Patty Murray

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I rise to join the Senator from Nebraska in opposing the Kyl amendment. This amendment seeks to impede years of work to curb nuclear weapons proliferation and to ultimately resume the U.S. nuclear weapons testing program. The United States has not tested a nuclear weapon in the Nevada desert since late 1992; a nuclear silence of nearly 4 years. Thanks to the bipartisan leadership of Senator Hatfield and Senator Exon, the United States has been able to play a leadership role in the international drive to negotiate a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty at the Conference on Disarmament. I want to commend Senator Exon for his statesmanship on this issue. Sometimes known as a defense hawk, the Senator from Nebraska took this issue on after careful study several years ago. As far as I know, Senator Exon is one of the few Senators to actually visit the Nevada test site. Few in this body known as much about our nuclear weapons program and the arguments for and against nuclear testing as Senator Exon. Strangely, as the July 28 deadline for reaching agreement on a comprehensive test ban treaty approaches, the U.S. Senate is considering an amendment to undo years of work to combat nuclear proliferation. Strangely, as President Clinton travels to the G-7 meeting in France to increase the pressure on our allies to reach agreement on a CTBT, the Senate is considering an amendment to undermine the President of the United States. The proponents argue that their amendment will not interfere with negotiations. With all due respect, I strongly disagree with my colleagues claims regarding this amendment. The mere fact that the Senate is having this debate threatens the delicate talks now in the crucial final stages at the Conference on Disarmament. The proponents of this amendment did not support the Hatfield-Mitchell-Exon test ban moratorium legislation and I am sure they will lead the fight on the Senate floor against Senate ratification of a comprehensive test ban treaty. The Senate has debated this issue at length on numerous occasions. The arguments against resuming nuclear weapons testing are as valid today as they were when 57 Senators voted to impose the nuclear weapons testing moratorium. The administration has sent clear messages to the Senate in opposition to the Kyl amendment. John Holum, the Director of the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in a letter addressing the Kyl amendment states: I want to emphasize our belief that this amendment could undermine our efforts to negotiate a Treaty that would end nuclear testing for all time by suggesting a possible U.S. interest in resuming testing before the CTBT enters into force, that does not, in fact exist. Hazel O'Leary, the Secretary of Energy, issued the following statement: The nuclear weapons testing moratorium instituted by the Hatfield-Exon-Mitchell amendment has made a significant contribution to the U.S. nuclear nonproliferation efforts. During the duration of the moratorium, the U.S. stockpile of nuclear weapons has remained safe and reliable. There is no requirement to resuming testing or even to plan to resume testing for safety or reliability or any other purpose, at this time. Finally, let me share with my colleagues a quote from another letter on the Kyl amendment from the National Security Council. The NSC letter states: The Administration believes that the Kyl-Reid amendment is not only not necessary, but it also entails a genuine risk of delaying or derailing the CTBT negotiations just as we may well be poised to achieve a global ban on nuclear testing. The United States has conducted more than 1,000 nuclear weapons tests. Our nuclear weapons program and technological superiority is unequaled anywhere in the world. There simply is no sound argument in my mind to approve the Kyl legislation and repeal important provisions of the existing nuclear testing moratorium legislation. It is a giant step backward into an era of nuclear expansion and nuclear uncertainty. Mr. President, we should listen to the words of ACDA Director John Holum, chief U.S. negotiator at the Conference on Disarmament. Some time ago, while addressing the Conference on Disarmament, Director Holum eloquently stated: From the very first atomic blast at Alamagordo, mankind has been struggling to recapture the ferocious beast unleashed there. Since then, thousands of women and men of good will and intellect----

Mrs. MURRAY. I ask the Senator from Nebraska for 2 additional minutes to finish my statement.

