[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 133 (Wednesday, September 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 21, 1994]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I rise to speak on a subject that will 
actually be before us for a vote tomorrow, and that is a vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the motion to disagree with the House on 
amendments to the campaign finance reform bill.
  Madam President, in just a few weeks, I will complete my service here 
in the Senate after almost 16 years. I find myself, as I come to the 
floor in recent days and as I walk up the front steps of the Capitol on 
the Senate side to come into this Chamber, often pausing to reflect 
upon the last 16 years here and the hopes and dreams that I had when I 
first came here with strong desire to render public service.
  I think about the importance of this institution, the Congress of the 
United States, the Senate of the United States in particular, in the 
life of our country. I think about the role it performs in giving the 
people of this country a voice in the important policy decisions which 
are made which affect the lives of each and every one of them, their 
children, and the future for the next generation.
  I have often said that I hope during the time that I served in the 
U.S. Senate I would never lose my sense of awe as I entered this 
building and my sense of feeling privileged to be a part of an 
institution so much associated with the history of this country. When I 
sit at my desk, I sometimes open the drawer of my desk and look in it 
at the names that are carved there, because we have a tradition that 
Members who sit at these desks carve their names inside the drawers. I 
have been privileged to sit at the desk once occupied by Senator Harry 
Truman of Missouri, then President of the United States. You can open 
these drawers and read the great names of those statesmen and 
stateswomen who have made an enormous contribution to our country.
  We owe them such a debt of gratitude. We owe them more than just our 
thanks. We owe them our faithfulness in keeping this institution 
strong. And we owe it to the American people to make sure that this 
institution remains an effective part of the democratic process truly 
giving them a voice in decisionmaking.
  We recognize also that we play a critical role in terms of 
maintaining the trust of the American people in the democratic process 
itself. We are a great country because we have had and we have a sense 
of community. We have been Americans together. Together we have 
collectively made the decisions to guide our country into the future. 
Collectively, we have worked hard to make this country all that it 
could be. And trust--trust between the people and those of us who 
temporarily occupy public offices, trust between the people and their 
confidence in those institutions which are here to represent them--is 
absolutely fundamental if we are to remain a great nation.
  Madam President, I have to say, sadly, that I do not believe I am 
leaving this institution stronger than it was when I came here. I say 
that with a lot of sadness because I know that many have labored here 
with great sincerity and dedication to make the Senate an even greater 
institution to make sound decisions for the public.
  My view that we have declined, in terms of our ability to deal with 
the great public issues of the day, is shared, obviously, by a vast 
majority of the American people.
  A few weeks ago, when I was home in Oklahoma during the recent recess 
in August, a poll was published that said that only 14 percent of the 
American people approve of the way the Congress was conducting its 
work--14 percent; the lowest in history.
  And when asked, ``Are most Members of Congress more interested in 
serving the people they represent or more interested in serving special 
interest groups?'', 79 percent said that Members of Congress were more 
interested in serving special interest groups than in serving the 
interests of the people that elected them and sent them here.
  These statistics should focus the attention of every single Member of 
this institution in both parties on the need, the urgent need, to 
reform our political process and to strengthen this institution.
  Trust once lost is hard to regain. Democracies are fragile.
  I once read a comment by, I think, a very astute observer who said, 
when listing the great wonders of the world made by men and women--the 
Seven Wonders of the World--we should not limit ourselves simply to 
something like the pyramids, as great as they are in terms of an 
architectural and construction feat. We should also think of other 
human institutions, for example our democracy in this country, which 
has lasted for over 200 years. And, he said, the fact it has lasted for 
more than 200 years is even more remarkable than the fact that the 
pyramids have stood for thousands of years.
  Why? Because to last, a democracy must be constantly tended. It is 
like a friendship. It is like a marriage. It is like a family 
relationship. Each succeeding generation must care for it, each 
succeeding generation must love the constitutional framework that we 
have inherited, each succeeding generation of men and women who serve 
in this institution must care for it. We are the trustees of this 
institution. If we do not care for it there is no one else who can tend 
to it. There is no one else who can nurture it.
