[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]

                                 prayer

  The Chaplain, the Reverend Richard C. Halverson, D.D., offered the 
following prayer:
  Let us pray:
  Commit thy works unto the Lord, and thy thoughts shall be 
established.--Proverbs 16:3.
  Omnipotent, eternal God, this is a place of power. Where there is 
power, there is pressure. Where there is pressure, there is friction. 
Where there is friction, there is heat. Under such pressure the 
Senators serve, added to which is personal tension between conscience 
and demands of public and private interests and political destiny. And 
always there is the tyranny of the urgent.
  Father in Heaven, in the midst of the stress, grant the Senators Thy 
peace. Make them wise as they face choices that are rarely either/or, 
all right or all wrong, all good or all bad. Give them wisdom and 
sensitivity and the courage to act as conscience dictates, and peace in 
their hearts once the decisive moment is over.
  In His name who is Truth Incarnate. Amen.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. The fact that we 
just had a prayer does not start us in a new legislative day, does it? 
I assume it is the same legislative day we have been in with this 
discussion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is correct.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Also, Mr. President, did the manager of the bill want 
to speak? If he does, I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. McCONNELL. No. I just say to my friend that I think he was 
approaching the end of his hour. I will commend him when he finishes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Do the rules provide that I must stop now? If not, I 
want to continue to speak.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Only if the Senator's hour has been used.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa has 8 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I believe strongly in representative government. I work 
hard to keep in touch with Iowans by returning to Iowa virtually every 
recess and weekend. Every year I make certain that I hold meetings with 
constituents from each of Iowa's 99 counties at least once. I also rely 
heavily on the letters and phone calls I receive to know the concerns 
and interests of my constituents on Federal issues. This kind of focus 
and constant communication is what helps develop such broad, grassroots 
campaign support. This is the way it should be.

  Having consistently voted for the complete elimination of PAC 
contributions, I am pleased with the Pressler amendment in the bill. 
The elimination of PAC's is one of the measures of true campaign 
finance reform.


                    recent process and what it says

  I think it is unfortunate and telling that our House Democratic 
colleagues can't agree on this most basic proposition to eliminate 
PAC's. At a time when we have passed gift ban and lobbying reform 
legislation, our Democratic House colleagues continue to cling to the 
most questionable form of gift politicians receive--PAC money. In fact, 
House Democrats have not even agreed to a proposed reduction in their 
PAC money. The inconsistency of this would be laughable if it were not 
so pathetic.
  At a time when the Senate has eliminated a Members' ability to 
receive even a $20 gift from a constituent, many House Democrats are 
clinging to the right to receive a $10,000 contribution from some labor 
or corporate PAC.
  PAC's personify special interest influence in the minds of Americans. 
PAC's are defended by their proponents as a way for individuals to get 
together and advance their shared interests in government. Presumably, 
those interests would include support of challengers; but, the facts do 
not bear that out. In the 1992 congressional races where Members were 
up for reelection, incumbents received over 86 percent of all PAC 
contributions: $126 million for incumbents and only $21 million for 
challengers.
  In 1992, PAC's accounted for 52 percent of incumbent Democrats' 
campaign funds. No wonder the House Democrats will not agree to 
elimination of PAC funds. Clearly, PAC's have become a powerful 
incumbent protection mechanism in congressional elections.
  Since the 1970's, PAC's increasingly have channeled contributions to 
incumbents with little or no regard for ideology, philosophy, or voting 
records. Corporate and trade association PAC's are among the worst in 
this regard, with almost 90 percent of their PAC contributions going to 
incumbents.
  I think that the process we have been through in recent months 
reflects on the reality of what is happening with this bill. After all 
of the interparty squabbling among Democrats over PAC's, majority party 
leaders believe they are nearing an agreement.
  So now, in the final days of a congressional session when many 
Members are tired and distracted by their upcoming elections, the 
democratic leadership wants to appoint conferees for a bill that passed 
the Senate 15 months ago and the House 10 months ago. The idea that we 
could possibly have a fair bipartisan agreement to come out of this 
attempted conference is laughable at best.
  After seeing what the Democrats did on the crime bill, we are foolish 
to think that campaign finance reform would be different.
  With the destruction of health care reform as the key issue for 
Democrats in the upcoming election, the President and party leaders 
have now decided that they have three priorities: GATT, campaign 
finance reform, and lobbying reform.
  Where have they been all this time since campaign finance reform and 
lobbying reform passed? Fifteen months since campaign finance reform 
passed the Senate; 10 months since it passed the House. On lobbying 
reform, it has been 16 months since the bill passed the Senate and 6 
months since it passed the House. Why the rush to action now at the end 
of a congressional session?
  These circumstances simply reinforce the perception that partisan 
maneuvering is sought much more than genuine reform.
  There are several other provisions besides the elimination of PAC's, 
reflecting genuine campaign finance reform, which I would like to see 
enacted into law. S. 7, the Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform Act 
of 1993, has incorporated many of these provisions. As a cosponsor of 
the bill, I would support its approach to campaign finance reform.
  It takes an aggressive approach to the elimination of PAC's and soft 
money.


                               Soft Money

  Mr. President, there has been a lot of talk about soft money. 
Proponents of the Senate and House bills loudly proclaim that their 
bill would shut down soft money. Unfortunately, that is not an accurate 
claim. The fact is, the House and Senate bills very selectively 
regulate soft money.
  Maybe it would be helpful to first explain what soft money is so that 
we all understand the terms. Soft money is different from other sources 
of funding primarily in terms of where it comes from and the degree of 
government regulation. Unlike soft money, hard money is raised and 
spent directly by a candidate's committee and is, therefore, covered in 
a campaign's Federal election commission reports. Hard money is subject 
to Federal regulation and limits, and it is publicly disclosed.
  Soft money is raised for and spent on activities conducted outside of 
Federal election laws for the purpose of influencing elections. Soft 
money is not cash dollars given directly to a specific campaign. Soft 
money is spent on behalf of a specific campaign, group of candidates, 
or a political party.
  Soft money is undisclosed and unlimited under Federal election law. 
It is not that campaign activities purchased with soft money are 
inherantly evil. The soft money problem is in the lack of disclosure 
and limits. One of the key issues to any reform is what is often called 
``sunlight.'' Just get it out where people can really look at it.
  Proponents of these bills would have people believe that soft money 
is an issue only for political parties. That simply is not true. The 
political parties are not the only players in the soft money game. 
Labor unions and other groups are big players in the game.
  Essentially, there are two kinds of soft money: Party--Republican and 
Democratic--and nonparty--labor unions and other groups. Both of these 
promote what most Republicans and nonpartisan scholars consider a good 
thing: citizen participation in the electoral process.


                            party soft money

  The fundamental difference is that the political parties, on the 
whole, do not have a legislative agenda. I believe the DNC is like the 
RNC in that the only criteria for support is that a candidate be a 
viable candidate of that party.
  The DNC supports Democrats of all philosophical perspectives. 
Likewise, the Republican National Committee supports candidates of all 
philosophical persuasians, so long as they are Republican.


                            other soft money

  This is not true when it comes to other sources of soft money. Let us 
take labor unions, for example. Just in the last year we have had two 
major examples where the unions have linked votes on pending 
legislation with financial support in upcoming elections.
  On the North American Free-Trade Agreement and on the striker 
replacement bill, various unions stated flatly that there would be a 
quid pro quo. If a member voted against the union position on either of 
those two legislative initiatives, union support would be withheld. 
this is not an inconsequential threat for candidates accustomed to 
strong labor backing. Labor unions are very generous PAC-givers to 
their allies, and their use of ``soft money'' is unequaled.
  The labor unions' soft money power derives largely from what the 
National Right to Work Committee estimates is $5 billion annually in 
compulsory union dues. FEC reports indicate that for every $1 spent by 
labor PAC's, unions spend 50 cents to subsidize PAC overhead.


