[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 108 (Monday, August 8, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 8, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                HEALTH CARE AND CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to speak today on health care, 
but I want to focus on health care within the framework of campaign 
finance reform, because I think if there ever was an issue that really 
should focus attention on the mix of money and politics, and why it is 
just imperative that we pass a strong campaign finance reform bill this 
session, it is health care.
  Mr. President, a couple of months ago I was invited to speak to a 
gathering, a group of doctors. It was their annual association meeting. 
It was an 8:30 engagement, and I got there at 8:25. I was having a cup 
of coffee in the back of the room, at which point the director of this 
organization was talking to his members. There were about 350 doctors 
who came from around the country. He said:

       When you go to see your Representative or your Senator, you 
     cannot give them a PAC check in their office. That is not 
     legal. So they might want to just tell you where to send it 
     instead.

  And then he hesitated and he said in kind of an awkward way, ``But 
they will take it,'' at which point there was this uneasy laughter in 
the room. But it was not just cynical laughter; actually, it was 
awkward laughter because, after all, as much as the doctors and the 
people in this organization did not like the taking of the money, they 
were doing the giving. I mean, if they thought something should not 
feel right about this, they were a part of it.
  So, Mr. President, it was now my turn to speak, and I was trying to 
figure out how to make this transition. First, I thanked them for their 
work as surgeons, having been involved in athletics for a long time, 
and I said to them:

       I was listening to your conversation, and I have to tell 
     you in all honesty that I really believe that throughout this 
     whole debate on this health care bill, I have said that I do 
     not think Representatives or Senators should take any health 
     care PAC money. I wish there would be a moratorium on it. Nor 
     do I think we should take any large, individual contributions 
     from the health industry, broadly defined, over $100.

  Mr. President, at that point, I was certain that I would be met with 
a kind of wall of hostility, and I was really surprised because people 
literally came to their feet and there was this tremendous applause. 
And then I looked at these doctors, who were not particularly 
political. They all came to Washington because they had been told this 
is where you come at this moment in this debate. And I said to them:

       Having been a teacher for 20 years, I am pretty good at 
     reading faces, and I now know what is going on here. We are 
     all trapped in this same awful system, those of us in the 
     Senate, whether we are Democrats or Republicans, who are told 
     that the benchmark figure we are supposed to raise is $13,000 
     a week to be viable for reelection, or thereabouts. This is 
     an obscene money chase, in which people are too often told 
     that you actually have to come to Washington, checkbook in 
     hand, to have influence. No wonder people feel so ripped off; 
     no wonder people feel so angry.

  Mr. President, as we start this health care debate, I just want to 
say to my colleagues that there is nothing more important that we can 
do to improve our policy process than to enact tough, far-reaching 
campaign finance reform. The focus of the congressional debate during 
the next few weeks, on health care reform, really brings this to the 
forefront.
  Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Illinois, if we were 
talking about a soccer game, as my good friend and long-time campaign 
reform advocate Phil Stern used to say:

       If you were talking about a soccer game or football game, 
     and you saw the opposing teams pouring in money to the 
     referees or the officials before the game took place, there 
     is not a person in this country who would believe that those 
     officials or those referees were going to be able to make an 
     objective, fair decision. They would feel like something was 
     wrong with that whole process.

  That is what is going on right now, Mr. President. In the 1992 
Presidential and congressional elections, political contributions from 
the medical industry stood at a record high of $41 million. This was in 
the 1990-1992 cycle, $26.4 million from doctors; $7.3 million from the 
insurance industry; $4 million from drug manufacturers; and almost $3 
million from other providers. The rest came from HMO's, lobbyists, 
mental health professionals, medical suppliers, and others.
  Mr. President, according to an FEC analysis by Citizen Action, in the 
last 18 months, $26.4 million has poured into the U.S. Congress from 
political action committees and individual special interests; $26.4 
million over the last 18 months, Mr. President. That is over $1 million 
a month.