Mrs. MURRAY. I continue the quote. Since then, thousands of women and men of good will and intellect have pursued--passionately, painstakingly--the compelling mission of our age. Working together, let us rededicate ourselves to this mission: To shepherd this beast back into its cage--to bring what was unleashed in a blinding blast of heat in the New Mexico desert to a fitting end in the cool atmosphere of reason in Geneva--to ensure that the first half century of nuclear explosions is the last. Mr. President, in the next few days, this country may be in a position to celebrate the successful completion of more than 30 years of work to end nuclear testing worldwide. To do this, we must defeat the Kyl amendment. We must turn back the few in this country who continue to believe this Nation must go down the path of nuclear expansion and exploration. I strongly urge my colleagues to support the Hatfield motion to table the Kyl amendment. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Nebraska.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, this past February, over 4 months ago, I took the Senate floor to announce my cosponsorship of S. 1219. As I spoke about how unique this bill is--one of the only truly bipartisan attempts to reform campaign laws in two decades--I could not help thinking to myself, ``here we go again.'' I have only been a Senator for a little over 3 years. In Senate terms, that is not very long. But I have been here long enough to see campaign finance reform come up, and be killed. In the 103d Congress, shortly after the 1992 elections, I proudly cosponsored campaign reform legislation. I was eager to answer the voters' hopes for cleaner, more thoughtful politics. I watched colleagues come to the floor, proclaim the need for reforms, and declare their support for good legislation. The Senate passed that bill, S. 3, and sent it to the House. A short time later, I saw it killed amidst partisan bickering, despite the mad scramble of Senators wanting to be seen as leading the charge for reforms. In the end, nothing was accomplished, and here we are today living under the same campaign system that has created so much cynicism and mistrust among the voters. So when I endorsed S. 1219, I thought ``here we go again'' because I was embarking on my second attempt to reform campaign laws. But this time, instead of thinking we could simply pass a bill and send it to the White House, I knew we had our work cut out for us. Now it is June, and the 104th Congress will adjourn in a few months. While we are only now taking up campaign reform, I am still encouraged. For the first time in a long time, the Senate is considering a truly bipartisan bill. It has not been drafted by one party or another to give themselves a leg up. It has been drafted by a Republican and a Democrat, John McCain and Russ Feingold, because they know that until the two parties come together and focus on common sense reforms we can all agree on, nothing will get done. It is supported by thoughtful new Senators like Fred Thompson of Tennessee and Carol Moseley-Braun of Illinois who, like me, were elected to make changes in the political system. We have a very narrow window of opportunity today. It is narrow because we have only a few months left in this Congress, and we have a lot of work to do. It is an opportunity because it is a bipartisan bill, free of taint, and maybe--just maybe--capable of restoring some faith to the people. In light of this, it is critical that we move quickly. I urge my colleagues to stop, look, and listen. Listen to people at the coffee shops. Talk to friends, to family members. Walk through a neighborhood. A basic, fundamental lack of faith in Government lays at the root of peoples' concerns about the future. Until something dramatic happens to address public confidence in the political system, we can expect the gap between the people and their Government to widen. There is nothing I can think of that would be worse for this country; for alienation breeds apathy, and apathy erodes accountability. America is the greatest democracy the world has ever known, and it was built on the principle of accountability: government of the people, by the people, for the people. We simply must restore peoples' faith in their Government. At the core of the problem is money in politics. Right now the system is designed to favor the rich, at the expense of the middle class. It benefits the incumbents, at the expense of challengers. And most of all, it fuels the special interest, inside-the-beltway machine at the expense of the average person back home. The average person feels like they can no longer make a difference in this system. Earlier this year, my campaign received a $15 donation from a woman in Washington State. She included a note to me that said, ``Senator Murray, please make sure my $15 has as much impact as people who give thousands.'' She knows what she is up against, but she is still willing to make the effort. Unfortunately, people like her are fewer and farther between, and less willing than ever to try to make a difference. We see her problem when people like Ross Perot or Steve Forbes are able to use personal wealth to buy their way into the national spotlight. Ninety-nine percent of the people in America could never even imagine making that kind of splash in politics. Should we rely only on the benevolence of a few wealthy individuals to ensure strong democracy in this country? I don't think that is what the Founding Fathers had in mind. The political consultants will say negative ads work, because they, quote, ``move the numbers.'' They will say we need to raise millions of dollars because that is what it takes to get a message out. But that ignores the reality in Main Street America every day. The very campaigns they say we need to run to win are bleeding the life out of our political system. Every time we go through an election with expensive, negative campaigns, we pay a severe price in voter participation and citizen apathy. Add up election, after election, after election in the modern political era, and elected officials are facing a huge bill for accountability they may not be able to pay. I fear that once lost, citizens may never re-engage in their democratic system. During this debate, I have heard Senators take