                   republican approach to soft money

  Mr. President, Republicans have led the fight to close these special 
interest soft money loopholes by offering amendments to codify the 
Supreme Court's 1988 Beck decision and require disclosure and limits on 
soft money.
  Members may recall that in the Beck decision, the court ruled that 
Harry Beck, a union member, could not be forced to pay for the 
extensive political operations of the Communication Workers of America. 
The court held that Mr. Beck had a right to a refund for the portion of 
his dues being used for political purposes. When Republicans have 
sought to codify that decision for the benefit of all union members, 
the majority party has refused to allow it.
  Senator Jeffords addressed this issue last year during the debate 
over the campaign finance bill.
  He successfully added amendments to provide some disclosure of 
nonparty soft money, and enable candidates additional latitude to 
respond to such expenditures under a spending limit system. Not 
surprisingly, the Jeffords amendment caused great discomfort among 
providers and recipients of such soft money. Fortunately, the majority 
wanted a bill to pass the Senate so they accepted the amendment on a 
voice vote. Nevertheless, the Jeffords amendments certainly would face 
a hostile environment in conference, or maybe a deal has already been 
cut in the Democratic Senate-House negotiations that have been 
occurring all year.
  Concerning party money, both the Republican and Democratic National 
Committees raise money to support their Federal, State, and local 
candidates. Money raised to support Federal candidates is ``hard'' 
money--regulated by and reported to the FEC. Money raised ostensibly to 
support State and local candidates, but which indirectly benefits 
Federal candidates as well, is known as ``soft'' money--it may or may 
not be regulated by State law, but it is not covered by Federal law.
  Each of the 50 States has its own set of laws governing the elections 
of State and local officials. Because Federal, State, and local 
candidates are on the same ballot, generic get-out-the-vote activities 
targeting one of these candidates benefits all of them. Again, the 
issue is not that the activities are inherently bad, but that 
accountability is crucial to ensure that the voters know that is really 
going on.
  Republicans have benefited somewhat more from party soft money than 
have Democrats, because the Republican Party usually is more successful 
at raising money. In fact, the Republican Party always has been more 
successful at raising funds in small amounts--the average is around 
$30--from a lot of private citizens. These citizens contribute to the 
Republican Party because they want to participate in the political 
process as a Republican. On the other hand, Republicans have not fared 
well regarding labor soft money. In fact, Republicans receive almost no 
help from any labor unions.
  Democrats since the election of President Clinton, have augmented 
their labor soft money windfall with a new enthusiasm.
  President Clinton has been very successful at raising millions in so-
called ``soft money'' to support his parties' campaign efforts. So, 
Democrats benefit from party soft money and non-party soft money, 
principally from labor unions. It is not surprising then, that 
Democratic proposals to restrict soft money have focused entirely on 
party soft money while leaving pro-democrat labor soft money untouched. 
The DNC traditionally is inferior to the RNC in terms of party soft 
money. Democrats reasonably conclude it still makes sense to shut down 
party soft money, knowing their labor soft money advantage is retained.
  In contrast, the Republican Party soft money proposal set forth these 
past few years focuses on accurate accounting and disclosure. It would 
require the parties to maintain separate Federal and State accounts if 
they are participating in both types of elections. It would require 
complete disclosure. It would also require party committees to report 
all of their accounts--Federal, State, and building funds--to the FEC.
  David Broder of the Washington Post has written at length on the need 
for strong and active political parties, stating in 1991 a sentiment 
that still applies today:

       But on neither side of the Capitol are the democrats 
     prepared to do the one thing that might really help 
     challengers--ease the restrictions on fund-raising and 
     spending by the political parties, the only institutions in 
     America that have an intrinsic interest in electing 
     nonincumbents to office.

  Broder goes on to say:

       Indeed, the Senate bill--and likely the house version as 
     well--threatens new restrictions on State parties, limiting 
     the contributions they can accept for coordinated 
     registration and get-out-the-vote campaigns. These efforts 
     are at the heart of electoral democracy, but congress is 
     threatening to clamp down on them. To call this an 
     improvement takes a greater leap of faith than I can muster.

