[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 134 (Thursday, September 22, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                       A TRIBUTE TO JERRY TINKER

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, it was a great honor for me, and I think 
also for Senator Kennedy, to give the eulogy at the services of Jerry 
Tinker. He was a splendid man. He had a love of politics and 
Government. He was fair. He was not partisan.
  I cherish the years I have been the beneficiary of his counsel, 
direction, and good fellowship. My staff counsel, Dick Day, a wonderful 
friend, a dear friend, and Jerry Tinker, worked together unceasingly 
doing the work Senator Kennedy and I would send them to do. Whether 
they went to the rain forests of Central America or to the refugee 
camps of Thailand, Ethiopia, and Bangladesh, they would come back and 
prepare a report that was lucid, intelligent, and readable. I will 
greatly miss Jerry.
  When people say, ``The system does not work,'' let me tell you it 
works in every way when the Senator from Massachusetts and the Senator 
from Wyoming can have staff support like Jerry Tinker and Dick Day. 
They were inseparable and a marvelously effective combination. I 
learned to completely trust Jerry Tinker. The Senate does work. Jerry 
is gone from us, but we thank God for having known him.
  I ask unanimous consent that a eulogy I delivered for Jerry Tinker be 
included at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the eulogy was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

       It is my great personal honor and privilege to be present 
     here this day honoring the life of this very special man. We 
     gathered here all know of his successes, his trials, his 
     honors, his accolades, his struggle--his fine reputation so 
     well earned and honors received in a lifetime of service to 
     others. The chronicles will properly reflect the 
     extraordinary record of achievement of this man--that might 
     be somewhat repetitive for those of us who are gathered here 
     to honor him today. What the chronicles may not always 
     reflect are some warm and intimate memories that I have of 
     this departed friend.
       In the Christian experience, this is the day when we gather 
     to celebrate the life of Jerry Tinker. We really must not 
     mourn this unselfish life lived but that is very hard not to 
     do so. Christianity teaches us to celebrate his life--his 
     marvelous wit, his friendliness, his love of fellow man and 
     woman, his love of politics and government, his intellect, 
     his stout heart and his great courage. These attributes were 
     part of the essence of his stewardship in his life here on 
     Earth. I cherish the years I have been a beneficiary of that 
     man's wise counsel and direction and good fellowship.
       I first met Jerry Tinker when I came to the United States 
     Senate in 1979. I had no interest in immigration or refugee 
     matters and yet was appointed to the Select Commission on 
     Immigration and Refugee Policy, along with my senior 
     contemporary, Senator Ted Kennedy. Then, in the election 
     of 1980, Republicans controlled the Senate--a shocking 
     upheaval indeed! Suddenly, I was the chairman of the 
     Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy. Ted and 
     Jerry Tinker had been involved in those burning issues for 
     over 17 years.
       I was assigned this task--dealing with these issues that 
     generate awesome amounts of emotion, fear, guilt and racism. 
     I then drew upon friendship--friendship of a man I had known 
     and admired for many years and urged him to come to 
     Washington, DC, to help me in my duties. That man was Dick 
     Day. And that man and Jerry Tinker were an inseparable and 
     marvelously effective combination. He--and I--learned to 
     completely trust Jerry Tinker. I have probably worked more 
     closely with Jerry than with any other staff person outside 
     of my own fine staff. The Senate does work. Government does 
     work. And it works because persons as divergent and 
     philosophically different as Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and 
     Al Simpson of Wyoming have selected people to work on our 
     behalf--people of good faith, steady intellect, unselfish 
     nature, compassion and a striving to ``make a difference.''
       Due in huge part to Jerry Tinker, the majority and minority 
     staffs of the Immigration and Refugee Subcommittee worked 
     together over the years--more closely and on a non-partisan 