issue with certain provisions in S. 1219. I have heard colleagues question the constitutionality of spending limits. I have heard them make the case that this bill takes the wrong approach. I have heard them argue for reform, but not this way. Mr. President, these arguments miss the point entirely. The upcoming vote is not about whether you agree with every provision of S. 1219. It is about whether this Senate is willing to step up and pass campaign reform legislation this year. I myself am not completely satisfied with S. 1219. The McCain- Feingold bill is very broad, and does something about nearly every aspect of the system: It restricts political action committee contributions; it imposes voluntary spending limits; it provides discounted access to broadcast media for advertising; it provides reduced rates for postage; it prohibits taxpayer-financed mass mailings on behalf of incumbents during an election year; it discourages negative advertising; it tightens restrictions on independent expenditures; and it reforms the process of soft money contributions made through political parties. Mr. President, these are very strong, positive steps, especially the ones addressing independent expenditures. Over the past few years, through the so-called Gingrich Revolution, we have seen an explosion of campaign spending by special interest groups, many from Washington, DC, attempting to swing elections in their own favor. These expenditures are ideologically driven, often highly partisan, and serve only to manipulate voters in the most sinister way. They corrupt our elections. They are not disclosed, so we do not know who makes them, and they violate the spirit of every disclosure requirement in law today. If enacted as a package, all the steps I just mentioned would make our system of electing Federal officials more open, competitive, and fair. I feel strongly that we must take such steps to re-invigorate peoples' interest in the electoral process, and in turn to restore their confidence in the system. There are some provisions in S. 1219 that could be problematic, however. For example, the bill would require 60 percent of a candidates' donors to reside within his or her State. This might work fine for someone from New York or California. However, it could put small-state candidates at a real disadvantage, particularly if their opponent is independently wealthy. I also question the ban on PAC's. Under the right regulations, I believe PAC's have a legitimate role in the process, for two reasons. First, PAC's are fully disclosed, and subject to strict contribution limits. That means we have a very detailed paper trail from donor to candidate for everyone to see. Second, they give a voice to individual citizens like women and workers and teachers who, if not organized as a group, might not be able to make a difference in the process. A serious question about PAC's remains, however: do they unfairly benefit incumbents at the expense of challengers? This is a legitimate question, and one I think we should focus on closely in this debate. Finally, I am deeply concerned about how this bill would effect organized fundraising by third party groups that do not even lobby Congress. Groups like EMILY's List and WISH List support pro-choice women candidates of both parties, though they do not actually lobby Congress on legislation. They give people of modest means like me an opportunity to compete on the electoral playing field. For too long, this field has been dominated only by wealthy, well financed candidates, establishment candidates, or incumbents. In my 1992 campaign I was out-spent nearly three-to-one. Without the support of groups like this, I would not have even been able to make the race. By banning these groups, S. 1219 would send a signal to people everywhere: do not even think about playing this game unless you can afford the price of admission. However, as I said a moment ago, this vote is not about every little detail. Let us remember something: this whole debate--arguments for and against--comes against the backdrop of a campaign finance system that has not been reformed since Watergate, over 20 years ago. Public faith in government today has sunk below what it was in 1974. So in spite of my personal concerns, I will vote to invoke cloture on the McCain- Feingold bill. And after cloture is invoked, I will support amendments that address the issues I have raised. Right now, we need to move forward. People in this country want to feel ownership over their elections; they want to feel like they, as individuals, have a role to play and can make a positive difference. Right now, for better or worse, not many people feel that way, and the trend is going the wrong direction. Real campaign reform will be the strongest, easiest step this Senate could take to begin restoring peoples' faith in the process. Set aside the legalistic, technical arguments for a moment. Get out from behind all the procedural maneuvering. Put aside partisan leanings. We have an opportunity right now, today, to show the voters something. We can put pressure on the other body to act on similar legislation. We can actually move reform efforts forward in a credible way, and get something done this year. A citizen from New Hampshire, Frank McConnell, made a good case just the other day. He came to Washington to push this bill, and he said if Congress wanted to, if it really wanted to, it could do the work and have a bill to the President's desk in a couple weeks. We know the President would sign it, because he said so in his State of the Union Address earlier this year. Frank McConnell was right: if we want to, we can just do it. Here we are again. We are considering campaign reform legislation. There is not much time left. I thank the two sponsors of this bill, Senator McCain and Senator Feingold, and I urge my colleagues to step up and support the motion to invoke cloture.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I will add that not only is that woman paying her taxes but she is serving our country overseas. She is serving every single one of us; making us safe here at home. She deserves to have us take care of her when she has a medical need. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Bingaman and Senator Inouye as cosponsors to this amendment.