  Thus, the Republican approach to soft money focuses on that soft 
money that is linked to specific special interests--not to the parties, 
which, according to Broder, are the heart of electoral democracy.
  The Republican alternative to campaign finance reform, S. 7, has 
other specific proposals which are needed. It requires candidates to 
declare upon filing if they intend to contribute personal funds over 
$250,000. And, it would prohibit them from recovering those funds from 
money raised after the election.
  S. 7 provides challengers with seed money by allowing political 
parties to match early, in-state contributions up to a total of 
$100,000. Finally, it would require all independently financed 
political communications to identity who provided financing.
  These are the kinds of issues I would like to see addressed in 
genuine campaign finance reform. I think it is unfortunate that we 
can't get real reform in a time when it is so desperately needed. I 
think we should address this issue when we have a new Congress, which 
is more sensitive to the concerns I have raised.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Iowa for his excellent presentation. He has laid out the issue very 
skillfully.
  Also, I will report that Senator Murkowski is here for his hour, 
bright-eyed, and obviously one of those who got a good night's sleep. I 
will be happy to yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last night, I had the occasion of sitting 
in the chair for 2 hours, and I listened to a number of speeches. I am 
going to take a few minutes now to actually speak myself, even though I 
know my colleagues on the other side want to chew up as much time as 
they can and are waiting in line seriatim to do that.
  I would like to comment for a moment on where we really are here. I 
listened to these speeches and I heard my colleagues come to the floor 
and give sham reasons for why they are trying to stop this bill. One 
reason I heard time and time again was that the bill deserves to be 
killed because the conference committee has not been appointed for 15 
months. I think it is vital for Americans to understand what is really 
happening here.
  We are constantly criticized in the U.S. Senate and in Congress for 
not getting things done. In broad and vague terms, the press 
consistently writes about, talks about, and spreads the word that the 
U.S. Congress lacks the ability to do its work. But when there is a 
clear and evident example of why we do not get our work done, the press 
seems to be absent and does not want to point the finger where it ought 
to be pointed.
  This bill that is being filibustered here now has already been passed 
by this body. We passed this legislation, America. Sixty U.S. Senators 
voted for this legislation, and 62 U.S. Senators already voted to end 
the filibuster previously. And yet we are back here again, America, 
because our friends on the other side of the aisle are chewing up time, 
waiting for the countdown until the U.S. Congress goes home, so that 
this bill will die.
  This is gridlock. This is gridlock in action. It is gridlock for 
every American to see. The same people who come to the floor and feign 
concern about the deficit are the people who forced extra police to 
stay here all last night, forced clerks and recorders and technicians 
and Senators to stay up for hours just to eat time on something that 
the U.S. Senate has already voted on. Sixty U.S. Senators have already 
voted on this, and all that the Democrats are trying to do now is get a 
passed bill to conference, which is just the next step in the 
legislative process, so that Democrats, Republicans, House and Senate, 
can sit at a table and do what the American people sent us here to do.
  This is a disgrace. This is what makes the American people mad. This 
is a minority trying to dictate over the majority. Oh, yes, they are 
exercising their rights under the rules. Everybody can always find a 
rule that somehow makes the law look like an ass. Anybody who is 
familiar with law from school or even from TV knows that sometimes the 
law can be used for asinine purposes. But what is happening here right 
now in the U.S. Senate is the worst of what is happening in American 
politics today, and it is what every single American hates.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle will say, oh, we are just 
saving taxpayer dollars, we are preventing ``foodstamps for 
politicians''--I have heard all of these erroneous arguments come out. 
I am amazed by the capacity of Members of this institution to use 
Orwellian doublespeak to their advantage.
  They come out here, and they show us black and call it white, and 
folks out in the country say, ``Oh, it is white,'' even though it is 
black. Then they will vote on it and make it white, and once it is 
white, if it suits their purposes, they will call it black once more.
  We saw that on the crime bill. That is the game being played in 
Washington, DC, today. A majority of this House, this institution, 
voted for the crime bill. Many Republicans voted for the crime bill 
with more money in it than the bill that came back, yet they called the 
bill that came back ``pork.''
  Doublespeak. It is all doublespeak.
  Last night I heard people purporting to be constitutional lawyers, 
suggesting that on this bill we have a responsibility to make a 
constitutional determination--when bill after bill goes through here 
and these same Senators ride roughshod over any constitutional 
implications and happily allow the Supreme Court to do what it is 
supposed to do.
  Senator George Mitchell, who has sat as a Federal judge, who most 
people here would agree to be a shoo-in to sit on the U.S. Supreme 
Court, expresses a directly opposing view to that espoused by--
frankly--lesser lawyers on the other side of the aisle. And yet, it is 
still so important to them this constitutional implication be decided 
here.
  All you have to do is read the controlling case in this area, Buckley 
versus Valeo. Buckley versus Valeo is very clear in saying that there 
is plenty of discretion in this bill that fits under the voluntariness 
requirement of the Supreme Court.
  We have heard talk about food stamps for politicians. I wish 
Americans could come and see the merry-go-round of fund raising that 
takes place here. If you want to see real food stamps, go to one of the 
parties in Washington where Congressmen rarely have to buy a meal. They 
go out and eat hors d'oeuvres from the hands of lobbyists. That is the 
food stamp first.
  This bill is a liberation from the fundraising merry-go-round, and 
the same people who opposed it previously are back again to tie up the 
time of the U.S. Senate and prevent the majority from working their 
will. This is a game that is being played right in front of the eyes of 
Americans. It is time that the press and others in this country called 
it what it is.
  This is gridlock; gridlock in the interest of status quo; gridlock 
that is reflective of a fear or our friends that campaign finance 
reform might actually create a level playing field, that it might 
actually do the exact opposite of what they say, that it might threaten 
incumbency, not aid it.
  I ask any American to make a judgment. Do you have a fairer race for 
the U.S. Senate or House if people have equal amounts of money, or do 
you have a fairer race if an incumbent by virtue of the power of 
incumbency can raise unlimited sums of money and outspend the 
challenger by two to one or three to one? Any kid in grade school can 
answer that question.
  Yet our friends come down here and try to suggest that this bill, 
which attempts to limit the amount of money that we raise and spend in 
campaigns, is somehow going to favor the incumbent. There is no 
incumbent politician in this country who does not understand that if a 
challenger can raise as much money as we can, we are in serious 
trouble. We are in serious trouble, that is, unless we have focused our 
efforts during our time in office compiling a good record to run on, 
unless we have been responsive to the public will, unless we have done 
something to earn our keep other than just raise a lot more money than 
our challengers can.
  Do the American people know that the U.S. Congress was up all night 
last night, that people's salaries are being paid, that people were 
here doing nothing in the interest of delay, doing nothing in the 
interest of taking us right back over the same track we have already 
been down before?
  The game here is very simple folks. Tie it up for 30 hours or so now, 
use up a few days of the week, then we come back and we have another 
motion to proceed. We chew up the time, another 30 hours, and all of 
sudden everybody is getting backed up into their campaigns they want to 
get out of here. And what happens, campaign finance reform fails.
  If the Republicans were serious in saying they want reform then they 
should go sit down at the conference table and let the process work its 
will. Sit down at the conference table and allow people to work the 
measures out. But they do not want to do that, or if and when they do 
get to doing that, they want to make sure it is at the last possible 
minute so that nothing else can happen here----nothing else can get 
done.
  Today in the Commerce Committee we got a letter making last-minute 
demands on the communications bill. This is a bill that has been worked 
on this whole year with bipartisan support, which passed out of 
committee supported by both sides of the aisle, 18 votes or so in 
support, and yet at the last minute Republican demands are put up which 
effectively have killed the Communications Reorganization Act for this 
year.
  We are operating our entire communications structure in this country 
under an act that is 60 years old, yet because of this Republican 
willfulness and unwillingness to let majority rule work, an 
unwillingness to allow the legislative process to function, the entire 
bill has been killed.
  Maritime reform. That was another measure that was on the schedule 
today. But maritime reform became the victim of a few Republican 
Senators who exploited a rule that allows them to object to a committee 
meeting for more than 2 hours when we are in session. So, gone is 
maritime reform, something we desperately need for this country, 
something which would have created jobs.
  I want America to wake up. Wake up America. What is happening here is 
gridlock that is a reflection not of incompetence but of political 
strategy, pure and simple. What is happening is gridlock, part of a 
scorched-Earth policy to try to damage this institution so that 
everybody in America will believe that we cannot get something done. 
Then the public will look and see that Democrats are in the majority--
``in the majority'' though it takes 60 votes to do anything, so our 
``majority'' is an illusion--the theory being that because it takes 60 
votes to accomplish anything but the public doesn't understand this, as 
long as Republicans exploit the filibuster, nothing will happen, it 
will reflect badly on the Democrats and, by God, they will win at the 
election booth.
  So America you are being taken on an incredible ride right now. You 
are being taken on an incredible ride, a calculated effort to create 
gridlock and chaos that reflects badly on the ``party in power,'' even 
though the party in power cannot get anything done because it takes 60 
votes to do something and the minority will not allow that something to 
happen. And here is the example of it right here in front of your eyes; 
campaign finance reform, a bill that the political system of our 
country desperately needs, is being killed by people coming to the 
floor of the Senate and filibustering on the hypocritical argument 
that, ``Well, months ago we should have sent this to a conference 
committee.''
  We have been working on this for 10 years--10 years. It died when 
President Bush vetoed it. It dies when they filibuster it. Sixty 
Senators have already voted for this yet it may die again because now 
Republicans are determined to prevent the majority from having its way.
  I hear complaints about how much this bill is going to cost--someone 
last night said it is a entitlement that it is going to create a new 
mandate for funding. Folks, if Americans were to stop and take a look 
at the unfunded mandate that they are paying for today by virtue of 
today's campaign finance system, they would be shocked. Billions upon 
billions of dollars in bills that come about because of the linkage of 
money to politics, elections; billions of dollars it cost you today 
compared to the few hundred million that would go in through taxpayer 
checkoff, through a system that would allow people to run for office 
free of all of this influence. Billions of dollars.
  Let's speak with candor about what happens in this city. Little 
measures go into Ways and Means bills, measures go into the Finance 
Committee, big projects go through Appropriations, special measures for 
this entity or that entity or another, and everybody gets taken care of 
in the end. That is what campaign money does to democracy.
  This current finance system is far and away more expensive than what 
this bill contemplates. I have heard people say this bill shuts off 
free speech. Mr. President, if a millionaire wants to run for office 
under this bill and spend his or her entire fortune, there is nothing 
to prevent him or her from doing so. There is no turning off of the 
spigot of free speech in this bill. You can speak as much as you want--
but there is a price. And the price is democracy. The price is that 
someone on the other side also gets a chance to speak.
  So we are saying we do not want our elections to be decided by money. 
We do not want Americans held prisoner to big, high-priced lobbyists 
and companies that can come in with scads of contributions and work 
their will. We want politicians listening to Americans. We want them 
out there in living rooms. We want them in the backyards. We want them 
at fairs. We want them in schools. We want them talking to people, 
raising small contributions, and not just sucking up to special 
interest money.
  All we have done in the United States today is turn Congressmen and 
Senators into money collectors for broadcasters. That is what we do. We 
have highjacked the American political process and allowed it to be 
held hostage to a process of fundraising where we become the conduits 
for special interest money to go directly to the broadcasters.
  Look at what happens in any campaign. We go out, we spend incredible 
amounts of time traveling. A Senator from New Hampshire or Ohio going 
to Indiana, Mississippi, Florida, California, New York, all over the 
country to raise money. For what purpose? To hand it over to a 
broadcaster. And in the process we create a whole series of priorities 
of access that dilute and pollute the political process of this 
country.
  Now, if my friends disagree with this, why not just vote no. Just 
vote no and go home to your district and tell them how lousy this bill 
is. But, no, they smell blood in the water and they want to use their 
minority power of filibuster to kill reform. And the reason they want 
to kill reform is that they like the system the way it is because it 
advantages them, because they can go out and raise more money than 
anyone else because they have their fingers on the buttons and levers 
of power and nonincumbents obviously do not.
  So the system will remain, with politicians playing to the people who 
operate the levers and the buttons. It is very simple stuff and most 
Americans understand it an awful lot better than most people in the 
U.S. Congress want to allow for.
  What is happening here in the last 24 hours and will go on and on 
probably is the great reluctance of the minority to allow the majority 
to work its will. This is gridlock at its absolute worst, and Americans 
should wake up and focus or they will continue to get the kind of 
Government that they deserve if they are not paying attention.
  America, we have been here before. We voted for this bill. It already 
passed. We already broke the filibuster, and now we are right back here 
chewing up the last days of the Senate of the United States in its 
action because a few people like the system the way it is. That is what 
is this is about. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, before yielding the floor to Senator 
Murkowski, who is waiting patiently for his turn, I want to thank 
Senator Kerry for using 30 or so minutes and telling him that he is 
right, in part. We make no apologies for trying to kill this horrible 
bill. It is clearly unconstitutional, and the lawyers we cite, as he 
knows, are from the American Civil Liberties Union.
  It clearly is an entitlement program for politicians by any 
definition, and the American people, we believe, looking at the polls, 
are about to send some of the cavalry up here to rescue them from the 
kind of legislation this Congress is trying to pass. Certainly we are 
going to do everything we can in the waning hours of this session to 
make certain this kind of outrageous proposal does not become law.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Senator Murkowski is here ready to proceed.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I note the presence of the majority 
leader and the minority leader. I believe that they wish to proceed. I 
yield the floor subject to being recognized after their completion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote at 1:45 p.m. today on the motion to disagree to the House 
amendments on S. 3; that upon the disposition of that motion, the 
Senate vote immediately on the cloture vote on the motion to disagree 
to the House amendments on S. 21; that if cloture is invoked, the 
motion to disagree to the House amendments on S. 21 be agreed to; that 
regardless of the outcome of the cloture vote, the Senate resume 
consideration of the message on S. 3; that the motion to request a 
conference with the House be the pending business; and that a cloture 
vote--the motion having been filed when the Senate resumes 
consideration of S. 3--on that motion to request a conference occur at 
10 a.m. on Tuesday, September 27, with the mandatory live quorum 
waived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, as a result of this agreement, there are 
expected to be two rollcall votes at 1:45 p.m. today, the first on the 
motion to disagree regarding S. 3 and the second a cloture vote on the 
motion to disagree regarding S. 21, the California desert bill. That 
second vote will be the last vote today.
  On Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of the amendments in 
disagreement to the D.C. appropriations bill.
  Mr. President, I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the majority leader and the minority leader.
  Mr. President, I too want to thank my colleague from Massachusetts 
for taking up some 30 minutes or thereabouts. Obviously, the position 
of many of our friends on the other side has been to move this to 
conference without debate. But the Senator from Massachusetts saw fit 
to take some time. So we are most appreciative on this side.
  I think it is also appropriate to reflect a little bit on the 
allegation that this is gridlock, in effect, and the Senator from 
Alaska will concede it is a gridlock. But let us reflect on whose 
gridlock it is and why.
  Among the Senate and House Democratic leadership, there is a 
gridlock. Senate Democrats have wanted to do something on PAC's so that 
they could get their taxpayer funded spending limit bill through the 
Senate. That is a fact. But House Democrats prefer to do nothing in 
regard to lowering the PAC contribution limit. Hence, it was 
interesting to note the Washington Post headline last month, and I 
quote: ``Democrats Fail To Compromise on PAC Limits.''
  So, in reality, the gridlock that does exist and has existed for some 
time between the House and the Senate is with the Democratic leadership 
in the House and the Senate. Make no mistake, it is the Democrats who 
control both the Senate and the House. So when our colleague from 
Massachusetts refers to gridlock, I would encourage all my colleagues 
to reflect on the reality that gridlock does occur, is occurring, and 
has occurred, but it is within the House and Democratic leadership and 
their inability to resolve campaign reform.
  Mr. President, I would also like to reflect on the comments of the 
Senator from Massachusetts relative to the aspects of just what this 
bill is all about.
  This bill is about the disagreement over whether the American 
taxpayer should fund our elections or whether we ought to fund our own 
elections. It has been more than 15 months since the Senate passed its 
version of campaign finance legislation. I voted against this 
legislation because I genuinely believed that it was flawed. And I 
believe it is the height of political arrogance for Members of Congress 
to demand that the American people be taxed in order to finance our 
political campaigns.
  I can tell you, in Alaska, what people think. They do not want their 
taxpayer dollars financing political campaigns in the U.S. House and 
the U.S. Senate.
  And I think, Mr. President, that anyone who thinks we can pull the 
wool over the eyes of the American public by calling this an election 
reform bill is really out of touch with reality in the mainstream of 
America.
  I do not think this is a reform bill. This is really a welfare bill, 
a welfare bill for politicians. It is going to create a new entitlement 
program. It is going to cost the American taxpayer roughly $200 million 
every 2 years. And that $200 million entitlement is going to grow as 
candidates for Congress proliferate, and they are going to proliferate 
at the expense of the American taxpayer.
  So, as we reflect on the comments of the Senator from Massachusetts, 
I think we have to qualify, if you will, just what the issue is.
  The majority of the American people do not want their tax dollars 
going to fund Senate and House elections. According to the 
Congressional Budget Office, this legislation would generate taxpayer-
financed matching payments as high as $100 million for Senate 
candidates in 1996 and 1998. Senate candidates would be eligible for 
excess expenditure payments, voter communication vouchers, reduced 
broadcast rates, discounted third-class mailing rates, and all kinds of 
things that the average public would not even conceive of. But they are 
in here.
  Now, let me describe some of these payments to you. Excess 
expenditure payments would kick in if a candidate's opponent exceeds 
the individual State spending limit. In that case, the candidate would 
receive a payment equal to one-third of the general election spending 
limits.
  In addition, if the candidate's opponent exceeds the limit by more 
than 33 percent, the candidate would be entitled to  receive another 
payment equal to one-third of the general election limit.

