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


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

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I thank the Chair.
  Many of us had the privilege of participating in the work of the 
greatest deliberative body in the world through the evening hours last 
night. I had the privilege of going home about 5:30 this morning, 
having participated in what might be at least euphemistically called a 
debate which lasted all through the night.
  I wondered to myself this morning, when I came back out here after a 
quick shower and ready to come back in to the work of the Senate, what 
the American people must think about what is going on; or, more 
specifically, how they must be puzzled by what is going on here. They 
must be scratching their heads. And perhaps their puzzlement, which 
finally turns to anger when they understand what happens or does not 
happen as the U.S. Congress, might have something to do with why in the 
latest polls only 14 percent of the American people say they approved 
of the way the Congress is conducting its business.
  What we have witnessed the last couple of days gives an indication, 
perhaps, as to why the American people feel this way and why they may 
not be all wrong to feel this way.
  We, of course, have been working on a very important issue for the 
future of this country and the future of our political system for many, 
many years--11 years, to be exact--campaign finance reform.
  We all know something is wrong drastically wrong with the way we 
finance campaigns in this country.
  When I first ran for the U.S. Senate 16 years ago, on the average it 
took about $500,000 to $600,000 to successfully win an election to the 
U.S. Senate. Then it went to $1 million, then it went to $2 million, 
and then it went to $3 million, and now it is $4 million, which means 
that, in a 6-year period, the average sitting Senator must figure out 
how to raise $13,000 every single week on the average for 6 weeks to 
come up with that $4 million; which means that you do not have time to 
really solve the problems of the Nation because you have to worry about 
how to raise the campaign money; which means that you do not have the 
opportunity to go back home to your home State and hold town meetings 
and neighborhood meetings to listen to the people and their real 
problems, the people you are supposed to work for, because you have to 
fly around to the money centers of this country, large cities, New 
York, Los Angeles, and other places, trying to figure out how in the 
world you are going to raise the money; which means that when you are 
down to a period of time that is close to the election--and you know 
because you have seen the statistics that well over 90 percent of the 
candidates who raise the most money win the election, you are desperate 
to make sure you keep up with or overcome the amount of fundraising on 
the other side--when you only have a few minutes to spare and you are 
deciding which one of those 10 people in your reception room you are 
going to see and one of them is a PAC manager who can hold a fundraiser 
to raise $200,000 or $300,000 for you in one single night in a 
fundraiser in Washington DC, and another one is a student or a farmer 
or a teacher or a factory worker or small business person from back 
home, who do you see if you only have time to see one?

  Then the American people look at that process and they say--79 
percent of them say--Congress does not really care about people like 
me. Congress does not really represent people like me anymore. Congress 
represents the special interests instead.
  The people are very wise. The people see more than, sometimes, I 
think, those who have been professional politicians think the people 
see and understand. Many times officeholders underestimate the 
intelligence and patriotism of the American people.
  Thank God for that, the common sense of the people and their strong 
sense of commitment to this country, because that is what has kept this 
country going. That is the real strength of this country. Those of us 
who are here are simply privileged to be their representatives, to be 
concerned about them, to represent their points of view, to try to deal 
with their needs, to try to think about the future.
  The people see the effect of a system in which there is no limit--no 
limit--the sky is the limit on how much money you can raise and spend 
in campaigns. In some States there will be as much as $20 million or 
more spent on Senate races this year. And we all know the effect of it.
  Last night when I was talking there were several of our pages on the 
floor, and I reflected on how many times I have given high school 
commencement addresses and how many times I have said to those 
students: ``I hope someday you will think about being a Congressman or 
Congresswoman or a Governor or Senator or President of the United 
States. I hope you will think about running for office. I hope you will 
serve your community--whether you dream to be President of the United 
States or a member of the local school board.'' But I do not have the 
heart to turn around and say, after I have said, ``learn all you can, 
develop all the good ideas you can develop, be ready to give back, be 
ready to contribute,'' I do not have the heart to tell them that in 
addition to learning as much as they can, preparing themselves as much 
as they can, being committed to wanting to give back, having the right 
values, having the right sense of ethics, that they also have to figure 
out how to raise $4 million if they want to run for the U.S. Senate.
