Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, with regard to the last request and the objection, I want to indicate that I, too, would have objected. Congress has had a long tradition of linking the budget process reform to increases in the statutory limit on Government debt. Obviously, no one knows this better than the Senator from Texas when in 1985 Congress enacted the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law as an amendment to the debt limit bill, and in 1987, after the Supreme Court ruled the first Gramm- Rudman-Hollings law unconstitutional, then Congress added the reaffirmation of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law to the debt limit. Then in 1990, Congress enacted the Budget Enforcement Act in the same legislation with an increase in the debt limit. There is a logical link between the debt limit issue and controlling of deficits. I think the Senate should only vote to raise the debt limit if it is linked with reforms to prevent the need for future debt limit increases, and I hope that when we return to this issue there is an opportunity for an amendment with a limited time agreement so we can perhaps address this important matter.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, we are enormously gratified by the vote on cloture. We know that some Members who don't even support the underlying bill thought it was appropriate and correct to bring the debate to a close at this point. We thank all of our colleagues for such a tremendous showing of support to bring this issue to a conclusion. With that, I am very pleased to yield 7 minutes to one of the strongest supporters of this legislation and a tremendous ally, the Senator from New York.

Mr. FEINGOLD. How much time do we have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. Now I am delighted to yield 5 minutes to one of the earliest supporters of this legislation from the State, more than any other State at this time in our history, that represents campaign finance reform and somebody who worked every day for 5 or 6 years to make this happen, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her kind words and her courageous leadership on this issue. It is so fitting that the next speaker is the other Senator from Maine. Without Maine, without these Senators, we would not be winning this battle today. That is all there is to it. My hat is off to the State of Maine. I yield 7 minutes to the senior Senator from Maine.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator desire?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I could not agree with her more. This is a modest step, it is a first step, it is an essential step, but it does not even begin to address, in some ways, the fundamental problems that exist with the hard money aspect of the system. I pledge to work with Senator Boxer and everybody else to continue the efforts to accomplish more. Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining on our side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to both sides.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask that the time be equally divided.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada. I strongly agree with him with regard to the outstanding job the Senator from Connecticut did in managing this bill. It was truly masterful and essential, given the open and difficult nature of the process. I thank him for his kind words. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. President. I am about to yield to one of the Senators who was very helpful on this issue. I have been through many of the turning points on this issue over 7 years. One of the clear turning points was the group of Senators who arrived after the 2000 election. None has been more loyal and helpful in the process than the Senator from Missouri. I am grateful for her support on this issue. I yield 10 minutes to Senator Carnahan from Missouri.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to one of our most steadfast supporters of this bill from the time we began, from the time we were sworn in together as Senators, the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer.

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I need. Mr. President, on September 7, 1995, 6\1/2\ years ago, the senior Senator from Arizona and I introduced the first version of the McCain- Feingold campaign finance reform bill. It was a different bill from the bill we are about to pass today, but it was a different world then. The Senate that year was controlled by the Republican party. The majority leader was Bob Dole. The occupant of the White House was a Democrat, Bill Clinton, still in his first term. Still far in the future, unimaginable to any of us then, were an impeachment trial, an impossibly close Presidential election, and of course, September 11. The world of campaign finance was much different, too. Still to come was the 1996 Presidential campaign with campaign finance abuses that by now we refer to in shorthand--the White House coffees, the Lincoln Bedroom, the Buddhist temple fundraiser, Roger Tamraz. Still ahead were the extraordinary revelations of the Thompson investigation concerning fundraising abuses by both political parties. Still in the future was the explosion of phony issue ads by outside groups and by the political parties--hundreds of millions of dollars spent to influence elections through a loophole that assumes that the advertising is not meant to influence elections. Most amazing, as I look back on these many years, is the growth since then of the soft money outrage, which has become the central focus of our campaign finance reform effort over the past several years. When we first introduced our bill--I have to be honest about this--soft money was still in, if not its infancy, then, at the most, it was in its adolescence. When we first introduced the bill in 1995, banning soft money was on our list of provisions, but we listed it, actually, as the sixth component of the bill, coming after, believe it or not, the problem of reforming the congressional franking privilege. I noted in that speech, with some emerging outrage, that the political parties had raised--I kid you not--``tens of millions of dollars'' in 1995 alone, a figure that, of course, is absolutely nothing compared to what we see today. The soft money loophole surely came of age in the 1996 elections, and has only kept growing since then. In the 1992 election cycle, the parties raised a total of $86 million. In 1996, that number more than tripled