  Now, if that is not complicated enough, in addition, if one's 
opponent exceeds the State spending limit by 67 percent, the candidate 
would be entitled to another 33 percent of the State spending limit. So 
it is going to take an accountant to keep track of the exceptions in 
this.
  Somebody said there are more loose ends in this than a $10 hairpiece.
  Well, Mr. President, according to CBO, these excess expenditure 
payments would cost the taxpayer $46 million in 1996 on top of the $57 
million for general matching contributions. And that is just for this 
body, the U.S. Senate. We are not talking about the House.
  But let us talk about the House. Candidates for the House would be 
entitled to receive $218,000 of Federal taxpayers' money--and I want to 
emphasize, Federal taxpayers' money--to help finance their campaigns.
  But that is not all they are going to receive. If a candidate's 
opponent refuses to limit spending beyond the threshold amount of 
$436,000, the candidate would be entitled to unlimited matching funds--
unlimited matching funds. If a candidate's opponent spent more than 
$273,000 of personal funds, the candidate would be entitled to a triple 
match, $3 of taxpayers' financing, for every $1 contribution. They are 
going to need a Philadelphia lawyer to figure that out.
  In other words, this legislation will provide candidates for Congress 
with what amounts to an open-ended checkbook paid for by the U.S. 
taxpayer.
  And that is why those on this side of the aisle are standing, around 
the clock, explaining to the American people the reality of just what 
is in here and what this so-called gridlock is all about.
  One would ask, are we so swimming in excess cash in this Congress 
that we can afford to throw out some $200 million every 2 years to pay 
for our campaigns? We all know we cannot. We are $4.6 trillion in debt 
in this country.
  Do you know what we are going to do if this proposal goes through? We 
are not going to fund it. We are going to fund it by deficit financing. 
Instead of $4.6 trillion in debt, it is going to be $4.8 trillion, or 
what have you. We are borrowing money to cover the cost of interest on 
our debt. Think about that. We are not paying down the principal, $4.6 
trillion. We are borrowing money to cover the cost of the interest. So 
we are really adding interest to the assimilated debt.
  I do not have to tell you, as a former banker, what that does. You 
are broke already, you just do not know it. Or, if you know it, you 
will not acknowledge it.
  Yet, we have the audacity to demand that the American citizens ante 
up another $200 million every 2 years to pay for our reelection 
campaigns.
  Mr. President, I can assure every Member of this body that if we pass 
any legislation that forces taxpayers to pay for our campaigns, there 
are going to be few of us, if any, who will be mounting successful 
reelection campaigns in the next few years.
  I think every Member of this body should take note of the primary 
election campaign that was held this week in Oklahoma. An 8-term 
Congressman, Mike Synar, spent $300,000 to defend his seat--$300,000, 
Mr. President. His opponent, Virgil Cooper, a 71-year-old former school 
principal, spent less than $17,000, passed out his business card around 
the State, and emphasized the fact that he was not an incumbent--
$17,000 campaigning under a platform that he was not an incumbent. 
Cooper won.
  Now, what does Cooper's victory suggest? It suggests to this Senator 
that people are even more fed up with politics as usual in Washington 
than they were in 1992, when they gave Ross Perot 19 percent of the 
vote. They are fed up with mandates, and that is what this would be. 
This would be a mandate that the taxpayer fund our House and Senate 
elections. They are fed up with high taxes and they are fed up with a 
broken welfare system that keeps people on welfare. They are fed up 
with illegal immigration. They are fed up with crime. And, most of all, 
they are fed up with our inability to seriously tackle--seriously 
tackle--that $4.6 trillion national debt and the yearly deficit. 
Because each year, we spend more than we take  in.