  In fact, by the time they are eligible by age to run for the U.S. 
Senate, at the current rate of increase of campaign spending it will be 
more like $10 or $12 million they will have to raise in the average-
size small State to run for the U.S. Senate. So you not only have to be 
the right kind of person, you not only have to learn all you can--you 
have to figure out how you are going to raise that $10 or $12 million, 
because, after all, it has escalated--a 52 percent increase in this 
last election cycle over the 2 years before; $678 million being poured 
into campaigns.
  And over half the money, half the people elected to this Congress 
receive their contributions not from the people back home, not from 
people who had one thing to do with their home districts or home 
States. Many of these people probably never even set foot across the 
State line. But they, over half the people elected here, got over half 
their contributions from political action committees and groups that 
had very little or no connection with their home States.
  To whom do those political action committees and groups, special 
interest groups, give their money; the new person who is trying to 
break into politics, who is running for the first time filled with 
idealism and a desire to serve? Or do they give to the incumbents, the 
people who are already here? That is an easy one. Of course they give 
to the incumbents, those Members of the Congress who are already here. 
They are already chairing the powerful committees or subcommittees, or 
they serve as ranking members. They can do something for you. They have 
power. They have the ability to influence your economic interest.
  So in the last election cycle the political action committees gave at 
the rate of 10 to 1 to incumbents over challengers, $10 to incumbents 
over $1 they gave to challengers in the last election in the House, and 
6 to 1 in the Senate.
  Overall, because there are no spending limits--because there are no 
spending limits--because you can pour money and money and more money 
from every kind of source imaginable into a campaign, if you are 
willing to make the promises to every group that might give you the 
money, incumbents have been able to raise, overall, five times as much 
as challengers.
  So you have a system that is the incumbents' protection plan if there 
ever was one, the current system. And it cries out for reform. It is 
eating away at the heart and soul of the political process. It is 
eating away at the legitimacy of this institution. And it is eating 
away at the trust that the people have of this institution, when they 
know--when they know that money more often than not has played a 
deciding role or a commanding role in the outcome of the elections of 
people who come here.
  And then they know that the time and attention of the Members, the 
men and women who serve in the House and Senate--too much of their time 
and attention has to be focused upon raising the money for the next 
campaign and pleasing those PAC directors and lobbyists and special 
interest groups and others who provide the volume of the money 
necessary to win.
  So, we have been debating about something of vital importance to the 
future of this country. And those who have been opposing it have, as 
always, thrown up a smokescreen. They have thrown up a smokescreen. 
They have used all sorts of phony rhetoric in attacking the proposals 
which we have already passed through this Senate earlier on a vote of 
60 to 38, having imposed cloture with a vote of 62 to 37.
  They have tried to say this is about public financing of campaigns. 
It is not about public financing. I heard figures tossed around on 
floor last night; it made for very dramatic debate. It is very dramatic 
debate. If you are not constrained by the facts you can really give 
interesting speeches. I heard some Members last night say we were 
trying to pass a bill that would cost the taxpayers $1 billion per 
election--$1 billion per election--to clean up the way the campaigns 
are now being run.
  What are the facts? First of all, the bill that passed the Senate as 
it applies to elections to U.S. Senate was estimated to cost, over a 5-
year period--not in one election cycle but over a 5-year period--$23 
million, according to the Congressional Budget Office, for the Senate 
provisions; $23 million, not $1 billion.
  The taxpayers are well aware of the fact it seems like a lot of 
Members of Congress mix up millions and billions and thousands. That is 
the reason we are so capable in the way we put the budget together up 
here. We get a little confused. It is a mere Government error, I guess: 
$1 billion, and $23 million--close, for Government work.
  It is not $1 billion; it is $23 million. And is any of it supposed to 
come from the general taxpayers? Not a penny. There is a provision in 
the bill passed by the Senate, ``No funds required for this act shall 
come from the general taxpayers.''
