, some kind of a privilege after you have done so. It is very important to recognize that distinction. That is what Buckley said, and that is what this proposal reflects. We should not reward such candidates. We should not give them the equal benefit with their opponent who is not a millionaire and who should be able to receive that. So, Mr. President, that is the outline of our base package. It is modest reform. It is a strong step in the right direction, and it provides us with the vehicle to move campaign finance reform forward. But there is another piece to our effort. The base package makes several important reforms. But the one thing it does not do enough of is doing something about the position of incumbents and challengers in financing their campaigns. We know what the problems are. Incumbents consistently blow away challengers who lack the resources to run their campaign. The flow of campaign cash through the corridors of Congress undermines public confidence and trust in this institution. Officeholders spend more time panhandling for campaign contributions sometimes than they do on the Nation's legislative business. That is why the Senator from Arizona and I are announcing our intention to offer a McCain-Feingold amendment to our own vehicle. Why? Because we want some accountability on this issue. We want to see that the Members of the U.S. Senate are prepared to stand up in the public spotlight and tell the American people whether they are willing or unwilling to change a system that is so clearly rigged in their own favor. Mr. President, that road is going to be a true test of reform. That will be one of the votes that tells us how serious the U.S. Senate is with fundamentally changing a political system that has spiraled out of control, and has led to so many charges of abuse and undue influence; and, yes, Mr. President, corruption. Our amendment will again build on what the Supreme Court said was permissible in the Buckley decision. The amendment offers an incentive to candidates to encourage them voluntarily to limit their fundraising. The incentive in this case is a half-priced discount on television time. And that, of course, would have more to do with reducing the cost of campaigns than anything else. Candidates who wish to receive the discounted television time would have to agree to three simple rules. First, they would have to agree to raise a majority of their campaign funds from people who live in their own State. That seems reasonable. Second, they must agree to raise no more than 25 percent of their total campaign contributions from political action committees. Finally, they have to agree again to spend no more than $50,000 of their own personal money on a campaign. By doing so, Mr. President, we would provide candidates, for the first time ever, with the opportunity to run a competitive campaign without having to raise and spend millions of dollars. It tries to level the playing field. It is fair to both parties, and that provision, that amendment that we will offer, is clearly constitutional. There will be a vote on that amendment, and we will find out if Senators favor or support changing the rules that have so clearly fallen apart in recent years. I look forward to that debate. I look forward to the other amendments that will be offered that could well improve this bill even more. So before concluding, I do want to again thank my colleague from Arizona, but I want to make two points, two points that I think will be something of a road map to what will happen in the next few days. First, there is going to be, if you have a scorecard, two different groups out on the floor. One group of Senators is going to try to force a filibuster. They are going to offer amendments and use procedural tactics in any way they can to force either the Democrats or the Republicans to filibuster. The majority leader already said today, with great pride, that he would get the other side to filibuster. He has already announced that that is his goal. But there is another group of Senators, Mr. President. That is the bipartisan group. That is not the filibustering group. That is the group of Senators from both parties who are working together to avoid a filibuster and reform our system. Keep your scorecard. There are two very clear groups--the filibusterers and the bipartisan Senators. That is where we are in the difference on this issue. The second final point I want to make, Mr. President, is that not only are there two groups of Senators on this issue--and we will find out exactly who they are--there are also two different visions of our democracy represented in the Senate. One vision is the vision of a representative democracy. The other vision is what I like to call a vision, an acceptance of something that is more akin to a corporate democracy. We have become a corporate democracy. What do I mean by that? When I was 13 years old, I received a gift of a share of stock. One of our relatives wanted to teach me how the stock market worked and how our economy worked. I think it was maybe a $13 stock in the Parker Pen Co., one of our great prides in Wisconsin and in my hometown of Janesville. My father told me that in addition to owning a share of that stock, I would have a vote at the stockholders' meeting. And being already interested in politics, I thought: Great. When is the election? When is the stockholders' meeting? I