  But the dam of that frustration with Washington, I think, is going to 
break. It is going to break and flood when the taxpayers learn that we 
have now decided to finance our campaigns with their hard-earned tax 
money. Instead of reducing the deficit, instead of financing new prison 
construction, we have decided to use their money--their money--to pay 
for our 30-second spots or for our bumper stickers.
  I would be interested to see how many of our colleagues are going to 
campaign this fall on a platform of taxing the American people to 
finance their own political campaigns. I will bet not one Member who is 
up for reelection this year is going to have this in their platform. 
When asked if they believe in it, they are going to say, ``Well, you 
know, we are giving it study. It is under consideration. There is a 
good side and a bad side. There is one hand and another hand.'' And you 
are not going to get an answer because nobody is going to say: I want 
the American taxpayer to fund my reelection effort.
  We all know that our colleagues are going to reflect on this reality. 
Our colleagues, none of them will dare raise the issue of taxpayer 
financing for congressional campaigns, as I have stated, because we 
know that the American people have already cast their ballot--think 
about this--they have cast their ballot on the idea of using taxpayer 
money to finance political campaigns.
  Now, how have they done that? Let me tell you. They have done it by a 
resounding margin of more than 5 to 1. And they voted no, Mr. 
President.
  We have a model for taxpayer financing of political campaigns right 
now, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund, that is financed by a 
taxpayer checkoff on the Federal income tax form. Do you remember that? 
It is there on every form. We all have an opportunity to check it off.
  The Presidential fund paid out $174 million in 1992. Of that amount, 
nearly $43 million was paid to candidates who ran in the Presidential 
primaries.
  President Clinton and former President Bush received more than $23 
million of taxpayer funds. Pat Buchanan received $5.2 million; Jerry 
Brown, $4.2 million; Paul Tsongas, $3 million; Bob Kerrey, $2.2 
million; Tom Harkin, a Senator from this body, $2.1 million.
  But those were not the only Presidential candidates who benefited 
from taxpayer funding. There were others.
  There were others. Some of the names are familiar.
  Lyndon LaRouche received more than half a million dollars from the 
Federal taxpayers to help finance his 1992 campaign.
  Where did he run that campaign, Mr. President? He ran it from a 
prison cell. What do you think of that? He ran his campaign, Lyndon 
LaRouche, his 1992 campaign, from his prison cell, with more than half 
a million dollars of taxpayer funding.
  In fact, Mr. LaRouche has collected more than 2 million taxpayer 
dollars from his five, Mr. President--five--unsuccessful campaigns for 
President. Do you think the American taxpayer, given an opportunity, 
would approve of that kind of taxpayer financing?
  Lenora Fulani--I am not sure of the pronunciation of that, because, 
frankly, I am not familiar with the person or the New Alliance Party--
received $2 million in her unsuccessful campaign for the Presidency in 
1992. And in her three--she has had three unsuccessful runs for the 
Presidency--she received more than $3.5 million of taxpayer money.
  What do you think of that, Mr. President?
  Well I know what I think of it.
  I would note that John Hayden of the National Law Party--I have not 
heard too much of that party either--received more than $350,000 of 
taxpayer money in 1992 to finance his unsuccessful run for the 
Presidency.
  Another one you may have heard of, common household name, Larry 
Agron, received more than a quarter of a million dollars that same 
year.
  Now in the general election both candidates, Bush and Clinton, 
received $55.2 million in taxpayer funds. Some Americans may think this 
is an excessive amount of money for a general election campaign, but 
they would probably be even more shocked to learn that both the 
Democratic and the Republican Parties each received more than $11 
million to produce their own political convention. Is the American 
public aware that the taxpayers' money is going to produce the 
political convention? Well, they are.
  Mr. President, these excesses, you know you wonder, do they go 
unnoticed by the American taxpayer?
  The very first question that appears on everyone's 1040 income tax 
form, and I will refer to that again, reads, and I quote ``Presidential 
Election Campaign Fund. Do you want a dollar to go to this fund?'' That 
is on everybody's 1040 income tax return.
  Then it is noted that ``checking yes, will not increase your tax, or 
reduce your refund.'' It will not increase your tax. It will not reduce 
your refund.
  So, Mr. President, every year Americans exercise this right to vote, 
and they are voting. They vote for or against using taxpayers dollars 
to finance election campaigns. They know it will cost them nothing. 
They know it will not cost them anything extra in terms of their tax 
liability. And they know the only way they can vote in favor of public 
financing is to check the box that has the ``yes'' in it. If they leave 
the election checkoff box blank, well, you can draw your own 
conclusions. They are effectively voting no, because the only way the 
Presidential fund can be financed is from taxpayers' returns that have 
checked the ``yes" box.
  Mr. President, the results have long been in on this. I think it is 
an absurd idea of tax financing.
  In 1980 more than 7 in 10 Americans, 72 percent, either checked 
``no'' or left the boxes blank. That is a pretty good indication of 
public opinion. Only 28.7 percent of the American taxpayers checked yes 
on the presidential campaign fund. And I would note that that was the 
high watermark for taxpayer financing. That was 1980.
  In 1985, only 23 percent checked yes.
  In 1990, less than one in five, 19.5 percent of the taxpayers checked 
the ``yes'' box. Pretty good indication of public opinion on taxpayer 
financing. Four out of five voted no by checking the ``no'' box, or 
leaving the ``no'' box blank.
  In the most recent Presidential election, 1992, the campaign checkoff 
had declined to nearly 17.7 percent. Eighty-three percent of Americans 
expressed their opinion, and  that opinion was ``no.'' So, the failure 
of the Presidential checkoff----

  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield for an observation?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I happened to look up the State-by-State checkoff, and 
in his State of Alaska, it was only 14 percent in 1991; my State of 
Kentucky, only 10 percent. Our folks, the people we work for, hate it 
even more than the national average.
  Further observation, as the Senator knows, last year because of this 
declining participation in the checkoff, they were afraid the whole 
thing would be broke by 1996, so they put it in the budget bill and now 
an individual gets to divert $3 instead of $1. Fewer and fewer people 
can divert greater and greater amounts of money. I thank the Senator 
for his observation.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank my friend from Kentucky. I want to commend him 
on his extraordinary commitment to this issue, and the fact that he has 
been on the Senate floor virtually around the clock, communicating to 
American taxpayers the reality associated with this legislation.
  I hope that my input today contributes to greater understanding of 
just what taxpayer financing is all about, and the ultimate attitude 
that seems to prevail among Americans with regard to the alternatives 
of supporting it by checking off on the 1040 form, or simply leaving it 
blank, which is a pretty good indication that they disapprove of it.
  Mr. President, the failure of the Presidential checkoff has been so 
pervasive in the Senator from Alaska's opinion, that the campaign fund 
has been really verging on bankruptcy.
  However, instead of abandoning this failing concept, our Democratic 
colleagues on the other side resurrected the fund last year, when they 
voted to raise the checkoff, as my friend from Kentucky has observed, 
from $1 to $3. I am pleased to remind the American people that not a 
single Republican voted to support that increase. Not one.
  Earlier this year, I offered an amendment that would have switched 
the checkoff from a fund for subsidizing politicians, which is what 
this is all about, subsidizing our elections, to a trust fund for 
funding disaster relief. We do not know when it will occur, but we know 
it occurs. We have floods, disasters, hurricanes, typhoons, and we do 
not have the ability to meet, if you will, the significance of the 
obligation from a financial point of view.
  We know when elections are going to occur. It is rather interesting, 
on nearly a party line vote, that amendment was defeated. And I think, 
Mr. President, the majority of taxpayers would rather check off a box 
for $3 for disaster relief, than for public financing for elections in 
the U.S. Senate and U.S. Congress. But nearly on a party line vote, 
that amendment was defeated.
  Mr. President, with 83 percent of the American public refusing to 
support taxpayer financing of Presidential campaigns, it is clearly 
apparent that this is not a partisan issue with the American public. 
But our friends, on the other side of the aisle seem to think 
otherwise.
  Now, the American public has indicated--Democrats, Republicans, 
Independents--an overall rejection of the idea of taxpayer financing.
  And let us look a little bit at another area that is rather 
interesting, and that is the attitude of the President and Mrs. 
Clinton.
  I would note that the President and Mrs. Clinton have demonstrated--
and I will enter this into the Record with their 1040 tax forms--they 
have demonstrated a longstanding opposition to taxpayer financing of 
Presidential campaigns.
  I have copies, Mr. President, of their returns, William J. Clinton 
and Hillary Rodham, Little Rock, AR. These returns go back as far as 
1977. At that time, our President was serving as attorney general of 
Arkansas.
  It is rather interesting. In both 1977, Mr. President, and 1978, both 
the President and the First Lady left the Presidential election 
campaign checkoff blank. Well, it is a ``no'' vote to me. In other 
words they voted ``no'' on financing Presidential elections with 
taxpayer funds.
  For a reason not explained in this 1040 form, in 1979, there seemed 
to be a split in family opinion, and as a consequence, the President--
he was then Governor Clinton--checked the ``yes'' box, but Mrs. 
Clinton, Hillary, checked the ``no'' box.
  Well, you can draw your own conclusion to that. Obviously they had a 
difference of opinion, not uncommon. Nancy and I have differences of 
opinion from time to time.
  Mr. McCONNELL. That was a difference in opinion one year. Some years 
for, some years against.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. The Senator from Kentucky is correct in his 
observation.
  In every year through the decade of the 1980's, and I am going 1979, 
1980, ``no'' box was checked, neither ``yes'' nor ``no'' on the joint 
return. In 1981, ``no'' box checked, neither ``yes'' nor ``no.'' One 
assumes they did not support it.
  In 1982, ``no'' box checked. Neither ``yes'' nor ``no'' for Hillary 
or Bill Clinton.
  In 1983, ``no'' box checked.
  In 1984, ``no'' box checked.
  Clearly they were not too enthused about taxpayer funding for 
elections.
  In 1985, ``no'' box checked.
  In 1986, blank again, ``no'' box checked, neither ``yes'' or ``no.''
  In 1987, getting closer, ``no'' box checked, neither ``yes'' or 
``no.''
  In 1988, ``no'' box checked. Still getting closer. At that time--let 
us see--another year, ``no'' box checked. No ``yes'' or ``no.''
  But something curious happened in 1990. There was a change. There was 
family unanimity, and they both voted ``no'' in the sense of checking 
the ``no'' box. No contribution from either one. They did not leave it 
blank like they had the other 7 years. They simply said, ``Do you want 
$1 to go into this fund?'' The answer was ``no.'' They have a joint 
return. ``Does your spouse want $1 to go to this fund?'' And the ``no'' 
box was checked.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Before he goes on to 1991, could 1990 have been the 
year the President was running for reelection as the Governor of 
Arkansas?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. It is my understanding that he was then running for 
reelection as Governor of Arkansas.
  Mr. McCONNELL. So the Senator from Kentucky would be correct in 
concluding that in the previous years, there was a no designation, and 
we all interpret that not to be a no, but no affirmative declaration.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. With the exception of 1979 when there was a 
declaration on the part of, at that time, Mr. Clinton.
  Mr. McCONNELL. But then in a 1990, the year in which he was reelected 
the last time as Governor, he and Mrs. Clinton both checked ``no.''
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Yes, they both checked ``no'' in 1990.
  In 1991, on the joint return filed by Governor Clinton and Hillary 
Rodham, there was a rather curious change. It asks, ``Do you want a 
dollar to go to this fund?'' The answer was ``yes.'' And in the joint 
return, ``Does your spouse want the dollar to go to this fund?'' The 
answer was ``yes.''
  That is a rather curious thing. This was the 1991 return. However, it 
was filed April 14, 1992. By April 14, Governor Clinton was already 
receiving Federal funds for his Presidential campaign that he had 
probably begun receiving since February. So by the time the filing 
occurred, April 14, which is when the President and Mrs. Clinton would 
have checked the box off, because that is when you generally indicate 
your completion of our 1040 form, they had already been receiving 
Federal funds for his Presidential effort.
  So it is quite easy to conclude why he would have had a change of 
heart, because he was receiving Federal funds then. But it is rather 
curious to reflect back on the 1990 return, when both he and Mrs. 
Clinton checked off the ``no'' box, that they did not want to make a 
contribution to Federal funding for elections. The next year when he 
was running for President, he felt a little differently.
  Mr. President, I think that is a reflection, if you will, on public 
opinion over the period of 1977 through 1992 by our current President 
and his attitude over those years toward Federal funding of elections, 
from the standpoint of Presidential elections.
  (Mr. DORGAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I think it is ironic that the President and First 
Lady, when they had the opportunity to cast those votes on public 
financing over that time period, they voted no in that 13-year period. 
I am told that a quick application of arithmetic would indicate that 
during that time the Clintons' joint return they could have checked off 
a total of $26 to finance the Presidential trust fund. But over that 
period they checked off only one single dollar for public financing.
  Mr. President, I ask that the returns I have referred to be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                               1977 RETURN                              
                   Presidential Election Campaign Fund                  
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund........................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1978 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to Presidential Election                           
 Campaign fund?...................................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1979 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1980 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1981 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1982 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1983 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1984 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1985 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1986 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1987 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1988 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1989 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1990 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1991 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               1992 RETURN                              
Do you want $1 to go to this fund?................         Yes        No
If joint return, does your spouse want $1 to go to                      
 this fund?.......................................         Yes        No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I do not fault the President for this sudden change of 
heart in 1992. That is understandable. All of us know it is very 
difficult to run a campaign if you have to rely solely on private 
contributions. It is far easier to have the American taxpayer write a 
check--a blank check--than to have to attend these fundraisers where 
ordinary citizens can demand your accountability.
  But this Senator is not willing to opt for simply the easy way out. I 
do not believe any of us are doing such a good job in this Congress 
that we have a right to pick the pockets of the American taxpayer and 
demand that they ante up campaign funds for our reelection through 
their taxes.
  Moreover, Mr. President, it is incomprehensible at a time when our 
national debt, again, is more than $4.6 trillion, that we would even 
contemplate using Federal money, taxpayer money, to finance 
congressional campaigns. We are all aware that there are more pressing 
needs in our country than to hand over hard-earned taxpayers' money for 
politicians in the House and Senate to run their elections. I would 
venture to say that if we had a referendum on spending $200 million for 
congressional campaigns or using that money to reduce the deficit, the 
vote would overwhelmingly be in favor of reducing the deficit. And it 
would be a great investment because it would reduce the deficit and the 
carrying costs, or the interest.
  I remind my colleagues that as we debate the idea of entitlements--
and that is what this is, an entitlement for politicians--our fiscal 
house has seriously eroded over the last 7 months.
  Let me just go into this for a minute, Mr. President, because at the 
end of July, the administration released its midsession review of the 
budget. The report contained revisions of the budget projections 
contained in the President's February budget, based on actual changes 
in the economy and technical re-estimates of Federal spending. There 
was some euphoria. At first glance, the midsession review seemed to 
bring good news with regard to the Federal deficit.
  For the current fiscal year, the deficit is projected to come in at 
$220 billion, down from $234.8 billion. The good news is not that we do 
not have a deficit; it is that the deficit is less. It is $220 billion 
instead of $234 billion. Next year, the administration projects the 
deficit will be $167 billion, down from February's estimate of $176 
billion. That is some more good news. If one can conclude that that 
downward trend continues, we can have some optimism about our capacity 
as a Government to rein in the deficit by reducing the rate of growth 
of the deficit. That sounds pretty encouraging.
  Unfortunately, Mr. President, these projections mask the seriousness 
of the deficit and the debt problem that will continue to plague our 
Nation, unless we perform some radical surgery on Federal spending, 
especially entitlement spending.
  Where are we reducing our spending? We are reducing it in our 
military capability. Our defense budget continues to drop. That is 
where the cuts are. In our Haiti effort, we had to call up volunteer 
reservists, or were prepared to, or to put them on notice. Haiti is 
pretty small in the sense of a major military effort.
  So as we look at the deficit, we have to ask ourselves: Is the 
deficit declining because we have finally found a way to reduce Federal 
spending? With the exception of the defense budget, the answer is 
clearly ``no.'' The administration's midsession review indicates that 
in this fiscal year Federal spending will be only $4 billion lower than 
it was projected in February. This, unfortunately, is not the result of 
changes in Federal policy, it results because States will not be 
spending as much as they anticipated on Medicaid. That means that 
Federal spending on Medicaid is going to drop.
  Let no one be misled or mistaken. Overall Federal spending is not 
going down. It continues to spiral up. In this fiscal year alone, the 
Federal Government will spend $1.480 trillion. That is $72 billion more 
than was spent in 1993. Next year, and every year thereafter, Federal 
Government spending is going to continue to rise.
  I remind my colleagues who has controlled both the House and Senate 
during those years, and that is where the funds are  appropriated. It 
is not the executive branch that appropriates this money.

