[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]



    MOTION TO INVOKE CLOTURE ON THE MOTION TO DISAGREE TO THE HOUSE 
                           AMENDMENTS TO S. 3

  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I want to take a different tack, since we 
have another cloture petition before the Senate.
  One year ago, in June 1993, the Senate took a step toward reforming 
our political process when we passed S. 3, the campaign finance reform 
bill. In November 1993, the House followed by passing its version of 
campaign finance reform.
  Today, we are attempting to take the first procedural step toward a 
conference with the House so that we can resolve the differences 
between the House and the Senate bills. In order to do that, we need to 
disagree to the House amendments to S. 3. Normally, this is a rather 
routine procedure to follow. But it only takes one Member to object, 
and that is what we face today.
  This should come as no surprise. We attempted to move to a conference 
just prior to the August recess, but that request was objected to by 
one of our colleagues. Under the rules of the Senate, the motion to 
disagree with the amendments of the House to a Senate bill, as well as 
a request for a conference and the appointment of conferees, are 
debatable motions. We have been unable to obtain unanimous consent on 
this issue, and that is why we are in the process of debating the 
motion to disagree with the House amendment.
  The aggregate costs of House and Senate campaigns have risen nearly 
six times since 1976, from a staggering $111 to $678 million in 1992.
  In the 1992 elections, winning Senate candidates spent a total of 
$124.3 million, a $9 million increase over 1990. Winning Senate 
candidates spent, on average, $3.8 million, an increase from the $3.3 
million in 1990. The average spent by a winning incumbent Senator was 
over $4 million. Recent Federal Election Commission reports continue to 
show that candidate spending in the 1994 elections is even higher than 
those.
  Mr. President, the record shows that year after year, candidates for 
Congress are spending substantial sums of money. As a result, 
candidates have increasingly relied on contributions from PAC's to 
provide the resources necessary to wage a successful run for the 
Senate. These statistics point to one conclusion: The money chase 
continues.
  Mr. President, there are differences between the Senate bill and the 
House bill. The House bill does create a different system of spending 
limits and benefits for House candidates. That is to be expected 
because the House and Senate election cycles are completely different. 
But on issues like soft money and curbing the influence of special 
interests, there is much common ground.
  Mr. President, given the work of both the House and the Senate, I am 
confident that the conference report will be the most far-reaching and 
comprehensive campaign finance proposal to be considered by the 
Congress. And that is the fundamental question. Will the Congress pass 
comprehensive campaign finance reform?
  Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that there are differences of 
opinion on the merits of this legislation. That is understandable, and 
it is defensible. But to oppose this motion to disagree with the House 
amendments and to require that we file a cloture motion is purely and 
simply obstructionism at its worst. This type of action is why the 
public has grown increasingly cynical about this body. They are tired 
of gridlock and expect the legislative process to permit consideration 
and action on issues before the Senate.

  This body must depend heavily on comity for the process to function 
efficiently. Any Member can use the rules of the Senate to delay and 
often to defeat legislation. That is a prerogative of each Member. But 
such action is obstructionist and reflects a growing tendency for a 
small minority of Members to stop the process and thwart the will of 
the majority. And this inevitably leads to stalemate.
  The American people do not understand this process. Even more 
importantly, they have grown tired of it.
  I am afraid that this is only the beginning of a long and difficult 
road for the conference. I am almost certain that the opponents to this 
legislation and the conference report itself are now guiding and 
developing the gridlock but not one for the process that could make 
this Senate and this body efficient. They become the guardians of the 
status quo.
  Why not? The system that they seek to protect is the system that got 
them here and keeps them here.
  Mr. President, despite the partisan nature of this strategy we passed 
campaign finance reform with bipartisan support. The distinguished 
Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Boren] worked tirelessly with some of our 
Republican colleagues to gain their support for this legislation. So we 
know that there is some support for this bill on the other side of the 
aisle.
  The citizens of this country are tired of these obstructionist 
tactics. The American people deserve a better political system. We 
should at least have that opportunity to create a system of campaign 
finance that ends the money chase and that affords all candidates an 
opportunity to engage in meaningful debate on the issues.
  Mr. President, true and meaningful campaign finance reform must not 
only curb the excessive influence of special interests and control the 
money chase. It must also create a system that is fair to all, 
incumbents and challengers, Democrats and Republicans. I believe that 
the conference committee will produce a bill that will do just that. 
And hopefully, it will restore the confidence of the American people in 
this institution.

  We can begin to restore that confidence by supporting this motion to 
invoke cloture. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

                          ____________________