want to go vote. And he laughed. He said, ``Well, I better tell you something. The number of votes you get depends on how many shares you have. You don't have the same vote and the same power as everyone else because it is a corporation. It is based on how much money you are able to put into the corporation, and so you could go to the shareholders' meeting but your vote wouldn't count very much.'' Mr. President, sadly, that reminds me more of America today than ever before. This is not a democracy anymore of one person-one vote. If we keep this system of $300,000, $400,000 contributions and access to politicians based on contributions, we will have sealed this as a corporate democracy, not a representative democracy. That is the question before us. Will we abandon all the other Americans who simply cannot afford the cash to play the game? We have to reject the corporate democracy, Mr. President. We have to return to a representative democracy. That is what this country is all about. That is what this institution is all about. Fortunately, in the coming days, we will find out who is on which side. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. BENNETT addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I want to make a few brief comments regarding the nomination of Mr. Peter Scher to be the Special Trade Ambassador for Agriculture which this Senate is considering today. I am pleased to report that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, on which I serve, considered the nomination of Mr. Scher and favorably reported his nomination yesterday. I met with Mr. Scher following his confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to discuss with him the problems Wisconsin's agricultural sector has had with our existing trade agreements such as the Uruguay Round of GATT and the North American Free Trade Agreement. I urged Mr. Scher, in his new position, to work diligently to ensure that our trading partners are complying with their agricultural trade obligations established by these agreements. Specifically, I asked Mr. Scher and the USTR to accept a section 301 petition filed by the dairy industry asking USTR to challenge the Canadian export pricing scheme before the World Trade Organization. Canada's dairy export subsidies violate the export subsidy reduction commitments under the Uruguay Round. These subsidies disadvantage the United States dairy industry in its efforts to compete in world markets. I also pointed out that Canada also has effectively prohibited our dairy industry from exporting products to lucrative Canadian markets. Not only must USTR aggressively pursue WTO dispute settlement proceedings against Canadian export subsidies, but it must also seek greater access for United States dairy products to Canadian markets, among others, in any upcoming trade negotiations. I also raised with Mr. Scher the problems the United States potato industry has had with respect to access to both Canadian and Mexican markets. I urged him to pursue negotiations with the Canadians to allow greater access of United States potatoes to their domestic markets and to aggressively seek accelerated reduction in Mexican tariffs for United States potatoes, a commitment made to potato growers when NAFTA was approved. Mr. Scher assured me that potatoes would be among the commodities to be considered in upcoming negotiations with Mexico. I believe Mr. Scher has a fundamental understanding of both the importance of trade to agriculture generally and of the complex trade problems the U.S. dairy industry faces regarding compliance with existing trade agreements. For that reason, I support the approval of his nomination. But I expect USTR, with Mr. Scher acting as Ambassador, to aggressively pursue the resolution of the critical issues facing our domestic dairy and potato sectors. I will continue to work with USTR to resolve these issues and will hold Mr. Scher to his commitment that USTR will use all existing tools to ensure compliance with existing trade agreements and to pursue greater access for agriculture to international markets. I continue to have serious reservations about United States efforts to begin new trade negotiations until the problems with our current bilateral and multilateral agreements are successfully resolved. Wisconsin is home to 24,000 dairy farmers, 140 cheese processing plants and many other businesses associated with milk production and processing. Dairy contributes some $4 billion in income to Wisconsin's economy and provides 130,000 jobs. Wisconsin is also the fifth largest potato producing State with a large chip and french fry processing sector. Overall, Wisconsin ranks 10th in the Nation in farm numbers and 9th nationally with respect to market value of agricultural products sold. Wisconsin's farmers and food processing industry could greatly benefit by gaining a greater share of international markets. However, for that to happen, our trade agreements must not only be fair, they must be enforceable. To date, our trade agreements have not only failed to provide significant benefits for many agricultural sectors, including dairy, they have placed some sectors at a distinct disadvantage. I will look at all future trade agreement proposals with an eye to these issues and make decisions on those proposals based, in part, on how they treat Wisconsin farmers.