     basis--than perhaps any other staff in the United States 
     Senate.
       As others have said-- Jerry was the ``conscience'' of the 
     subcommittee and he always had his own personal priorities 
     and first among them was providing humanitarian assistance 
     to refugee and displaced persons around this globe. At the 
     same time, he had a very sensible and balanced view of 
     immigration and refugee policy--he supported control as 
     well as generosity in our Nation's policies and best 
     interests.
       His historical grasp and knowledge of immigration and 
     refugee policy and politics will be deeply missed by the 
     United States Senate, by his mentor, Sentor Kennedy, by me 
     and by this country.
       On many occasions in the course of our Senate life, I would 
     visit with Jerry and say, ``What's up? how are things going--
     how are you and Dick getting along in working with this or 
     that intractable issue?'' And there were always many. He was 
     always very open and direct with me and with Dick. No tricks. 
     Nothing up the sleeve. Lay the cards on the table.
       There were many occasions when Ted and I would authorize 
     our two fine troubleshooters, Jerry Tinker and Dick Day to go 
     off to some far flung part of the planet and come back and 
     give us a report. They were professionals. Their reports were 
     concise, factual, clear, unambiguous and because of our 
     relationship with these two fine men--Ted and I--probably 
     even allowed them to sign our name a time or two. Yes 
     shocking, I know! They eased our burden, smoothed our work.
       This man was the ``ultimate staffer.'' When Jerry went into 
     the rain forests of Central America or the refugee camps of 
     Thailand traveled to the deserts of Ethiopia or hiked upon 
     the mountains of Pakistan, he was never on the junket--he was 
     working. Proudly working. Always working. Sometimes, 
     obviously in a manner detrimental to his own personal life 
     and family. He was the ``eyes and ears'' of the United States 
     Senate in the midst of the misery and heartbreak and 
     suffering known so well to those of you in the voluntary 
     agency community--those who toil daily in those fields of 
     human endeavor. The people he cared so much about--the 
     displaced and the dispossessed and those in need of kindly 
     help and refuge--those in the world will miss him greatly 
     too. It is not trite to say that he gave his life for his 
     country.
       None of us were ready for this. We mourn his loss in our 
     own lives--what he was to each of us. So personal, so 
     special. It would have been much easier to celebrate his life 
     with him here! But he is gone--irrevocably gone.
       Jerry's dear family can be very proud of their father, son 
     and brother. We, in the Senate most assuredly are.
       We have all loosed our grip upon him, but will retain his 
     memory always in our hearts. God has come now to take him 
     back. We all knew one unknown day he would return to his God. 
     Now, we give him up. We commend him to Your loving hands. 
     Thank You for him. God rest his soul.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I see that the distinguished Senator 
from Iowa is here to begin his hour. Therefore, I yield the floor.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, before I begin my primary discussion of 
this campaign finance bill, I want to first discuss an important 
related matter.
  And this is a matter that I would ask my colleagues on the Senate 
Commerce Committee and Senate Finance Committee--particularly my 
Republican colleagues--to pay close attention.
  By now it is well known that the heart of this campaign reform bill 
is aimed at funneling the hard-earned taxpayers money into the 
reelection campaigns of politicians.
  We have seen polling that clearly underscores American taxpayers 
adamantly oppose being forced to bankroll political campaigns.
  Polling which reveals 70 percent of Americans are ready to vote 
against any politicians that supports taxpayer funding of campaigns.
  Regrettably, there are those in Congress who could care less what 
taxpayers want.
  But there is already another travesty in the law that is allowing 
millions of dollars of taxpayers dollars to be funneled--or should I 
say laundered--into congressional campaigns right now without a new 
bill.
  So my question is this. What in this bill prohibits maritime subsides 
to U.S. seafarer union members and U.S.-flag companies from being 
recirculated into the campaign coffers of incumbent politicians?