  Mr. President, a close examination of the midsession review shows 
that the only reason the deficit is going to decline a little bit this 
year and next year is because tax revenues now are coming in at higher 
rates than were earlier projected. In other words, citizens and 
companies are paying more taxes--$75 billion more--over the next 5 
years than were projected in February. So it is not coming from cuts. 
The differential in lowering the rate of growth of the deficit is 
coming from more tax revenues. Spending is not going down; revenues are 
merely rising because last year Congress passed the largest tax 
increase in the Nation's history.
  So where is it coming from? You guessed it. It is coming from the 
taxpayers, and it is coming from the small business person. What is of 
even greater concern to this Senator from Alaska is that this year's 
and next year's reduction of the deficit is a temporary phenomenon.
  Contrary to the administration's assertion in the midsession review 
that the deficit has now been placed on a downward path, the 
projections contained in that document indisputably show that the 
deficit is getting larger, not smaller. In every year after 1996, the 
deficit is projected to be larger than it was estimated in February.
  For example, in February, the administration estimated that the 
fiscal year 1997 budget would rise to $181 billion. That deficit is 
projected 5 percent higher now. It is up to $190 billion.
  Similar increases are shown for the next 2 years with the fiscal year 
1999 deficit projected up at $207.4 billion.
  The cumulative impact of these budget projections is that over the 
next 5 years the deficit will add more than $935 billion to the 
Nation's current $4.6 trillion national debt. Let me repeat that. The 
cumulative impact of current budget projections is that over the next 5 
years the deficit will add more than $935 billion to the Nation's $4.6 
trillion national debt.
  How can anyone suggest or conclude that we are reducing the deficit 
or reducing the rate of growth of the deficit when one looks beyond 2 
years and looks to 5 years?
  What is more astonishing about the deficit forecast is that the major 
reason the deficit is being reestimated upward is not because health 
care costs are exploding, as the administration would like us to 
believe, but because the interest expense to service our national debt 
is consuming a larger and larger share of the Federal budget. People do 
not understand that when we have this deficit each year, and an 
accumulated debt of $4.6 trillion, we have to borrow that money--and 
pay interest on it. We do not get it for nothing.
  In February, the administration assumed that 91-day Treasury bill 
rates would average 3.4 percent in 1994 and 3.8 percent in 1995; 10-
year Treasury notes were assumed to return 5.8 percent between 1994 and 
1999.
  That is how the Government borrows its money to fund the deficit and, 
unfortunately, pays interest on the accumulated 4.6 trillion dollars' 
worth of debt which continues, as I have indicated, to grow.
  Unfortunately, the administration did not anticipate that these 
historically low-interest rates could not continue indefinitely without 
threatening to ignite a new round of inflation. As every one knows, in 
the intervening 7 months since the February budget, the Federal Reserve 
has raised interest rates on five occasions. And many economists expect 
the Fed to hike rates another half point before the year is over, 
possibly as early as next week, next Tuesday.
  As a consequence of these rate hikes, the administration has revised 
its interest rates computations and assumptions. It is kind of 
interesting. Now it projects 91-day T-bill rates to be 4 percent in 
1994, 4.7 percent in 1995; 10-year notes are now projected to return 
6.8 percent in 1994, and 7 percent in 1995 through 1999.
  That sounds a little dry, perhaps, but as a result of these interest 
rate hikes, we are going to have to spend--we do not have a choice--an 
additional $124 billion over the next 5 years just to service our 
national debt.
  That is something we are going to have to pay because the interest 
rate went up. That is the differential. That is the cost of interest. 
It is like I said time and time before, like having a horse that eats 
while you sleep. It goes on and on and on. It does not provide one job, 
it does not provide for an inventory, it does not provide for a 
payroll. It just goes on; it is like a creeping cancer. If you do not 
address it, it gets out of control.
  That is $124 billion over the next 5 years just to service our 
national debt as a consequence of the increase in interest rate hikes. 
That is on top of the $1.173 trillion that the administration estimated 
would be our 5-year interest bill barely 5 months ago.
  So just 5 months ago they said $1.173 trillion would be our 5-year 
interest bill and now they are acknowledging that we are putting on top 
of that, Mr. President, an additional $124 billion.
  So there is the switch in 5 months. There is some food for thought.
  In fact, if these interest rate assumptions hold up, by fiscal year 
1997 interest costs, Mr. President, will exceed all costs in the 
Federal budget except Social Security. By 1997 interest costs to carry 
the debt will exceed all costs of the Federal budget except Social 
Security. And by 1999, our annual interest bill will be nearly $300 
billion. Mr. President, that assumes that the administration's interest 
rate forecast is correct, the assumptions holds up, that interest will 
not go up.
  I do not know how many of my colleagues recall the prime rate in this 
country in December 1980, 20\1/2\ percent, inflation was running at 11 
percent. The prime rate today is somewhere 6\3/4\ to 7 percent.
  So, Mr. President, one can just visually project the horrors 
associated with where this country would be today if we saw interest 
rates move up and up and up and up beyond the 6 to 7 percent, up to 
where they were in December 1980 with the prime rate at 20\1/2\ 
percent. Small businessman, small businessperson cannot borrow, cannot 
pay it back.
  The theory then was rather interesting. When I was in the banking 
business, many of my borrowers said, well, your interest rate is so 
high but inflation is 11 percent a year, I am going to pay you off with 
cheaper dollars. So it does not really make any difference.
  Well, that is fine until the inflation slowed and then suddenly that 
person had to pay off his debt with very expensive and hard earned 
dollars. Unfortunately, many people did not make that transition. They 
went broke and a lot of people remember that.
  So let us reflect on reality. The reality is we have $4.6  trillion 
in accumulated debt. Our deficits are continuing. The forecasts are for 
increased deficits, and, very frankly, our exposure for survival lies 
in something that is very difficult to control and that is interest 
rates that are low. We have already seen history remind us of the 
reality that interest rates can go up and they can go up very high and 
if they were anywhere near 20\1/2\ percent as they were in 1980 I 
venture to say that our government would be in paralysis.