  First of all, we all know that in order to have a bill that will be 
constitutional--because the Supreme Court, whether we like it or not, 
said about spending limits, to get spending under control we have to 
have a voluntary system. We have to give some incentive to Members of 
Congress in order to allow them to voluntarily accept the spending 
limits.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is advised he has exceeded the 5-
minute limit.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I might be 
allowed sufficient time to complete my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, so, because of the Supreme Court 
decision, if we are going to have spending limits, which are so flatly 
needed, if we are going to put limits on the amount of PAC money 
forthcoming, limits on the amount spent in campaigns, we must offer 
some incentives. And what are the incentives that we offer?
  The incentives that we offer are; one, lower cost television time 
provided by the stations for those candidates who will accept spending 
limits. If they are going to take this step for good government, then 
they should be able to get their television time at less expense. That 
does not cost the taxpayers.
  The second we provide says that on the advertisements, the citizens 
have a right to know is this a candidate who accepts spending limits? 
Or, is this a candidate who wants to raise all the money they can scoop 
in from whatever interest group they can get it? The people have the 
right to know that, and we say the people ought to be informed.
  Finally, there are some very small incentives for lower postal rates 
for those candidates who will accept spending limits.
  And there is a standby provision that says if the other candidate, 
your opponent, will not accept spending limits and then they go over 
the limit and they start spending massive amounts of money, you can get 
some funds out of a good-Government fund to offset what they are 
spending.
  Where does that money come from? From the general taxpayers? No, it 
comes from a registration fee on PAC's, a registration fee on 
lobbyists, a compliance fee, and a registration fee on foreign agents 
who are coming here to lobby us for the interest of people in other 
countries.
  Now, that is not putting a burden on the American taxpayer. We are 
making those who are part of the process, who are seeking to influence 
Congress, pay to clean up the system. Now, Madam President, I submit, 
as close as it is for Government work, $23 million is not a billion 
dollars, and the burden on the taxpayers is not quite the same thing as 
making the PAC's and foreign agents who are lobbying pay registration 
fees in order to clean up our system.
  So a minor divergence of the facts, I guess we would have to say, but 
it sure made for interesting debate to hear talk of billions of dollars 
being picked out of the taxpayers' pockets.
  Well, I have to say, the American people are smart enough to see what 
has happened here. That is part of it.
  And new entitlement for politicians? Picking your pocket for a 
billion dollars? That is not what is going on. It is a debate about 
whether or not we are going to put limits on massive amounts of money 
flowing into campaigns, and whether or not we are going to stop so much 
of that money coming from the political action committees and have it 
raised from individual citizens and small contributions back home in 
reasonable amounts. That is what this is about. The people understand 
it.
  The people also know they are paying through the nose. You talk about 
what the people are paying. They know that they are paying billions of 
dollars for the current system. Why? Well, all those special interest 
groups, all those political action committees that give all that money 
to campaigns expect something in return.
  One Senator once said facetiously, in what was a humorous speech, 
thanking a group of people in a room together at a $1,000 a plate 
dinner: ``Thank you all for coming. I know you expect good Government. 
We promise you good Government and a whole lot more.'' They expect 
something in return. When you look at the tax loopholes that the 
average working man and woman in this country cannot take advantage of 
that are there for others, and when you look at the pork barrel 
projects that cost hundreds of millions of dollars that serve the 
interest of those who give to campaigns, a high price is being paid by 
the American people--a high price--in addition to this fragile loss of 
trust in this country, something that we must all take to heart.
  Let us set aside for a moment exactly the substance of the issue and 
let us talk about procedurally what happened. We stayed here all night. 
There was a threat to filibuster the motion. Do you know what the 
motion we were voting on was, Madam President? The motion was--I hope 
that some of the American people are watching so I can explain, because 
they find this place mysterious. So I want to make it rational and 
logical to the American people as to how we operate here.