  Mr. President, today, the Senate Commerce Committee is scheduled to 
mark up a bill, H.R. 4003, which will increase taxes on Americans by 
over $1 billion.
  This $1.3 billion tax increase will be used primarily to pay the 
high-priced salaries and benefits of U.S. seafaring union members.
  I warned my colleagues last year, that a final draft report from the 
Maritime Administration and MIT on maritime manning exposes that some 
seafarer captains are costing $44,000 per month in salary, benefits, 
and overtime.
  Even a ship's cook was costing about $8,500 per month.
  American taxpayers pay for about 80 percent of these seafarer billet 
costs.
  And it is because of these incredibly large tax subsidies that 
seafarers are able to spend to much money on political action committee 
contributions. Seafarer PAC's have spent millions upon millions of 
dollars on political campaigns.
  So, the Senate Commerce Committee, at the request and urging of 
President Clinton, is about to approve an additional $1.3 billion in 
tax increases--not only to maintain these lucrative salary and benefits 
for seafarers--but also to keep the taxpayer pipeline to campaigns 
alive and well.
  Mr. President, do I have to remind my colleagues that President 
Clinton campaigned against special interests--and promised special 
interests would have no sway in his policies.
  And remember Vice President Gore's National Performance Review? The 
transportation task force recommended eliminating all maritime 
subsidies.
  The National Taxpayers Union, wrote the taxpayers friends, to the 
Vice President urging that these maritime subsidies be eliminated. 
Instead, the maritime special interests were able to kill these 
proposals. If President Clinton is against special interest, then why 
has he sent to Congress a bill to perpetuate lucrative subsidies for 
one of the most notorious special interests--the U.S.-flag companies 
and seafarers?
  President Clinton campaigned on a promise of tax cuts. Yet, with the 
help of a Democrat controlled Congress, he pushed through the largest 
tax increase in history.
  And today, he is expecting his Democrat colleagues in the Senate to 
push through another $1 billion tax increase to pay for special 
interests and to keep the seafarer campaign contribution pipeline 
going.
  Taxpayers beware. It has become abundantly clear that when President 
Clinton and his Democrat controlled Congress promise tax cuts--what 
they are really talking about are the kind of tax cuts that bleed the 
taxpayer dry.
  I urge my Republican colleagues not to let themselves fall into this 
trap by supporting this so called maritime reform bill.
  It is nothing more than a huge tax increase for special interests and 
their lucrative campaign war machine.
  Has it ever occurred to anyone that no department or agency wants to 
pay for these subsidies?
  U.S.-flag companies and seafarers like to call themselves the Fourth 
Arm of National Defense, yet the Defense Department doesn't want to pay 
for these subsidies, and in fact, have even gone on record 2 years ago 
stating that the question of Sealand and APL reflagging was not a 
defense problem.
  If my colleagues really want maritime reform, they would be demanding 
that the Clinton administration publicly release this manning study 
which has been kept under wraps for over a year by the Maritime 
Administration.
  This report shows that subsidies could be cut in half. It exposes 
incredibly lucrative salary and benefits thanks to the American 
taxpayer. It exposes featherbedding on U.S.-flag vessels. And it 
exposes the fact that seafarers, after working only a few months and 
collect more money and benefits than most Americans ever dream of--
these seafarers even come home from the sea and collect unemployment 
benefits.
  So, Mr. President, if our colleagues are against special interests, 
tax increases, and taxpayer funding of campaigns, they should join me 
in doing everything possible to stop H.R. 4003, this so-called maritime 
reform bill.
  Now more pointedly to the bill before us, Mr. President, once again 
we are confronting the issue of so-called campaign finance reform. In a 
time when the American people are calling for reform in many areas, 
this is one area that needs dramatic change.
  Unfortunately, the bill that passed the Senate last year is not the 
change we need. I continue to oppose its passage and believe it is the 
wrong medicine for the disease we need to treat. There is an unusual 
mix of people who agree with my appraisal. I have heard that politics 
makes for strange bedfellows; well, as much as ever before I realize 
the truth of that statement.