Mrs. MURRAY. I would agree with the Senator. This places many undue obstacles in front of the woman who is serving in the military overseas such as asking through her supervisor for permission to leave. This is not something anyone here has to ask for who is serving here or who is not serving here. It means that a woman would have to fly home-- sometimes hours of travel, sometimes weeks of delay in getting a flight out of some of the countries which we are asking our young women to serve in. It means a delay in the medical procedure, and it puts an undue burden on these women which is not faced by any other woman in this country.

Mrs. MURRAY. They are not only making a sacrifice, but these are women who are serving our country who are every day working for every single one of us to make our lives safe here. They should not be treated as second-class citizens. They should be treated as first-class citizens and be given the same right that every woman in this country has and the access to safe medical procedures that they deserve. I thank the Senator from Maine.

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator is correct.

Mrs. MURRAY. I thank my colleague from California for a very eloquent statement and for her support of this extremely important amendment that sends a message to women who serve our country overseas that they will be treated equal to any other woman who is a citizen in this country today. Mr. President, how much time remains on my side?

Mrs. MURRAY. And how much time remains on the other side?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President I ask my friend from Indiana if he intends to use any more of his time?

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum to be equally divided.

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

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from New Jersey.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Virginia.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield for a question? It is only to ask about time.

Mrs. MURRAY. We want to give our Members a time agreement. How much more time does the Senator need?

Mrs. MURRAY. The Senator from California brings up an excellent point. The way the current bill is drafted, without my amendment, it simply creates foreign back alleys for our women who are serving overseas--for those of us who were aware before Roe v. Wade, women got abortions in back alleys because they were not provided medical facilities. We have friends who are not able to have babies because of a procedure that was performed in a back alley. I cannot imagine this Senate and this Congress putting our women who serve in uniform overseas at risk as we did women many years ago in this country. It seems to me that is really disturbing--to create foreign back alleys as this current bill does.

Mrs. MURRAY. I cannot think of any case where a man is denied a medical procedure who is serving in the military overseas.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, if the Senator from Indiana is willing to yield back time, I will use 30 seconds.