  Mr. President, over the next 5 years we are going to have to 
refinance the vast majority of our outstanding debt--82 percent of the 
debt. If interest rates were to rise just by 1 percent, the Government 
would have to pay out an additional $150 billion of interest on top of 
the $1.297 trillion projected in the most recent estimate. And I would 
note that based on the most recent market movements, 3-month bill rates 
currently are 5.78 percent and 10-year notes at 7.56 percent, 
significantly higher than the average projected for next year.
  So, I would suggest to my colleagues that without a single stroke of 
the congressional pen, not a single action by us, neither the House or 
the Senate, without a fax machine, without a single change in the 
Federal program, we have in the past 7 months been forced to spend an 
additional $125 billion simply because interest rates rose. That is 
reality, Mr. President.
  Can you imagine what type of a debate we would have had on the floor 
of this body this year if a Senator proposed increasing the Federal 
deficit by $125 billion over 5 years? We would have gone through an 
endless series of contortions, pay-go rules of audit to determine 
whether it should be spent. But when it comes to interest, we cannot do 
anything about it except pay the bill, whether $200 billion or $300 
billion, there is nothing we can do to change that bill unless we do 
one thing, Mr. President, the only thing we can do and we are not very 
good at and that is reduce Federal spending.
  Mr. President, I cite these dreadful numbers to remind my colleagues 
of what this debate is all about, that taxpayer financing of 
congressional campaigns is not only a bad substantive idea but that we 
simply cannot afford the luxury of adding to the deficit and create a 
new $200 million entitlement for Members of this body, and I use the 
$200 million figure with great caution because nobody, not even the 
Congressional Budget Office can accurately assess the cost of this 
proposal.
  When we understand the sorry state of the Federal budget which I hope 
we have a better understanding of now as a consequence of my outline, 
we set up a brand new entitlement for politicians pushed at the 11th 
hour.
  The cost of this entitlement program for politicians is really 
uncertain because it depends on how many candidates there are, how many 
would choose to participate in the new federally funded program under 
this proposal. This would include proposed candidates, major party 
candidates, third party candidates, independent candidates who agree to 
abide by a spending limit and raised a minimal threshold amount would 
be entitled to a host of benefits including broadcast discounts, 
matching funds to counteract independent expenditures, matching funds 
to counteract opponents who spend over the voluntary spending limit.
  The cost of this new entitlement is not foreseeable simply because no 
one can of course predict how many candidates, how many parties there 
will be in 1996 or 1998 or 2000.
  Mr. President, there were 1,200 more congressional candidates in 1992 
than in 1990, a stunning increase that was foreseen. Who can know how 
many would have accepted matching fund had they been available? 
Although many candidates might have been wary of using tax dollars to 
fund their campaigns, hundreds, if not thousands, of additional 
candidates might have run as independents or third party candidates 
because of the availability of Federal taxpayer dollars to fund their 
campaigns.
  We have already seen that in the Presidential candidates some of 
which we never heard of, coming from organizations and committees that 
we do not recognize.
  Mr. President, the election bureaucracy in Washington, the Federal 
Election Commission, would have to explode in size if we create 
taxpayer financing for congressional candidates. The FEC, as it stands 
now, has a tough time functioning. In fact, of the 1992 Presidential 
campaigns, the FEC has yet to complete auditing five of them. Here we 
are in 1994 and still 5 of them left. If we extend taxpayer financing 
to Congress, the FEC staff estimates that the audit division would have 
to double in strength and the Office of the General Counsel would have 
to increase by more than 75 percent. Overall, it is estimated that the 
FEC would need a 50 percent budget increase. And that is considered a 
low estimate.
  Mr. President, the central tenet underlying taxpayer financing of 
elections is the idea that it will encourage candidates to limit the 
amount they spend on their campaign. Yet, where is the evidence that 
spending limits on campaigns are good public policy? They do not work 
and their effect is I think antidemocratic. Virtually ever reputable 
scholar who has examined this issue believes spending limits are bad 
public policy. Let me quote one of the most notable of these scholars, 
Michael Malbin of the Rockefeller Institute of Government who said in 
testimony before the Senate Rules Committee:

       In every presidential election since public funding, 
     spending has gone up--with more and more of the money going 
     off the books and underground.
       If people care enough about an election, they will look for 
     ways to get involved. If they are big and well organized, and 
     cannot contribute directly, then they will look at 
     independent expenditures. Or delegate committees. Or 
     registration and get-out-the-vote. Or communicating with 
     members. Or buying issue ads that publicize the position of 
     an incumbent without directly advocating election or defeat. 
     Or dozens of other devices--some of which have not even been 
     thought up.
       Off-the-book activities like these have become more 
     prominent in every election since 1976. Some of them can be 
     regulated, but there is no way they can all be eliminated 
     without running roughshod over the first amendment. More 
     importantly, all of these devices favor the well organized 
     and the powerful over smaller participants. What the limits 
     seem to be doing, in other words, is encouraging the powerful 
     to engage in subterfuge and legal gamesmanship. It is giving 
     them an incentive to increase their influence in ways that 
     are poorly disclosed. As a cure for cynicism or corruption, 
     this seems bizarre.