                           constitutionality

  During consideration of this bill last year, I noted with interest 
the testimony before the Senate Rules Committee given by Robert Peck, 
legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union. Though I 
often do not agree with the ACLU, this time I believe they are right on 
target.
  I quote from Mr. Peck's testimony:

       The ACLU opposes the President's campaign finance proposal 
     because we conclude that it violates the first amendment's 
     guarantee of freedom of speech in numerous ways.

  He goes on to say:

  This proposal goes far beyond the provision of public financing and 
imposes a variety of constitutionally unjustifiable burdens on the free 
speech rights of candidates and noncandidates alike. It is for those 
reasons we oppose the proposal.


                           limiting spending

  While the proponents of this bill argue that the spending limits are 
strictly voluntary, there is nothing voluntary about them. When a 
candidate can be punished for not limiting his speech, this is an 
unacceptable first amendment violation of the worst kind.
  Campaign speech is the essence of the speech for protection under the 
first amendment. It is political speech of the highest order. It 
should, therefore, receive the highest protection.
  Some wonder how limiting spending is a form of limiting speech. In 
the 1976 decision, Buckley versus Valeo, the Supreme Court recognized 
that spending limits violate the first amendment by reducing the 
quantity of expression, including the number of issues, the depth of 
discussion, and the size of the audience that might be reached.
  Expenditure limitations, the Court said, amount to ``substantial and 
direct restrictions on the ability of candidates, citizens and 
associations to engage in protected political expression, restrictions 
that the first amendment cannot tolerate.''
  According to Ralph Winter of the American Enterprise Institute, ``a 
limit on what a candidate may spend is a limit on his political speech 
as well as on the political speech of those who can no longer 
effectively contribute money to his campaign.''
  I am still quoting, Mr. President.

       In all of the debate surrounding the first amendment, one 
     point is agreed upon by everyone: No matter what else the 
     rights of free speech and association do, they protect 
     explicit political activity. But limitations on campaign 
     spending and contributing expressly set a maximum on the 
     political activity in which persons may engage.


              public finance: incentive to limit spending

  The Supreme Court further said in Buckley that the Government could 
offer candidates public money as an incentive to limit spending--
provided that the system was completely voluntary. The Government could 
not force compliance.
  It could not punish noncompliance, but it could reward voluntary 
compliance with a set campaign spending limit. That is the basis of the 
current Presidential system of spending limits and taxpayer financing.
  As an example of the Presidential system, Bill Clinton and George 
Bush each received $55 million from the Federal Government during their 
1992 campaigns.
  Had Bush declined the grant and chosen to spend over the limit, 
Clinton would not have received any additional funds or benefits from 
the Government, nor would Bush have been penalized.
  Unfortunately, the campaign finance bill before us which would 
control congressional races is not fashioned in the same manner as the 
Presidential system. While the measures in this bill are voluntary in 
form, they are mandatory and coercive in substance. Under the Senate 
bill, candidates who choose not to participate in the taxpayer 
financing scheme are harmed. It doesn't matter if their 
nonparticipation is on purely philosophical grounds, or because they 
prefer not to be bound by congressionally set spending limits.
  Not only would they be deprived of various benefits provided in the 
bill to compliant candidates, they also would be subjected to a series 
of punitive provisions. To be punished for exercising your right to 
free political expression is patently unconstitutional.
  Buckley made clear that Congress cannot cap spending directly; it 
must induce compliance through benefits. In the case of this bill, a 
compliant candidate is eligible for a number of financial benefits: 
reduced mailing rates, half-price broadcast advertising rates, 
independent expenditure and excess expenditure funds.
  The independent expenditures amounts are particularly disturbing to 
me in terms of free speech. If a noncompliant candidate has support 
from a private, independent citizen exercising her free speech rights, 
the candidate's opponent will receive additional Government funds to 
answer what the private citizen says. This is a violation of the free 
speech rights of that private individual.
  Why should the candidate who agrees to comply with spending limits 
get extra taxpayer funds just because his opponent has private support 
from a citizen? How is this consistent with the first amendment? How is 
this not simply a punishment for a noncompliant candidate? How can this 
be a voluntary system?


               effects: limited spending and challengers

  Buckley also recognized that limiting campaign expenditures could 
actually handicap a candidate who lacked substantial name recognition 
or exposure before the campaign. Limiting expenditures would only keep 
this lesser known candidate from competing with a better-known 
incumbent because of the expenses of running a modern campaign. 
Allowing this challenger to spend the same as her incumbent opponent is 
not providing a level playing field. It is the worst form of incumbency 
protection that could be guaranteed.
  According to prof. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia,