  Madam President, this institution, obviously, when only 14 percent of 
the American people believe in it, is at risk. And if this institution 
is at risk, the fundamental basis of trust and the sense that the 
Congress of the United States represents the people is also at risk.
  Why is it? Why is it that 79 percent of the people think we are more 
interested in representing the special interests instead of 
representing the public interest? Why is it that only 14 percent of the 
public approves of the way that Congress is conducting its business, 20 
to 30 percent below prevailing poll figures, even in times of 
disillusionment in the past; a figure that by its magnitude is so 
different than the normal criticism of our politics going back over our 
200-year history that it ought to alarm each and every one of us.
  Part of it, is the way--we all know this--that we conduct campaigns. 
When it takes $4 million on the average to be elected to the U.S. 
Senate, to run a successful Senate race, $4 million, no wonder the 
people look at that and say, ``Do they come here to represent the 
people like us or do the people who give them all that money to get 
them elected really have their attention and the use of their time?'' 
When they look at the fact that in the 1992 congressional elections, 
spending jumped 52 percent more, that the problem is getting worse, to 
$678 million, they have a right to ask us, ``How long are our trustees 
who are in a place to vote for laws to change it going to wait before 
they reform this process?''
  When they look at the fact that over half the Members of Congress 
received over half of their campaign contributions not from the people 
back home but from special interest groups, political action 
committees, lobbyists located principally here in Washington with 
virtually no connection to their home States, they come to the 
conclusion that those people who are there in office could not really 
care as much about us or represent us as well as they do the special 
interests.
  When they understand how much of our time is taken to raise that 
money--$13,000 a week it comes out on the average, every week for 6 
years, to raise the $3.8 million needed to win--they say, ``Do the 
Senators really have time for people like us? Do they have time to 
worry about our problems? Do they have time to take care of the 
Nation's business?'' They come to the conclusion that we do not.
  Just since June 17 of last year when we passed this bill on a vote of 
62 to 37, the average Member had to raise $572,000 more. And where does 
the money come from? More and more it is coming from the special 
interest groups, as I mentioned--over half the Members receiving more 
than half their contributions. And to whom do the special interests 
give their money? To whom do the political action committees, PAC's, 
give their money? Do they give it overwhelmingly to the Republicans? 
No. Do they give it to people because they are Democrats? No. Because 
they are liberals? No. Because they are conservatives? No.
  They give it to incumbents, because incumbents are here and they 
already have the vote on those economic interests that affect the 
pocketbook of the narrow interest group that is involved.
  In the 1992 elections on the Senate side, political action committees 
gave $6 to incumbents for every $1 they gave to challengers. In the 
House in 1992 they gave $10 to incumbents for every $1 they gave to 
challengers. And we all know that the statistics show that in the vast 
majority of cases, the candidate who raises the most money wins the 
election.
  Something must be done. I have worked as hard as I could during my 
service here, and now we are down to the last remaining weeks. I will 
work to the last day I am here to try to get campaign finance reform 
passed, and other reforms vital to this institution, so at the very 
least I can leave here knowing that I have tried to do everything I 
could while I was here to revitalize this institution, to keep it 
strong for the next generation, to allow people of talent and 
integrity, who want to render public service but who cannot, perhaps, 
figure out how to raise $4 million from special interest groups--to 
allow them to have a chance to run for office and serve in the U.S. 
Senate; to let our pages who are here on the floor seeing democracy at 
work, as they dream about their futures, have them spend their time 
thinking about what they would like to contribute to this country, the 
ideas they would like to bring forward, and not have them spend their 
time thinking about how in the world would I raise all that money if I 
ever wanted to run for office?
  Something has to be done, Madam President. As I mentioned, on June 
17, 1993, we passed this bill. We invoked cloture by a vote of 62 to 
37; we voted final passage on this bill by a vote of 60 to 38. We had a 
significant number of highly regarded Members on the other side of the 
aisle vote for cloture and vote for final passage.