  We passed this campaign finance reform bill in June of 1993 by an 
overwhelming bipartisan vote. The House passed a bill, and they passed 
it in a different version. They allowed more PAC money than we did, and 
some other things that most of us would say they should not have done. 
We think our bill is better. The House would probably make the same 
argument.
  We know from reading our civics books and taking American Government 
courses in high school and college that when the Senate passes a bill 
in one version, and the House passes another, you have to get together 
to have a conference committee to work out the differences. That is 
what is supposed to happen.
  Automatically, nearly always automatically, the majority leader will 
get up and say, ``I move that we disagree with the House amendments to 
our bill, and that we seek a conference with the House and appoint 
conferees,'' members of the committee to work out their differences. In 
my 16 years in the Senate, I have rarely seen that motion debated ever, 
debated at all. It is an automatic thing. You have two bills; two 
Houses have to work out the differences.
  What has happened is that the opponents of this bill have said, even 
though it has passed the Senate, even though we had a version pass the 
House, even though it is so important to the American people, they have 
said, ``No, no; we won't let that happen by unanimous consent.'' You do 
it in three motions. ``We are going to filibuster the motion to 
disagree to the House amendments. We are going to make you file a 
cloture motion to stop the filibuster. And then, once that is over, we 
are going to filibuster the next motion, which is a motion to ask for a 
conference committee, and then we are going to filibuster the next 
motion which is the motion to appoint conferees.''
  This is all before the House and Senate can even sit down together 
and see if we can work out a good piece of legislation.
  What happens when you do that? Well, under our rules, they started to 
filibuster, the majority leader filed cloture, we voted on cloture the 
day before yesterday. Only two people voted against cloture. Only two 
Senators, even after the threatened filibuster, voted against cloture.
  Then once you get cloture, once 60-plus Members in the Senate say it 
is time to bring debate to a close, under our rules, you have a right 
to debate 30 more hours on that, 30 hours, after already deciding we 
talked about it long enough. We only talked about this subject 11 
years. That is when Senator Goldwater and I introduced our bill, 11 
years ago. I think the American people know what the debate is about.
  Madam President, we stayed here all last night, around the clock, 
running out 30 hours of debate, and then a minute ago, we voted on the 
motion to disagree with the House amendments to our bill. And guess 
what? You would have thought that had been a very close vote. After 
all, we argued about it for 30 hours; we had to file cloture; there was 
a filibuster.
  Guess what the vote was? Ninety-three to nothing; 93 to 0. Not a 
single Senator voted against the motion to disagree with the House 
amendments. Now, does that not make sense to the American people that 
we stayed here all night long; we had a filibuster lodged against this 
motion to disagree with the House amendments to our bill; we stayed 
here for 30 hours tying up the Nation's business, keeping people up all 
night long, and then it was a unanimous vote? About as clear as mud.
  And now they say, ``Well, we are going to filibuster the next motion. 
We are going to make you file cloture on the next motion to request a 
conference,'' and I expect we will have 30 more hours of debate then, 
and that will pass overwhelmingly.
  Then they say, ``We are going to filibuster again,'' and then there 
will be 30 more hours. By the way, you have to put in 2 days before you 
can vote on the motion to invoke cloture. I have been leaving that out: 
30 hours, then 48 hours; 30 hours, then 48 hours.
  Madam President, the American people watch all that. By the way, if 
we go to a conference committee and we work out a bill that would 
command a majority in both Houses, bipartisan majority, and we come 
back here, they have a right to filibuster the conference report 
itself. You file cloture on that, and then you have to wait 2 more days 
after to vote, then 30 more hours debate on that, all before you can 
ever get to the bill.
  Why, Madam President? Why in the world would this be going on? Is 
this any way to conduct the people's business? No wonder 14 percent 
have confidence in us. When you look at what went on the last 24 to 48 
hours, I said I think 14 percent is a higher rating than we deserve.
  Madam President, it is pretty clear. I suppose some politicians think 
they can fool the American people. Any American who has ever watched a 
football game knows what is going on. We are supposed to adjourn for 
good--the people may be saying ``thankfully'' by now--on October 7 or 
October 8. So what is going on here?