       The frequent calls for spending ceilings in congressional 
     races is a bad reform idea that sounds good. On the surface 
     it is undeniably an attractive proposal. If we are concerned 
     about the ``obscene'' levels of expenditure in House and 
     Senate races, say the reformers, then let us set a maximum 
     amount that can be spent to win each post.
       But who would determine the ceilings? The Congress would, 
     of course--a body composed of 535 incumbents who are 
     fervently convinced of the worthiness of their own 
     reelections. It is in their electoral interests to set the 
     ceilings as low as possible. After all, incumbents already 
     have high name recognition, purchased with lavish spending 
     during previous campaigns, and also achieved over the years 
     with hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money--
     via congressional staffs, mobile offices, constituency 
     services, et cetera. The average challenger, then begins his 
     or her campaign perhaps millions of dollars behind the 
     incumbent in overall real spending, and large challenger 
     expenditures are necessary to compensate and compete. The 
     fact is, therefore, expenditure ceilings, in most 
     circumstances, will favor incumbents and make it even more 
     difficult for challengers to defeat entrenched legislators.

  Prof. Michael Malbin of the University of Maryland agrees with 
Professor Sabato's analysis.
  He stated that:

       Equalizing campaign funds would do nothing to help the vast 
     majority of seriously underfunded challengers, but limits 
     would prevent the best challengers from making their case 
     against incumbents who start off with more than a $1 million 
     advantage in office account funds.

  Another scholar has addressed this issue, Mr. President. Ralph 
Winter, of the American Enterprise Institute, commented that:

       Since the other inequalities are most frequently the result 
     of incumbency, a limitation on spending will in the long run 
     work to the disadvantage of challengers and skew the 
     political process severely. A study in the field of 
     advertising supports this conclusion. It found that 
     advertising is most effective in introducing new brands and 
     new products. Heavy advertising is thus closely associated 
     with industries in which there is a high turnover of brands.
       This study has important implications for those 
     contemplating limitations on political spending in the media 
     and for those concerned with the problem of the electoral 
     advantage of incumbents.

  Winter goes on to state that--

       * * * Even if incumbents do not realize the potential 
     benefit to themselves and even if they are men of good will 
     seeking only to further the public interest, the fact is that 
     the first amendment forbids such regulation and for a good 
     reason. We cannot always count on having men of good will and 
     honest intent in office.
       Systematic regulation of political campaigns by Congress 
     must inevitably lead to those in power regulating in favor of 
     themselves. The reason the first amendment takes matters of 
     political speech and political activity out of the 
     legislative process is precisely because we cannot rely on 
     those in power to exercise that power on behalf of their 
     political opponents.

  I think the court in Buckley, Professors Sabato and Malbin, and Mr. 
Winter all hit the nail on the head, Mr. President. Congressional 
regulation of spending and speech inevitably will lead to greater 
incumbent protection. Based on their comments, it is easy to see the 
reason that our Democratic colleagues want this bill. They are 
currently in the majority in Congress and they want to do everything 
they can to keep it that way.
  Buckley allowed public financing of campaigns because it would 
facilitate free speech, not limit it. The court made clear that if you 
are going to limit spending, thus limiting speech, you had to provide 
public financing.


     new entitlement for politicians in time of fiscal constraints

  While I understand what the court said, in this time of fiscal 
constraints, I cannot justify a proposal to provide a new entitlement 
for politicians. With the overwhelming debt of $4 trillion that faces 
our Nation, I think candidates should have to pay their own freight.
  We are in Congress to be public servants. We should not be the 
recipient of a large, new entitlement benefit.
  While the Senate eliminated the original taxpayer funding in the 
Senate-passed version last year, we substituted the Exon-Durenberger 
amendment. With all due respect to my colleagues, each of whom I 
respect greatly and have worked with on various issues, I think this 
result is just as bad. Under the Exon-Durenberger amendment, if a 
candidate spends too much under the requirements set by the bill, he is 
punished by being taxed at the corporate level for any spending over 
and above his expenditure limit. Now if that is not punishing free 
speech and thus a constitutional violation, I do not know what is. 
Unfortunately, it was because of this so-called compromise funding 
proposal that the bill had the votes to pass the Senate.
  Any of these forms of financing are unacceptable. Our political 
lifeline should come from our constituents, who will volunteer to see 
that we are elected to represent their views. That is how 
representative government works best. Funding should not be forced from 
taxpayers, who are already overburdened with government demands.