to $262 million. And in 2000, soft money receipts nearly doubled again to $495 million, nearly half a billion dollars. As the world of campaign finance has changed, so has the McCain- Feingold bill. In late 1997, in the wake of the Thompson investigation, we reluctantly concluded that we needed to first focus our efforts on closing the biggest loopholes in the system: the soft money and the phony issue ads. But narrowing the bill, obviously, did not make it easy to pass. As those two loopholes have grown in importance, and more and more money has flowed through them into our elections, the commitment of the major players in the political system to protect them has only increased. Indeed, there was a time when the opponents of campaign finance reform called soft money ``sewer money'' and proposed banning it in their own alternative bill. Now, instead, they champion soft money as essential to the health and stability of the political parties and that it is somehow now protected by the first amendment, even though they wanted to eliminate it and called it ``sewer money'' before. But a few things have not changed a bit since Senator McCain and I began this journey together. One is our commitment to bipartisan reform. Both Senator McCain and I mentioned this in our first speeches in 1995. We knew then that a partisan effort on this issue would be doomed to failure. In my speech, I noted that we were both speaking to Members of both parties about our bill, and that ``we are not dividing up the Senate because this has to be a product of the Senate.'' This had to be a product of the whole Senate, both parties. That hope was put to the test last year when this body engaged in an extraordinary 2-week floor debate on campaign finance reform, with an open amendment process and a vote on final passage for the first time since 1993. We had 27 rollcall votes in that debate. Thirty-eight amendments to the bill were offered and 17 were adopted. This bill is truly the work product of the Senate as a whole. That is a major reason why it will soon be headed to the President for signature. Another thing that has not changed since 1995, of course, is the need for reform. If anything, it has increased as much as the amount of soft money contributed to the parties has increased. In 1995, I noted that the public had reason for concern when big money was being poured into legislative efforts such as the telecommunications bill and regulatory reform legislation. Since then, the list of legislative battles where money has seemed to call the shots has gotten longer and longer: the bankruptcy bill, product liability legislation, the tobacco wars, financial services modernization, the Patients' Bill of Rights, China MFN. I could, obviously, go on and on. I have called the bankroll on this floor more than 30 times since June 1999. These days, major legislation almost never comes to this floor without interests, often on both sides, that have made major soft money contributions to the political parties. We need to look no further than the work we do on this Senate floor to see the appearance of corruption--the appearance of corruption--that justifies banning soft money. A few years ago an advocacy group unveiled a huge ``FOR SALE'' sign and held it up for an afternoon on the steps of the east front of the Capitol. We have seen similar images for years in political cartoons. A constituent once wrote to me that perhaps Senators should wear jackets with corporate logos on them like race cars. We laugh at these images, but inside we cringe, because this great center of democracy is truly tainted by money. Particularly after September 11, all of us in this Chamber hope the public will look to the Capitol and look to the Senate with reverence and pride, not with derision. Our task today is to restore some of that pride. I believe we can undertake that task with our own sense of pride, because we know it is the right thing to do, and we know it has to be done. Another thing that has not changed since we first introduced the McCain-Feingold bill in 1995 is the determination of the opposition to defeat reform. Early in 1996, when we were approaching our first vote on the McCain-Feingold bill and the first filibuster against our bill, a coalition began to meet to plot our defeat. The Washington Post described the coalition as ``an unusual alliance of unions, businesses, and liberal and conservative groups.'' I called them at the time--and continue to call them--the Washington gatekeepers: the major players in politics and policy in this town for whom campaign money is the currency of influence. The National Association of Business PACs even began to run ads against House Members who cosponsored the bill, and they threatened to withhold financial support in the next election. Even before our bill had seen its first debate, the status quo had organized to kill it. And their efforts have continued unabated throughout the last 6\1/2\ years. The opposition has plainly made our task more difficult, but it also now makes our victory more satisfying. Because as we stand on the verge of enacting this major accomplishment, we in the Congress who have supported this effort know we have acted not out of self-interest, and not for the special interests but for the public interest. This bill is for the American people, for our democracy, and for the future of our country. When a previous effort to reform the campaign finance system failed in an end-of-session filibuster in late 1994, then-Majority Leader George Mitchell said this on the floor: The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, every Senator knows this system stinks. Every Senator who participates in it knows this system stinks. And the American people are right when they mistrust this system, where what matters most in seeking public office is not integrity, not ability, not judgment, not reason, not responsibility, not experience, not intelligence, but money. This bill will not fix every problem in our campaign finance system. The Presiding Officer and I have talked about this throughout the years of his steadfast support for our efforts. This bill will not miraculously erase distrust and suspicion of the Congress overnight. It will not completely end the primacy of money in politics that so disturbed Senator Mitchell. But the bill is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the right direction. After so many years of effort, and so many disappointments, the public has reason to be gratified by what we are about to do, and to