  Even though they are not going to vote against the motion to disagree 
with the House amendments, which everybody admits very few disagree 
with it, even though they are not going to oppose the motion to ask for 
a conference, or even though they are probably not going to oppose the 
motion to appoint conferees, they know if you take 30 hours, 48 hours, 
30 hours more, 48 hours, 30 hours more, 48 hours more, just because of 
the procedures that are required, that you can run out the clock.
  Anybody that has ever watched a football game knows what it means 
when a team decides to run out the clock. That is what is going on, 
Madam President, and they think we are fooling the American people? The 
American people know that. Then, when the clock has finally run out and 
we are unable to pass campaign finance reform, something that badly 
needs to be done in this country, to clean up the political system of 
this country, to restore the trust of the American people, which we so 
badly need--that is the first thing you have to do if you are going to 
work together to solve problems.
  We have terrible problems in this country. What are we going to do 
about health care? How are we going to bring the budget deficits down? 
What are we going to do about educating and nurturing the next 
generation of people? Ten percent, fifteen percent of children born in 
the 10 largest cities in this country every year have parents desert 
those children before they are 2 weeks of age. We have problems, Madam 
President.
  If we are going to work together to solve problems, we have to trust 
each other. We have to respect each other. We have to stop playing 
political games. People back home say to me, ``Why can't you people 
just act like Americans. We can't you get together and be Americans. We 
don't care whether you are Democrats or Republicans. We are tired of 
hearing about whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. We are tired 
of hearing you all act like a bunch of children on the school ground 
fighting at recess over who's king of the mountain, who can embarrass 
the other side, who can force votes out here that will embarrass the 
other side, who can think up a vote that will make a good 30-second 
spot in the next election. Enough of it.''
  The people have said to us, ``Enough of it. We are sick and tired of 
that kind of party politics. We want you to do something that solves 
the problems of this country. We can get together. We can get together 
in our neighborhood to solve problems. We expect you to be able to get 
together in the Congress of the United States and solve the problems.''
  Well, Madam President, I am afraid what is going on here--and I have 
crossed party lines many, many times, and I do not make accusations 
very often of a partisan nature, but I think there is a desire to be 
able to go out and say this Congress has failed on nearly everything. 
We have failed on many things, but one of the ways you can make sure 
that we will fail on nearly everything is keep things from even being 
able to come up for a vote.
  Then you can say, ``They couldn't act on campaign reform.'' Why? Was 
it because the majority of the Congress did not want to be for it? Was 
it because a majority did not want to clean up the system, clean up 
PAC's, stop runaway spending? A majority wants to do it. It will be 
because a determined group in the minority in the Congress decided to 
run out the clock. And then they can say, ``Look at that do-nothing 
Congress that didn't deal with campaign reform, or other pressing 
issues.'' By running out the clock, they prevent us from being able to 
act on matters of great importance to this country.
  So I appeal again to my colleagues from the other side of the aisle, 
as close as I know it is for Government work, let us not confuse $1 
billion with $23 million. Let us not call it picking the pockets of the 
average American taxpayer when we know that all we have ever talked 
about is some registration fees on PAC's, lobbyists, and foreign 
agents. Let us not make that confusion any longer. Let us talk about 
the real issue. Do we think it is good to stop runaway campaign 
spending or not? Do we think it is good to put limits on what PAC's can 
pour into campaigns so people will start to get most of their 
contributions from the people back home instead of the power interest 
groups here in Washington, DC?
  That is the issue. Let us talk about the issue. And then let us have 
a chance to resolve it once and for all, a chance to resolve it once 
and for all.
  Let us not follow a strategy of just running out the clock to prevent 
a decision from being made. That is not right. That is letting down the 
American people. The American people deserve better from us.