                  costs of new campaign finance system

  One of the biggest problems with this bill is that no one really 
knows what it will cost.
  The Republican Policy Committee estimates the cost of this bill each 
2-year election cycle to be between $207 and $296 million, depending on 
the specific variables in the final bill. Costs would be significantly 
higher because nonparticipating candidates would trigger the excess 
expenditure amounts to their opponents. An additional $50 million is 
expected to be incurred by broadcasters due to the 50 percent broadcast 
discount.
  Democrats have estimated that it would cost $90 million every 
election cycle just to provide matching funds to House candidates. That 
doesn't count broadcast discount costs or independent expenditure 
expenses. Who knows how much that will add?
  The CBO estimates the cost to be $189 million in 1996 if both the 
House and Senate bills provide matching funds, increasing to $203 
million in 1998. CBO's estimates are conservative because they assume 
that 75 percent of Senate candidates and 60 percent of House candidates 
would participate. If they did not participate in these numbers, the 
punitive measures in the bills would kick in and raise costs in ways we 
cannot estimate.
  As should be obvious from these diverse numbers, we have no way of 
accurately estimating the cost of this new system of financing 
campaigns. There are so many factors to consider. How many incumbents 
will comply? How many challengers will enter the system? In 1992 alone, 
there were 1,200 more congressional candidates than in 1990. Who can 
estimate how many more challengers will enter with the lure of Federal 
financing for anyone who reaches a minimal fundraising threshold? What 
about independent or third parties candidates? There is simply no way 
to accurately estimate the true cost of this proposed system.
  Mr. President, as a Congress, we already cannot meet all of the 
diverse needs presented to us by our constituents. We still have not 
fully funded the WIC Program or special education. Families and 
children have needs which should come before those of politicians. In 
light of the ongoing deficit problems of our Nation, I cannot believe 
we are discussing giving this money in campaign funds to politicians.
  The thing that makes this most contradictory to me is that we have 
recently appointed an entitlement commission to evaluate, analyze and 
advise Congress on what we should do to address the ongoing issue of 
entitlements in our Nation. Yet, in spite of this commission, we are 
adding a whole new entitlement, for ourselves. The absurdity of this 
cannot be overstated.


                           pac contributions

  I am pleased that the Pressler amendment to eliminate PAC funding 
passed the Senate by an overwhelming vote of 86 to 11. I have 
consistently supported legislation that would eliminate PAC 
contributions completely. Not the $10,000 per election cycle allowed 
under current law; not the $5,000 encouraged as a compromise position 
with the House. Zero. Nothing.
  Like the rest of my colleagues, raising funds for my campaign is not 
the most rewarding part of my job as a U.S. Senator. However, I have 
maintained two rules about all campaign contributions: They must be 
legal and ethical and they must come with no strings attached.
  While I have consistently voted to eliminate PAC's, I have accepted 
PAC money in the past, since it has been legal. However, anyone who has 
followed my work in Congress knows what every PAC knows about Chuck 
Grassley: My vote is not for sale.
  For example, the defense industry has offered me PAC support knowing 
my opposition to the bloated defense budget and my continuous 
investigation of wasteful government spending.
  As I mentioned earlier, our political lifeline should come from our 
constituents, who will volunteer to see that we are elected to 
represent their views. That is how representative Government works 
best.
  I am a strong believer in grassroots support and Iowans seem to 
agree. In fact, during my last senatorial campaign, more than 100 
supporters joined the Grassley team every day with an average 
contribution of $40. This grassroots groundswell was comprised of over 
85 percent Iowans.
  They were the lifeline, energy, drive, and people-power so crucial 
for my ultimate victory with 72 percent of the vote. I would not be in 
the Senate today if it were not for such a broad spectrum of loyal 
supporters.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I should inquire, did you want me to 
stop for a moment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator would withhold. Pursuant to the 
order of February 29, 1960, the Senate having been in continuous 
session, the Senate will suspend for a prayer from the Senate Chaplain.
                                 ______