  In March, these organizations contributed a staggering $4 million. 
Let me repeat that one more time--$4 million, in March alone, pouring 
into the U.S. Congress from the health industry.
  Mr. President, on the one hand, we are supposed to have this debate, 
we are supposed to make objective decisions, we are supposed to make 
the kinds of decisions that will enable us to do well for the people we 
represent; and, on the other hand, you have all of this money pouring 
into the Congress at an unprecedented rate.
  Mr. President, I just think it looks awful. It just looks awful.
  Mr. President, I am not talking about the wrongdoing of individual 
officeholders. I am not arguing that any of us is personally corrupt.
  What I am saying, Mr. President, is that this system does not work. 
We must put a stop to all this money pouring in here. We must clean up 
our act. We must have real, tough campaign finance reform now.
  When $4 million is contributed from the health care industry in March 
alone and over the last 18 months over $1 million a month has poured 
in, how can we hope that people we represent will believe that the 
final reform bill we pass will not, in one way or another, have been 
affected by these huge special interest contributions?
  Mr. President, all too often, Senators and Representatives, rather 
than being the bold agents of health care change, have become timid 
agents of interests. And what is interesting to me is that when we look 
at the analysis or hear about what is wrong, we have the doctors who 
want to blame the lawyers; we have the employers who say that the 
problem with the health insurance industry is they do not want to 
insure anybody unless they are wealthy or healthy. And then we have the 
insurance companies who blame the doctors. And then, of course, we have 
this analysis that blames the consumer.
  The one kind of issue that has not been focused on--and I really wish 
it would be, because I think it is so important that we have campaign 
finance reform this session--is the way in which money and politics 
have intersected on this issue with such force, with people attempting 
to buy access to influence and power.
  I wish it was not happening, because I think it has a corrosive 
effect on the political process in our country. And I think it is one 
of the reasons, by the way, Mr. President, that people feel so out of 
the loop.
  I see the Senator from Illinois has a question; if I could just add 
one statistic, then I will yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Common Cause recently issued some telling data on this question. They 
concluded that from January 1987 through December 1983, business PAC's 
contributed slightly more than $72 million to U.S. Senators. Labor 
PAC's over the same 6 years contributed $16 million. That is a 4-to-1 
business-over-labor margin.
  And we wonder why there is opposition in the Senate to employers 
paying their fair share for universal health care coverage?
  Let me repeat that. A Common Cause study found that between 1987 and 
1993, $72 million was contributed from business PAC's, and $16 million 
from labor PAC's: a 4-to-1 margin. And people wonder why it is so 
difficult to push a health care reform bill through that calls upon 
employers to pay their fair share.
  By the way, these business PAC's out-gave, if that is the right way 
of putting it, to Democratic Senators by a 2-to-1 margin over labor. 
Very interesting. Business PAC's in this 6-year period gave $32 million 
to Democrats; labor PAC's, $15 million. And people wonder why we are 
having such a time having employers pay their fair share.
  I yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. My colleague from Minnesota--and I appreciate his 
yielding--has partially answered the question I was going to ask.
  I would add, if we eliminated PAC's tomorrow, in my opinion, we would 
have only 1 percent of the reform needed. The real reform has to come 
with public financing of campaigns, where people on their income tax 
forms check off that they are willing to pay $3 and give to candidates. 
Then both Democratic and Republican candidates have X number of dollars 
to spend and cannot take all this other special interest money.
  But the question I was going to ask my colleague from Minnesota is, 
the New York Times poll says 79 percent of the American public believe 
universal coverage is very important, 17 percent say it is somewhat 
important, for a total of 96 percent; 96 percent saying health care 
coverage for everyone is important. And yet, we cannot get the votes 
here, maybe, to pass that. Does that have anything to do with how we 
finance campaigns?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would say to my colleague--and, by the way, let me 
just give you another figure, as long as you raise this question, 
because you are quite right. This is not an analysis I am making solely 
about PAC money. Other forms of large political contributions have at 
least as great an effect on the process.
  A recent Citizen Action study pointed out--again, we are looking at 
January 1993 to May of this year--that large donor contributions, that 
is from wealthy individuals, increased by a remarkable 72 percent in 
the first 17 months of this Congress, vastly outstripping giving in any 
other area.
  So it is not just the PAC money. Huge amounts of money are pouring in 
from all kinds of sources. And I say this with a profound sense of 
sadness. There is an unbelievably large disconnect between the 
viewpoint in the country that universal coverage--employers paying a 
fair share, making sure that each and every citizen does not go without 