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a resolution regarding the upcoming State visit by the President of the People's Republic of China, Mr. Jiang Zemin. As we all know, President Clinton plans to host Mr. Jiang on a State visit to Washington at the end of October. The resolution I am offering today is a sense of the Senate resolution that states that President Jiang should not be given a red carpet welcome in our Nation's Capital until we see some progress on human rights in China. Specifically, the resolution calls for China to release Wei Jingsheng and other prisoners of conscience from jail as a precondition for a State visit. By agreeing to this State visit without receiving any concession on human rights, the administration may be squandering perhaps its strongest source of leverage with Beijing. The Chinese Government has been pressing for such a visit in Washington for several years. The Chinese want to be treated like a great power. An invitation to the White House not only bestows legitimacy on the Communist regime, it will boost the prestige of President Jiang and help him to solidify his position as Deng Xiaoping's successor. In short, China needs this State visit more than the United States does. Agreeing to invite the President of China to the White House before any improvement is made on human rights will send a terrible message. It will confirm what many Chinese leaders already believe--that the United States offers lots of rhetoric on human rights, but no action, and that the United States ultimately cares more about trade than political prisoners. Judging by the administration's China policy, it is easy to see why the leadership in Beijing would come to such a conclusion. In 1994, the President delinked most-favored-nation trade status from human rights. This was a serious mistake. What we have seen since the delinkage is the reincarceration of political dissidents and increased repression in Tibet. Just this past April, at the meeting of the U.N. Human Rights Commission, the United States mounted what I view as a half-hearted attempt to win passage of a resolution critical of China's human rights record. As we all know, that resolution failed to pass, and some of our close allies--including France, Germany, and Canada--refused to cosponsor it. Finally, just this past June, the President once again unconditionally extended MFN to China for one more year. Now, the administration is preparing to give Jiang Zemin a red carpet welcome in Washington despite the deplorable human rights conditions in China. Why wouldn't Chinese leaders conclude that, in the final analysis, the United States is unwilling to back up its human rights concerns with concrete action? What we have then is not a policy of constructive engagement but one of unconditional engagement. An invitation to the White House is meant to symbolize a relationship of close cooperation. But the United States simply does not have such a relationship with China. On security issues, China has sold sensitive nuclear and missile technologies to countries like Pakistan and Iran. The People's Republic of China last year fired missiles toward Taiwan in an attempt to disrupt the island's first democratic Presidential election. China has blatantly violated agreements on copyrights and intellectual property. And, as I have stated, China has made little, if any, attempt to improve its human rights conditions. Now the administration is rewarding this lack of cooperation by hosting high-level visits by Chinese officials. Last December, the administration welcomed China's Defense Minister, Gen. Chi Haotian, to Washington. Mr. Chi, also known as the butcher of Beijing, was one of the People's Liberation Army officers who led the military assault against the citizens of the Chinese capital on June 4, 1989. Now, the administration wants to invite the President of China for a State visit, even though the Government of China--in the spirit of the Tiananmen Square massacre--continues to persecute anyone who dares criticize the Communist regime. Just this week, China's Justice Minister ruled out granting medical parole to pro-democracy dissident Wang Dan despite pleas from Wang's family, who say he is seriously ill. When Jiang Zemin is given a 21-gun salute at the White House, the United States will lose what little credibility we have left on the issue of human rights. Mr. President, this resolution simply calls on the administration to hold off on a State visit until China releases Wei Jingsheng and other political prisoners. This resolution focuses on Wei Jingsheng, but only as a symbol of the thousands of people who are rotting in Chinese jail cells or toiling in labor camps because they dared to peacefully express their political or religious beliefs. Wei Jingsheng may be the most famous Chinese dissident, but we should never forget that there are many more like him, people whose names we may not know, but who nevertheless show the same type of courage. This resolution calls for the release of a significant number of political and religious prisoners in addition to Wei. China must know that the release of one or two high-profile dissidents is not enough. In addition to demanding the release of political prisoners, the resolution also calls on China to give prisoners access to medical care, and to take concrete steps towards improving overall human rights conditions in China and Tibet. These