  Mr. President, what is really bizarre, really bizarre, is forcing the 
U.S. taxpayers to pay for what in reality is a proven disaster. It has 
not been able to fund itself from contributions. We have seen it 
increased on the 1040 from $1 to $3. We have seen the attitude of our 
President, who clearly has not seen fit to support it until he was a 
recipient of it.
  Not only should we not force taxpayers to pay for congressional 
campaigns, we should reconsider the system which forces taxpayers to 
pay for Presidential campaigns and those quadrennial extravaganzas 
known as our political party conventions.
  Mr. President, I hope it is clear to everyone in this Chamber that I 
have a fundamental aversion to requiring the taxpayers of this country 
to finance our political campaigns. I voted against this bill in June 
1993 for the reasons I have stated. But a majority of Members of this 
body voted for public financing. And one of the reasons that they voted 
for this bill is because the Senate bill completely, Mr. President, 
completely eliminated contributions from political action committees or 
PAC's. The Senate bill eliminated them.
  I believe that a ban on PAC contributions would do more to improve 
the public's perception of elections than any other single act.
  Now, there can be no doubt that a majority on both sides of the aisle 
in the Senate wants to eliminate the influence of PAC's in elected 
politics.
  In fact, just last May, the Senate voted 66 to 29 in favor of my 
amendment--this was in May--my amendment to prohibit the acceptance of 
any gifts to Members of Congress from a political action committee. 
That was my amendment. But the reality of why the campaign finance bill 
has failed to move for more than a year is simply the issue of 
political action committees. And we all know it.
  For several years now, Republicans have advocated zeroing out 
political action committee contributions for congressional candidates. 
Not the current $10,000 per election cycle under current law, not the 
$5,000 per cycle that Common Cause has proposed and admitted would have 
no effect--zero. No political action committee contributions to 
congressional candidates. Period. That is, no political action 
committee, or PAC, contributions to congressional candidates. Period.
  Now, on the other side, the Democratic majority grudgingly went along 
in 1990 inserting the Republican ban provision into their bill just 
before the Senate started debating campaign finance that year. The 
Senate again passed the campaign bill in 1991 which zeroed out PAC 
contributions. When that bill, however, was conferenced in 1992, the 
PAC's, of course, were back. President Bush vetoed the bill, so we 
revisited the matter again in 1993. In June 1993, the Senate passed the 
congressional campaign finance bill that again zeroed out our favorite 
PAC's. In November, 10 months ago, the House, however, rejected the 
Senate political action committee ban and passed a bill that left the 
PAC contribution limit at the current $10,000 per election cycle.
  So when I point out and respond to the criticism of my friend from 
Massachusetts about gridlock; yes, there is gridlock. The gridlock is 
over the PAC issue. The issue is between the Democrats who control the 
House and Senate. They cannot agree. That is the gridlock. And we are 
being blamed for extending debate on an issue that the American public 
clearly does not support, and that is Federal funding of congressional 
elections. So we make no apologies, Mr. President. We are proud. We 
think we are doing a service. We think the American people agree with 
us.
  So the House rejected the Senate's PAC ban and passed the bill that 
left the PAC contribution limit at the current $10,000 per election 
cycle, as I have said. Since November, the House and Senate Democrats, 
as I have said, again, deadlocked over PAC contributions. House 
Democrats refused to budge.
  I remind everyone where Republicans stand on this issue: No campaign 
contributions for PAC's.
  Why do the House Democrats refuse to give up their addiction to PAC 
money? Well, let us take a look at some of the numbers. They are going 
to give us the answer.
  Since passage of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, the 
number of PAC's increased from 608 to 4,729 in 1992. Total PAC 
contributions to Federal election candidates increased from $8.5 
million in 1972 to $189 million in 1992.
  In 1992, PAC contributions comprised 24 percent of Senate campaign 
receipts and 38 percent of House campaign receipts. House incumbent 
Democrats have been particularly reliant on PAC's to fund their 
campaigns. PAC's accounted for 52 percent of their campaign receipts in 
the 1992 election cycle, so House Democrats are understandably 
sensitive to this issue.
  PAC's are touted by their defenders as a means to allow individuals 
to get together and advance their collective interests in politics. 
Presumably, that would include supporting challengers. Yet, in 1992, in 
races where Members were up for reelection, incumbents received 86 
percent of the PAC contributions--$126 million for incumbents versus 
$21 million for challengers.
  Overall, PAC's distributed $161,095,460 to congressional candidates 
in 1992--$24,014,048, 15 percent, went to candidates running for open 
seats. Since the 1970s, PAC's increasingly have funneled contributions 
to incumbents with little or no regard for ideology or voting records. 
Corporate and trade association PAC's are among the worst in this 
regard, giving upward of 90 percent of their PAC contributions to 
incumbents.
  It is readily apparent to this Senator that the primary goal of PAC's 
has been not to support candidates of like mind, but to buy access to 
the powers that be. PAC's epitomize the special interest influence that 
has eroded the American public's confidence in Government. That is why 
Republicans have led the fight to zero out PAC contributions.
  Mr. President, if we want to begin to restore faith in this 
institution of Government, if we want to regain the trust of the 
voters, let us return to legislating in the interest of the people. Let 
us terminate the endless mandates from Washington. Let us balance the 
budget of the United States. Let us adopt tough Federal crime rules 
without wasteful Federal spending. Let us reform those parts of the 
health care system that are in dire need of change. And let us get PAC 
money out of congressional elections.
  But let no one deceive himself into believing that demanding that 
taxpayers finance our campaigns is going to restore faith in this 
institution. It will only feed the cynicism of the electorate and 
ensure that incumbents will become an endangered species.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I just want to thank the distinguished 
Senator from Alaska for his important contribution to this debate. In 
particular, I thought it was interesting to have a look at the tax 
returns of the President and First Lady and their own feelings over 
this issue over the years. I think that was extremely instructive.
  Obviously, the President and First Lady were for many years either 
passive or active opponents of taxpayer-funded elections. Obviously, 
they have had a change of heart.
  I thank the Senator for pointing that out.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Again, I compliment my good friend from Kentucky for 
his diligence in ensuring that the American public understands the 
significance of this debate, and the fact that we on this side of the 
aisle are very proud that we are attempting to identify specifically 
what is in this proposed bill to provide Federal funding for House and 
Senate elections and the prevailing attitude of most Americans, 
including, obviously, the President and First Lady, over a 12-year 
period.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I want to apologize to my colleague 
from Minnesota. I thought we were going to have a little more time 
here.
  But I want to reassure him that there is going to be adequate 
opportunity next week for him to express himself, as he does so 
articulately, on this issue. I look forward to engaging with the 
Senator from Minnesota next Tuesday afternoon and into the evening, if 
he would like, on the propriety of this legislation.
  But, Mr. President, something, I am told by our cloakroom, rather 
unique has happened here in the last 24 hours. I just want to 
congratulate my colleagues and tell them what they did.
  We have not had a quorum call in the Senate since 10:30 yesterday 
morning. We have had a steady stream of speakers, everybody here on 
time, ready.
  And, as a matter of fact, I want to, in the remaining few minutes, 
apologize specifically to Senators Domenici, D'Amato, Lott, Hatch, 
Craig, and Cochran, who were anxious to speak, and unfortunately we 
were simply unable to accommodate them, frankly, even if we had gone 
the full 30 hours.
  So I want to thank them, as well as the others that I did not mention 
who were clamoring to participate, including during the graveyard 
session last night. I have reassured them all that they will have an 
opportunity to decry the notion that we should begin an entitlement 
program with tax dollars for our political campaigns here in the waning 
moments of this session.
  So there will be an opportunity, I want to reassure all my 
colleagues, to address this issue once again next Tuesday, at which 
point we will again use the opportunity to let the American people know 
what is being contemplated; what the majority, which has disagreed on 
this issue for the last 11 months, is seeking to cram through in the 
final waning moments of this Congress.
  One of the senior people in our Cloakroom, Howard Greene, said that 
he had not seen, in the 28 years he has been working in the Senate, 
such a lengthy stretch of uninterrupted speeches on one point and 
without a quorum call. So I want to thank all of my colleagues.
  What everybody should conclude from this is very clear, in case 
anybody missed it: We are trying to kill this bill. In case anybody 
missed it. We make no apologies about that. We are proud of that.
  We think the American people are asking us not to pass taxpayer-
funded elections. They are asking us not to set up a new entitlement 
program for each of us to run our political campaigns with their tax 
dollars.
  And, in case anybody missed it the first time through, we are going 
to have an opportunity to express that message again as skillfully as 
each of us can do it next Tuesday.
  So make no mistake about it. This is an effort to kill a terrible 
bill.
  Now, when the American people talk about gridlock, they do not mean 
passive acquiescence to any crackpot scheme anybody may introduce. I do 
not think that is what the American people have in mind--just roll over 
and let any crackpot idea that anybody may come up go slipping through 
the Congress and get signed by the President so you cannot be accused 
of gridlock. I do not think that is what they had in mind, Mr. 
President. In fact, I know that is not what they had in mind.
  And, as a matter of fact, this Senator, and increasingly many other 
Senators, are convinced that this may end up being the big issue in the 
1994 election.
  So I am sure that the other side would just love to have an 
opportunity to vote on such a terrific issue. I am sure they are 
clamoring for the opportunity to go on record in support of taxpayer-
funded elections, and I know that down deep inside, they are terribly 
upset that, quite possibly, they might not have that opportunity some 
time here before we adjourn.
  But they should not worry. They are already on record supporting this 
in the House in November and in the Senate last June. So do not worry 
about it, anybody in the majority who is concerned about being punished 
by the voters. They already have you on record in favor of this kind of 
reform. So you will be able to go to the public; you will be able to 
take your case to the public this fall and brag about--brag about--
supporting taxpayer-funded elections.
  I am sure we will see commercials in the campaigns of those who voted 
for this dealing with this issue right up front, claiming credit for 
supporting this kind of reform. And the voters will have an 
opportunity, Mr. President, to reward those who feel that this is 
terrific reform of the American political system.
  So I look forward to seeing those commercials, and we look forward to 
taking this issue to the American people.
  Mr. President, I believe it is time for our vote; am I correct in 
that?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Therefore, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator yields the floor.

                          ____________________