decent health care for himself, herself, and their loved ones--between 
the figures you just gave and what is happening right now in the U.S. 
Congress, especially the U.S. Senate, where there is an all-out effort 
to hijack this reform effort.
  And I would, in analyzing the reasons for this disconnect, say to 
you, with a profound sense of sadness, it is because representative 
democracy is not operative with health care. And it is not just health 
care, the whole political system is on trial.
  Do we have democracy for the many, when the wishes of the vast 
majority of people get reflected in our policy, or do we have democracy 
for the few? Is it truly an issue where all of this giving of money--
and remember the over $100 million that the health insurance industry 
and all sorts of other people have recently poured into political 
advertising, as well--have we now reached the point where those who 
have the financial wherewithal can pour it into political advertising 
on television, pour it into huge contributions, in PAC's or individual 
contributions, to Senators and Representatives and because of that 
money, they are able--this is tough to say, but it is true--to have 
access to decisionmaking and have clout to the point where you do not 
really have representative democracy operating? That is to say, the 
central principle that each person counts as one, and no more than one, 
has been undermined with such a process.
  I think this is a huge problem. And I think our failure to have a 
system of public financing, our failure to get the big money out of 
politics, is one of the major reasons right now that we find ourselves 
struggling to even pass a decent reform bill.
  People within these huge institutionalized frameworks of self-
interest and power march on Washington every day, and they have 
disproportionate influence and disproportionate power, and the vast 
majority of Americans, I think, are cut out of the loop.
  Mr. SIMON. I just want to make one more comment and ask one more 
question. This system we have affects all of us, no matter how 
conscientious we are.
  I have never promised anyone a thing for a campaign contribution. But 
I know it is true for me, and my guess it is true for the Senator from 
Minnesota and the Senator from Iowa, that if there is someone who has 
raised $5,000 for your campaign and they want to come in and have an 
appointment----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 15 minutes of the Senator Minnesota has 
expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to continue for 
another 10 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SIMON. The reality is that person is going to get an appointment. 
That money buys access in this process.
  Finally, this morning the Senator from Iowa and I were talking about 
a woman who testified about 2 weeks ago--I think Senator Wellstone was 
there--who worked for Kentucky Fried Chicken 30 hours a week and could 
not afford $120 a month for her heart medicine; she had to choose 
between the heart medicine and food.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. SIMON. Does my colleague think she is making a big contribution 
to anybody in the U.S. Senate? Does he think her voice is being heard 
the way it should be?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I would say to my colleague from 
Illinois I remember that testimony because she lived in Whitesburg, KY. 
I remember her speaking. That is precisely my point.
  I believe that what we are about to do in health care over the next 3 
or 4 weeks is not just about health care, it is about the political 
system in this country. It is about whether or not representative 
democracy is operative here. It is about whether or not people like 
that woman from Whitesburg, KY, who worked at Kentucky Fried Chicken, 
who did not have a lot of money that she could contribute, whether her 
voice is going to be heard. It is about whether or not she counts the 
same as those who have the financial wherewithal to make large 
contributions.
  I say to my colleague, I think in part that is what this debate is 
all about. One more time: Even putting aside your advocacy or my 
advocacy or that of the Senator from Iowa of any particular health 
initiative, I will go back to what my good friend Phil Stern said. If 
you had a soccer game going on or football game, and those referees and 
those umpires were receiving money from the two teams before the game 
started, people would not believe that they could render an objective 
decision, that it would be fair. People would question the whole 
process, and they would certainly question the final outcome.
  I think it looks terrible. Part of it is not the fault of any 
particular Senator or Representative. It is this awful system that we 
are trapped in. I call on media and citizens to examine the amount of 
money that is pouring into Members of Congress right now, just from the 
health care industry, be it PAC or individual contributions. If there 
ever was an issue so central to people's lives that should sharpen our 
focus on the need for campaign finance reform, it is this issue.
  We have a conference committee that is supposed to be meeting soon to 
put together a final campaign reform bill. But we are running out of 
time. I urge those conferees, even though that bill we passed was not 
all that I hoped for, to think about some agreed-upon spending limits 
and to think about some control over this huge amount of money that is 
pouring in with vouchers and various kinds of incentives. Even if it 
does not go as far as you or I or the Senator from Iowa would want us 
to go, it is an absolute must to do this year. Because if we do not do 