are realistic demands. This resolution does not say China must change its political system or withdraw from Tibet, events that are unlikely to take place before next month. This resolution only states that, in order to create the right atmosphere for a State visit, China must make a good-faith effort to improve human rights. I should also point out that this resolution only applies to a State- level visit. The State Department's protocol office tells me there are several levels of visits including private visits, working visits, official visits, and finally, at the highest level, State visits. My goal in introducing this resolution is not to cut off all dialog between the United States and China. I would not necessarily object to having Mr. Jiang come to Washington for a working-level visit. But I feel the pomp and symbolism of a State-level visit is inappropriate given the present situation in China. Oviously, China will object to this resolution, but it contains a message that Beijing must hear. China's leaders have unfortunately interpreted the inability of Congress to reach a consensus on China's most-favored-nation status as evidence that Members of Congress do not really care about human rights. But I assure you, Mr. President, that even though many of my colleagues have different views on the MFN issue, all share my concern for the plight of people like Wei Jingsheng. China wants to be treated as a great power, but it does not want to accept the responsibilities that come with the role. It does not want to fulfill its treaty obligations nor abide by the international conventions--including those on human rights--that it has signed. This resolution sends a clear message that if the United States is to treat China like a great power, then China must comply with international human rights standards. Mr. President, I think it is time for the United States to end its policy of unconditional engagement and put human rights and trade on an equal footing in our China policy. I therefore urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I would like to join the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] in highlighting the provisions in Department of Defense appropriations bill, as agreed to in conference, concerning the deployment of United States troops in Bosnia. The conferees agreed to include--in legislative language--a provision that stipulates that no funds may be made available for the deployment of United States ground forces in Bosnia after June 30, 1998--a date the President himself has specified--unless the President submits to the Congress a certification that the continued presence of our troops is necessary to protect our national security interests. In this certification, the President will have to justify for the Congress and the American people the reasons for such determination and specify details concerning the deployment. These include: the number of military personnel to be deployed, the expected duration of the deployment, the mission and objectives of the deployment, and the exit strategy for the U.S. forces who have been deployed. But most importantly, Mr. President, President Clinton will have to detail the costs associated with any deployment after June 30, 1998. This is perhaps the most troubling aspect of our involvement in Bosnia. After originally being told that the mission would cost the American people some $2 billion, recent estimates indicate that we will soon have spent well over $7 billion to deploy U.S. troops. Mr. President, that is more than a threefold increase. With the language included in the bill before us today, the administration will now have to be much more clear about the potential costs of continuing deployment in the region. I think this is vitally important so that we, the Members of the U.S. Congress, and the American people we represent will have a better idea of the financial implications of a mission that I feel has already gone on much too long with too little to show for it. Because of my concerns about this mission, concerns which I have detailed on the Senate floor many times before, I have joined with the Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison] in developing a Senate Bosnia Working Group. She and I both feel that it is time to think about what policy alternatives we may have with respect to U.S. involvement in the Balkans. The compromise language arrived at by the conferees, while perhaps not as strong as I would have liked, hopefully represents a first step toward the development of a policy that we can all be more comfortable with. So Mr. President, I thank all the conferees for their efforts in this area.