Mrs. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. President. Once again, I urge my colleagues to vote for this very simple amendment. It will allow our women who serve in our military overseas to use their own private funds to get a safe, legal abortion in our military facilities overseas. We have talked a lot about the women in our military, but this also affects the wives and the daughters of our servicemen who serve overseas. They, too, should have the ability to have a safe, legal procedure. I have heard that no complaints have been filed. But I tell my colleagues that this puts a woman in a very serious position, if she does complain, and she is in the military. It could have career implications. And it could have personal implications. It does not surprise me that the Senator from Indiana has not heard of any complaints. But I assure you, this does put women's lives in jeopardy. It puts obstacles in front of them that clearly violate their equal protection under the law. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and I yield back my additional time.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mrs. MURRAY

Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, yesterday, after 13 months, 51 hearings, 159 witnesses, thousands of pages of documents, and nearly 2 million taxpayer dollars, the Special Committee To Investigate Whitewater concluded its work. Our committee found no instance in which the President or the First Lady have acted unethically, illegally or abused their power. Mr. President, the special committee released two varying reports yesterday: A Republican majority report and a Democratic minority report. Our committee started its work in true bipartisan fashion. Unfortunately, as the investigation repeatedly failed to produce any substantive or legitimate wrongdoing by the President, the majority veered the committee down a path of partisan politics and speculation. As a result, our bipartisan teamwork broke down. It disintegrated to a point that two separate reports are needed in order to report our findings as clearly as possible. The biggest failing of this committee, however, was our failure to keep faith with the American people. For months, I reminded our committee of the importance of being credible and of the need to maintain the confidence of the American people. Constituents in my home State often expressed their displeasure with our committee's partisan politics. And they told me they no longer trusted our committee to find the truth in a fair and impartial manner. Mr. President, we were charged with the mission of finding all of the facts relating to the President's relationship with Whitewater and related matters. That's what the American people wanted us to do. That is what they expected us to do. Unfortunately, the majority decided to make allegations first, and find the facts second. If the facts failed to support the allegations, the majority simply discarded the facts. I believe, and most of my colleagues will agree, that there were few instances where the White House could have produced documents faster or answered questions more quickly. In its attempt to be careful and cautious, the White House ultimately ran into perception problems. The White House looked as if it was covering up the truth. Once all the information was gathered, we learned the White House had not acted improperly--rather in many cases it was as open and forthcoming as possible. In no way did the White House act to obstruct justice or attempt to impede this committee's investigation. The majority granted the special committee $400,000 to extend our hearings well beyond our original February deadline. Nearly 4 months later, our committee conducted only 10 more hearings. This track record makes it very clear to me that we could have concluded our work by the original deadline, and that the majority simply intended to continue these hearings further into the Presidential election season. Now, after finding no wrongdoing by the President in relation to the subject at hand--Whitewater and Madison Guaranty--the Majority has leaked reports that it intends to pursue perjury charges on three of the President's aides and advisers. This is a clear attempt to move attention away from the fruitless investigation by creating a new allegation. Like many of the smoking guns that amounted to no more than squirt guns, it again appears to be another effort to make news where there is no news, and to make political noise in an election year. Our committee spent nearly $2 million to examine the facts. The Resolution Trust Corporation [RTC] spent nearly $4 million conducting an independent investigation clearing the Clintons of any wrongdoing. And the independent counsel has spent more than $26 million on its ongoing investigation. Including the House committee hearings, nearly $40 million of public money has been spent to bring all relevant information into the open. The final reports put to rest the suicide of Vince Foster, concluded the Clinton White House did not interfere with RTC and Department of Justice investigations, and discovered then-Governor Clinton did not misuse his power to influence State regulators. It is time for us to move beyond this political issue. It is time for Congress to address the issues that really concern the American people. When I go home people ask me what Congress has done to preserve their quality of life, what Congress has done to improve our education system, and what Congress has done to improve our health care delivery system. I can count on one hand the number of times somebody asked me about Whitewater over the past 2 years. As a member of the Special Whitewater Committee, I took my job seriously. I understood the importance of our committee, and I stand by the minority report. Our report studies the facts very carefully, and after compiling all of the facts we made our conclusions accordingly. I urge all interested parties to read this report, and I am hopeful it completes the mission we were instructed to pursue.