it, I think we are going to continue to see people lose faith in this 
process. And I hope that the media especially, as they examine what is 
going on here with this health care debate and what we do, will not 
just look at some of the conventional wisdom--you know: lawyers are 
wrong, insurance companies are wrong, doctors are wrong, consumers are 
wrong--but they ought to really closely examine what is going on.
  Mr SIMON. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. HARKIN. If the Senator will yield for a second?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to yield.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota and compliment him for 
bringing this to the attention of the Senate, the influx of the amounts 
of money from different aspects of the health care industry in this 
country into campaigns, both for the Senate and House. I hope the 
Senator from Minnesota will periodically, as this debate unfolds on 
health care, raise this issue up. Because I think as we get into the 
debate on health care and the different aspects of health care, I think 
it is going to be important for the American people to hear it repeated 
and brought home again and again about the enormous amount of money 
that is coming into this system by special interests who do not want 
the system to change, or who want to skew the system so more of the 
health care dollar goes to their end of the spectrum.
  In the midst of all this, as the Senator from Minnesota has so 
eloquently pointed out, in the middle of this lies the American people 
who understand what universal coverage is about, who understand the 
present system of sick care in this country has to be changed to truly 
a health care system; who understand we have to build upon the shared 
responsibility that we have right now between employers and employees 
to cover everyone.
  There are going to be a lot of issues in the health care debate that 
is coming up that are going to affect the lives of every American 
citizen. I hope and trust the Senator from Minnesota will periodically 
remind us, remind the Senate of what he has just said here today.
  The Senator from Illinois, again, is right on the mark. We can do 
away with PAC's but what are you going to do about the people who are 
spending millions of dollars of their own money? We have a Senate race 
in California right now in which one individual has spent over $15 
million of his own money to get elected to this Senate.
  This son of a coal miner and an immigrant mother--I cannot play in 
that kind of field. I know the Senator from Illinois has a similar 
background and so does the Senator from Minnesota. Pretty soon, those 
of us who worked hard and came up the hard way, that is it--we are out. 
If you have millions of dollars of your own money, even if you do away 
with PAC's, that is how you are going to get into the U.S. Senate.
  I do not think the Senate ought to just be representative of people 
with a lot of money in this country. I think we ought to represent 
working people in this country, too.
  That is not to say people with money do not have a conscience, are 
not good legislators. I know of people here in the Senate who are very 
wealthy who are conscionable, good, hard-working Senators--on both 
sides of the aisle--who have the interests of common working people at 
heart. But I think if this Senate moves in that direction, of just 
fewer and fewer people from the kind of ranks that we come from, I 
think we are going to lose something in this country. So I think the 
Senator from Illinois has an excellent point.
  Again, I thank the Senator from Minnesota for his contribution. I 
just hope he keeps bringing it up as we debate this issue.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will respond just briefly to the 
Senator from Iowa for just a moment and I will be done.
  Mr. HARKIN. Can I just make a unanimous-consent request?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Surely.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota still has the 
floor.
  Mr. HARKIN. I yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank both my colleagues and I will 
finish up.
  I first of all assure my colleague from Iowa that from the opening 
statements throughout the whole debate, I will continue to raise this 
whole issue of the mix of money and politics as it applies to health 
care, because I think it is really important that this be a part of the 
debate. I think people need to be acutely aware of this because I think 
we have to have a campaign finance reform bill passed this session. 
That is my first point.
  My second point, one more time, I just find this Common Cause report 
very interesting. They found that business PAC's, over the last 6 
years, gave $72 million to Members of Congress; labor PAC's gave $16 
million. And we wonder why we are having trouble having a reform 
initiative that calls upon employers to pay their fair share. I think 
this report is very important, because it highlights the disparities.
  Mr. President, something is very wrong with our current system.
  I am talking about something that is systemic, and I am simply saying 
it is very difficult for people to have confidence and faith in this 
process when they see this interaction of money with an issue that is 
so important to their lives.
  I will be raising these questions, but I also hope the conference 
committee is able to move forward with a campaign finance reform bill 
that we really need--not for ourselves, but that people in this country 
need--to make sure that we restore some kind of truly representative 
democracy here in Washington.

                          ____________________