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, today, I want to pay tribute to an important institution in the Wisconsin State Legislature on its 50th anniversary: the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The legislative council was created as a joint committee of the State legislature in 1947, charged with convening special committees each biennium to study the more complex, controversial or sometimes tedious but necessary legislative issues, and to develop legislative solutions. The unique aspect of the council's directive has been to identify and appoint knowledgeable Wisconsin citizens to work alongside legislators to craft bills, often recodifying whole chapters of the statutes at a time. The Wisconsin Legislative Council is derived from the same Wisconsin Idea, fostered by the Progressives in the early part of this century, that created the Congressional Research Service. Senator ``Fighting Bob'' LaFollette saw the importance of having nonpartisan, professional staff provide research, analysis and bill-drafting to legislative bodies. The Wisconsin version, which has been the model for many other State legislatures, further improves on the concept by setting up a mechanism for open discussion and citizen participation directly in the development of legislative solutions in subjects selected by a bicameral body every 2 years. Since its inception, the joint legislative council has overseen 426 individual studies, conducted by not only State legislators but also including over 6,000 Wisconsin citizens as full voting members of committees. These committees are staffed by the legislative council staff under the direction of the joint legislative council. These nonpartisan professional staff members further support the work of the legislature by staffing committees, providing research and analysis to individual legislators and their staff, and performing a technical review of all proposed State regulations. Many of the members of the Wisconsin congressional delegation have had the experience of serving on legislative council committees--I served on three, once as chairman of a study committee reviewing laws on interstate sales and use taxes. On its 50th anniversary, I am pleased to pay tribute to Wisconsin's Joint Legislative Council and the dedication of the legislative council staff. May they continue their service to the state for many years to come.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me take a moment, and reserve the right to object, to thank both of the leaders for coming together on this issue. It is of tremendous importance to everyone here in this body and to the American people. And I think they both have an extremely difficult task in dealing with an issue like this that is of such personal importance to each Member of the Senate. It is very heartening to know that we have an agreement that will allow the open debate on this issue. Last year when the debate came up, there were no amendments and a cloture vote within 2 days. It was not a great opportunity for the body and for the members of the public to be involved in. So I think this is a great step forward. I want to thank my leader, Senator Daschle, for his persistence on this. I want to thank the President for his absolutely relentless support of our legislation for over 2 years now. And I appreciate his involvement in this as well. But overall, what I think we have seen here is a bipartisan ability to come together on timing. I hope it leads to a bipartisan ability to come together on a meaningful piece of legislation. With that, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friends and colleagues, Mr. Durbin of Illinois and Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, in cosponsoring amendment No. 1140. This amendment will ensure that private, third-party reviewers of class I and II medical devices will be subject to the same conflict-of-interest restrictions that federally employed reviewers are. Under current law, employees of the Food and Drug Administration who review drugs and medical devices are subject to strict regulations governing their interaction with the companies whose products they are reviewing. They are not allowed to accept gifts from such companies. In addition, they cannot designate other persons to accept gifts on their behalf. Another important restriction prohibits reviewers from having a financial interest in any company whose products they are reviewing. Mr. President, these are commonsense measures which help to maintain the public's confidence in the safety of our Nation's drugs and devices. The pharmaceutical and medical device industries command billions of dollars every year. We live in a world in which FDA approval can mean immediate and enormous profits for investors. In such an environment, it is absolutely critical that the Government be vigilant in its responsibility to ensure that applications are reviewed thoroughly and in an unbiased manner. We all know people--family members and friends--whose health, and even lives, rely on important medication and devices. There are few jobs more significant than assuring the safety and efficacy of these items. In my mind, Mr. President, this is a role--protecting health and safety--that is best served by Government, rather than by the private sector. However, the bill before us takes a different view, and establishes a large-scale pilot project to allow private sector review of medical devices. If we are to take this step, it is absolutely critical that we subject those private sector reviewers to the same conflict-of-interest restrictions that Government reviewers are subject to. The amendment sponsored by the Senator from Illinois would do just that. It would say to private sector reviewers, ``You cannot own stock in any company whose product you review. You cannot accept any gifts from a company whose product you review, and you cannot designate any other person to receive such a gift.'' That's it. Pretty simple and straightforward. But very important. As one of the lead sponsors of the Senate gift ban several years ago, I feel strongly that the public has a right to know that elected officials are working in the best interests of their constituency, and cannot be bought or sold over lunch provided by high-paid lobbyists. Just as politicians should not be trading on their influence, neither should private sector medical device reviewers be swayed in their decision process by gifts from industry representatives or the promise of huge profits derived from a recommendation for FDA approval. I hope my colleagues will do the right thing, and limit the potential for corruption in this bill by voting for this important amendment.