  I heard my colleague from Vermont speak a moment ago. He happens to 
be a Republican. I am a Democrat. He talked about what he hoped to see 
in campaign finance reform, what he hoped to see coming out of an 
agreement between the House and Senate. He made an excellent speech. I 
agreed with every single point he made. He wanted to make sure we 
started emphasizing in-State contributions more, and that we had the 
same limits on what PAC's can give to House Members and Senate Members 
so we play by the same rules. He wants to make sure we do not convert 
campaign contributions to personal use. I agree with what he said.
  As we have been talking with the leaders on the other side of the 
Capitol, on the House side, I and the majority leader and others have 
been working to uphold those very same principles that he spoke about 
here. He has made an enormous contribution. There are many people who 
are seeking across party lines to work together here to make something 
positive happen. I want to express my appreciation to those on the 
Republican side of the aisle as well as on this side of the aisle who 
have been working for a constructive solution.
  To those who have been using the rules to simply run out the clock, 
to prevent us from acting on something of this importance, I appeal to 
them: Change your minds about that. Let us debate the issue. Let us 
have a chance to make a decision. If you think you are fooling the 
American people when they turn on their TV sets at 4 o'clock in the 
morning and they see a filibuster being staged, and they see us 
debating something, and they see us going on for hours and hours and 
hours, and then when they see a vote down here of 93 to 0 after all 
that sound and fury, if we think that we are outsmarting the American 
people by what is going on here, we are wrong.
  Anyone who thinks that is wrong. Anyone who thinks that the American 
people have not been to a football game and do not know what it means 
to run out the clock is vastly underestimating the intelligence of the 
American people. But more importantly, we will be letting down the 
American people. We will be letting down the American people. If the 
American people lose faith in the Congress of the United States as 
being a body of men and women who will truly represent them, their 
thinking, and will truly try to grapple with their needs, and will 
truly try to prepare to help the next generation, their children and 
grandchildren, and keep this a great, strong nation, if they lose their 
confidence in us, if they lose their confidence in this institution, 
the Congress of the United States, they will have lost their faith in 
the fundamental building block of the legitimacy of the whole system.
  Have we forgotten that when this country was formed, it was formed on 
a cry of no taxation without representation--representation, a belief 
that the system represents us, the people at the grassroots; that the 
people, that we are really in charge, that we have some ability to 
effect our own destiny.
  Madam President, there is great anger in this country, great anger in 
this country, frustration in this country, cynicism about our 
Government in this country that has gone beyond the bounds of what is 
good or healthy for our society.
  When are we going to wake up to what this breach of trust and 
confidence is doing to the heart and soul of this country and to the 
social fabric of this country?
  How long, how long, Madam President, how long are we going to wait to 
do our duty as trustees of this institution? How long? We have waited 
too long. We must not wait a day longer. We cannot afford all-night 
shenanigans. We cannot afford postcloture filibusters. We need to get 
on with doing the Nation's business and restoring the trust of the 
people in this institution and in the Government, and restoring their 
faith that they can make a difference, that they count for something, 
that their voices will be heard here, and not just the voices of those 
who have the money to buy a ticket to get into a $1,000 or a $5,000 or 
a $10,000 campaign fundraising event.
  We are the trustees. No one else can pass this bill. If the people 
could pass it, they would have passed it a long time ago; 86 percent of 
the American people want spending limits, according to polling data. 
They cannot vote here. But we were sent here to represent them. We 
should do our duty as trustees. Until we do, we will have been derelict 
in our duty, and we will have brought on ourselves the tragic loss of 
trust of the American people.
  Madam President, I hope that my colleagues will ponder these points 
over the weekend. I hope the procedural delays will stop. I hope those 
who might have very honest disagreements with me and those who are for 
this legislation will at least give use the opportunity, without a run-
out-the-clock strategy, to see if we can put together--maybe we will 
fail, but give us the opportunity to at least try to put together--a 
bill that will be fair. And then I appeal to them, let us have some 
truth in debating. Let us at least make that correction of $1 billion 
to $23 million, and make it clear it is not coming from the average 
American taxpayer. Then perhaps we can talk about the main subject, and 
that is whether or not we should stop runaway campaign spending.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________