  This is not a Republican issue. This is not a Democratic issue. I do 
not seek a Democratic bill. I am not trying to pass a bill--and I think 
my record here demonstrates that--that would favor one party over the 
other. I was one of those on this side of the aisle who, in conscience, 
could not support the President's budget. I have said I would not vote 
for a party-line health care bill. I will not bring back to this body a 
campaign reform bill that seeks advantage for my party. I am trying to 
seek what is in the national interest.
  Madam President, we have had informal discussions with some of those 
on the House side and we have held fast to those provisions that were--
particularly those provisions--that were recommended by Members from 
the other side of the aisle.
  I see the distinguished Senator from Arizona has come on the floor. 
He made some very significant and important changes in the campaign 
finance reform legislation when it was on the floor. A position I have 
taken in informal discussions on the House side so far has been to say 
the amendment offered on the floor by the Senator from Arizona must 
stay in the final bill when it comes back, or this Senator will not 
bring it back. I have taken that same position on important changes to 
reduce the influence of political action committees, PAC's. They were 
made by both sides of the aisle, but especially including those made by 
Senators on the other side of the aisle who said we do not want a bill 
that has one set of rules regarding PAC contributions for Senators and 
one set of rules for House Members.
  We have kept faith in our discussions with every single one of the 
points that have been brought to us by those on the other side of the 
aisle who have supported this legislation. And here we are. We are 
going to vote tomorrow, not on campaign finance reform, not vote to do 
something about the problem. Do you know what we are going to vote on? 
We are going to vote on whether or not we approve a motion to disagree 
with the House on the House amendments--which I think virtually every 
Senator here would disagree with the amendments that the House made and 
would want us to stay as close as we can to the Senate bill.
  Madam President, before we can finally pass campaign finance reform, 
before the end of the session, several things have to happen. This 
Senate and the House have to have a conference to work out our 
differences in this bill. And then we have to bring that conference 
report back here to be voted upon.
  Madam President, I ask 2 additional minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. May I just inquire--just reserving the right to object--how 
much time remains on both sides of this debate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut controls 25 
minutes and 52 seconds. The Senator from Arizona controls 5 minutes.
  Mr. DODD. We are going to treat that as 30 minutes to be shared by 
everybody here, so my colleague from Arizona is not restrained in any 
way, nor are Members on the other side, from being heard on this.
  Just 2 additional minutes. I would appreciate it, so we could cover 
as many people as possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut. I 
was just pointing out in order for us to begin to have an official 
conference with the House of Representatives, we have to do three 
things: We have to adopt a motion to disagree to the House amendments, 
and I think clearly we do disagree; we have to adopt a motion to 
request a conference with the House; and we have to adopt a motion to 
authorize the Presiding Officer to appoint conferees.
  That is usually automatic. I think I can count on one hand the number 
of times--and I am not sure I have ever seen it happen before, but 
certainly not over two or three times in 16 years--we have ever had to 
vote on these motions. It has been automatic. Of course, if you have a 
difference of opinion, you have a conference, you try to work it out, 
you see what the product is, and then you come back and vote on it.
  Now we are threatened--and we had to file cloture motions--with the 
possibility of a filibuster on the motion to disagree with the House 
amendments, and another filibuster on a motion to request a conference, 
and another filibuster on a motion to authorize the appointment of 
conferees so we can even talk to the House of Representatives on a 
matter of this importance to the future and life of this institution 
and its role in our society.
  It is unthinkable, Madam President, that after passing a bill by a 
vote of 60 to 38 and invoking cloture on it previously by a vote of 62 
to 37 that parliamentary tactics would be utilized to prevent us from 
even sitting down with the Members of the House to have a conference to 
bring it back.
  Madam President, when you see how the rules of the Senate can be 
abused on a matter of this importance, it is amazing to me that we 
still have a 14-percent approval rating. It is a bit too high, in my 
estimation, if we are going to proceed in this kind of manner on a 
matter of this importance on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

                          ____________________