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the road to campaign finance reform is obviously a long, hard one. But we are going to keep on it. I just want to say, because I am involved in a bipartisan effort here, that I believe the majority leader was engaged in the last couple of days in a good-faith effort, negotiating with Senator McCain, of course, with members of his own caucus, to try to resolve this issue. I believe there has been a relatively small misunderstanding here with regard to the specifics that sounds a lot worse than it actually is. What we are down to here is merely a difference, based on the conversation I just heard, as to whether the bill will come up in early November or whether it might come back some time in October. Surely, we will not allow such a difference to make the difference between whether we debate campaign finance reform or not. I just had the opportunity to speak with Senator McCain briefly. He and I share the view that I think most of the American people share, that too much has happened with regard to this scandal in this area to not address this matter. I think we need to work a little more on the UC. I had not seen the UC. I want that noted in the Record. I had not seen the UC, but I am not complaining. That is not my role in this institution to be the main person reviewing an agreement of that kind. But I am confident, once this small matter is resolved, that we will have an agreement very much like the one that was just propounded. That agreement would be a historic agreement. I think it would be the first time in memory that the leaders of both parties in this body had agreed to bring up bipartisan campaign finance reform. The nature of the proposal was quite reasonable. The proposal suggested that there would be full and open debate on this issue without a time limit, that there would be an opportunity to amend. We can fix the bill with amendments. We can accommodate Members' concerns. We can improve the bill or we can even defeat the bill, as my colleague from Kentucky may choose to do. But that is different than last year when we were given only 2 days, no amendments, and a cloture vote. The agreement that was just propounded was significantly better in that regard. The agreement would give the American people the opportunity with some certainty to know about when this issue was going to come up so that the people across the country could write their Representatives, call their Representatives, e-mail their Representatives, and say, ``We'd really like this bill passed'' or ``We'd like it killed'' or ``We'd like it changed.'' I think all of this is embodied in the proposal. So I say, on behalf of myself and Senator McCain, if I may do so, that, apart from this small issue of the exact timing, that this agreement, once agreed to, will do what we want it to. It is what we want. It is what we worked for for a long time, while all the pundits, especially in this town, have said that the issue will never come up. Most importantly, when we have this debate--and it will be in the near future--I am confident it will be done in an orderly manner. And it will give the American people what they deserve, an opportunity to have a real debate on this issue instead of just an endless stream of reports of abuses with regard to campaign financing throughout their Government. So, Mr. President, I am very optimistic that this brief conversation here was merely a blip and that we will not be forced to use the tactic of having to try to attach this legislation to other bills and in fact S. 25, which of course is still the McCain-Feingold bill, will in fact come before this body in the relatively near future. I want to thank the majority leader for his cooperation on this. I want to thank my leader for his efforts to try to resolve these differences at this point. I want to thank all 45 members of my caucus, all the Democrats for having signed on to the McCain-Feingold bill. Of course I want to thank the other cosponsors of the bill, Senator Thompson and Senator Collins on the other side of the aisle. I want to thank the President. The President has been very steadfast in trying to move this legislation forward. His staff has worked closely with us on a day-to-day basis to try to see if we could resolve the very difficult differences between the parties so we could have this matter debated. Mr. President, we will get there. We are getting there. I hope we can today begin to tell the American people they are finally going to be able to participate in, hear and understand the debate about whether big money is going to continue to control the Government of the people of the United States. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Does the senior Senator from West Virginia concur with the Senator from Washington and myself?