look with hope to what we can accomplish together when the monkey of soft money is finally lifted off our backs. As elated as we are about finally finishing this long battle for reform, I cannot leave the floor without noting that the war is not over. We must be vigilant as the Federal Election Commission promulgates regulations to implement the legislation. And, of course, we face a certain court challenge by opponents of reform who will argue that it violates the Constitution. I assure my colleagues of two things: First, we have had one eye on the eventual court challenge ever since we started this process. This bill has been carefully crafted to take account of the Supreme Court's decisions in this area. Can I guarantee that every provision will survive a Court challenge? Of course not. But I can tell you that we have done our very best to design these reforms in a constitutional manner. Second, we plan to be active participants in the legal fight that will undoubtedly end in the Supreme Court of the United States, perhaps as early as a year from now. We will be similarly active in pressing the FEC to promulgate regulations that fulfill--that fulfill, not frustrate--the intent of the Congress in passing this bill. The Senator from Arizona and I did not fight for 6\1/2\ years to pass these reforms only to see them undone by a hostile FEC. The role of the FEC is to carry out the will of the Congress, to implement and enforce the law, not to undermine it. I call on each of the Commissioners, regardless of political party or personal views on our reform effort, to be true to that role and to the oaths of office they took. I urge my colleagues to join with us in overseeing the crucial work of the FEC and to participate in its rulemaking proceedings where appropriate. In addition, even after we have enacted this law, there will be other reforms to do. We need to look at the cost of broadcast advertising and consider whether those having a license to use the public airwaves ought to be required to provide free airtime to promote democratic discourse during election campaigns. In my opinion, we need to again consider the possibility of public funding of congressional elections, following the very successful experience with clean money systems in Maine and Arizona. Finally, we must remain vigilant to guard against the next abuse of the campaign finance system when it comes, as it surely will. I thank all of my colleagues for their patience and their support. I know this battle has been difficult for many of them. The pressure to preserve the status quo was intense. Inertia is a powerful force against change. We have all compromised at least a little in order to achieve this final result. Many Members have cast difficult votes. They have sometimes followed Senator McCain and me down a path without knowing exactly where it would lead. I am grateful for the trust they have shown in us, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart. Before I close, I pay special tribute to my partner in this effort, the Senator from Arizona. When Senator McCain called me shortly after the 1994 elections and asked me to join with him in bipartisan reform efforts, I could never have imagined we would be standing here together on this day on the verge of a great victory for the American people. He just didn't tell me how long it would take. I truly believe his courage and dedication, demonstrated in so many ways over so many years, are the reasons the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 will soon become the law of the land. My respect for him has grown with every challenge we have faced together. He is a great legislator, a great leader, and, above all, a great friend. Our work on this bill, John McCain, has been the highlight of my professional life. Your friendship means more to me than you will ever know. Thanks, John. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Arizona such time as he may require.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Tennessee as well. He was there from the very beginning. He has been incredibly helpful on the floor and in negotiations. I yield him such time as he may require.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Tennessee have 30 additional seconds.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank my colleague from Tennessee for all his support and his excellent statement. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, is it correct that there are now going to be 3 hours of debate on the bill equally divided?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Maine for the critical role she has played in this effort and the victory we are about to have. Now I have the pleasure of yielding to the Senator from Connecticut, who I must say is the person most responsible for what was actually the first piece of campaign finance reform legislation in decades, the bill that addressed the 527 problem. He then was a magnificent candidate on our party for Vice President. Despite his national prominence on that issue, and the wonderful job he did on that, and the heartbreaking loss, he didn't waste any time. He came right back in his own modest way, as a team player, and worked with us to help us pass this bill. I am grateful for that and just think he is a class act. I am happy to yield 7 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Ithaca--I mean the Senator from Connecticut, for his very fine remarks. I would be remiss if I did not say the occupant of the chair, the Senator from Louisiana, pledged her support at a very critical time, and stood with us all the way through this debate. I thank her for her help on this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Veterans' Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 2:00 p.m., for a joint hearing with the House of Representatives' Committee on Veterans Affairs, to hear the legislative presentations of American Ex-Prisoners of War, the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Retired Officers Association, the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, and AMVETS. The hearing will take place in room 345 of the Cannon House Office Building.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002 at 2:30 p.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Personnel of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, March 20, 2002, at 9:30 a.m., in open session to receive testimony on recruiting and retention in the military services in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2003.