[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 140 (Friday, September 30, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 30, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES CAMPAIGN SPENDING LIMIT AND ELECTION REFORM 
                              ACT OF 1993

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
Senate will now resume consideration of the motion to request a 
conference on disagreeing votes of the two Houses on S. 3, which the 
clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       Resolved, That the bill from the Senate, S. 3, entitled 
     ``An Act entitled the `Congressional Spending Limit and 
     Election Reform Act of 1993,''' do pass with amendments.

  The Senate resumed consideration of the motion.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time between now and 9:30 a.m. 
is equally divided and controlled between the Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Boren] and the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell].
  Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
able to speak for 5 minutes of Senator Boren's time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I want to just give one example that I think tells a 
very large story about the mix of money and politics in our country 
today. It is an example that comes from the health care debate that we 
have gone through here in the Congress. And I do think, by the way, 
that what has happened with health care makes the best case for 
campaign finance reform that I know.
  Madam President, several months ago, I was invited to speak to a 
gathering of surgeons. There were about 350 surgeons. It was early 
morning. I was supposed to speak at 8:30. I arrived at 8:25. I went to 
the back of the room to get a cup of coffee, at which point the 
director, political director--a nice person, this is not a snide 
comment I am about to make--was talking to the doctors. And now I 
essentially quote him. He said when you go to see your Senator or 
Representative, you cannot give them a PAC check in their office. So 
they may want to go out in the hall to receive it, or if they do not go 
out in the hall they will tell you where to send it. Then he hesitated, 
and he looked at everybody and said with a smile, ``But they will take 
it,'' at which point there was among 350 doctors this kind of cynical 
but also awkward laugh because, after all, if they thought there was 
something wrong with the taking of the money, they were doing the 
giving; they were part of this enterprise as well.
  Now it was my turn to speak, and I stood up and said to the doctors, 
in all due respect to you and to others, I do not think Senators and 
Representatives, Democrats or Republicans, should be taking any of this 
political action committee money and--and--large contributions, should 
not be taking any contributions from anyone in the health care 
industry, broadly defined, over $100 per person.
  Madam President, I thought there was going to be hostility, and 
instead there was almost a standing ovation, which really surprised me. 
Then I looked at everybody in the room. I was a teacher for 20 years. 
You were a teacher. You learn to read faces. I looked at these doctors, 
and I said now I understand what is going on here. You are told, or you 
actually believe that you have to come to the Nation's Capitol, 
checkbook in hand, to have influence. I am told I have to raise the 
average of $13,000 a day to be viable for reelection. No wonder people 
are losing confidence in this process. No wonder there is the anger.
  This vote at 9:30 is a critically important vote. I hope people in 
the country will understand that this is a vote which just determines 
whether we can go to conference committee to try and work out an 
agreement whereby we can begin to reduce the huge amount of money that 
is injected into politics in our country. It is not a be all or an end 
all, but it certainly would make a huge difference. And I know the 
people in Minnesota, the people in Washington, the people in Kentucky, 
and people around the country find the amount of money that is spent on 
these races to be obscene, hate to see this money chase, feel that they 
are all too often cut out of the loop, feel that the Government is not 
responsive, and they want these elections to be their elections. These 
elections do not belong to the people of this country any longer.
  Communication technology has become the main weapon of electoral 
conflict. It is capital intensive, requires huge bucks, and therefore 
those individuals, groups, and organizations that have those huge bucks 
are the people who can most affect our tenure or lack of tenure. 
Therefore, they have too much access, too much influence, too much 
power, and too many people are left out.
  This is as important a vote as Senators are going to cast in this 
Congress, and I hope Senators will vote for cloture so we can go to 
conference committee, so that we can work out what I think will be a 
very, very important reform which is all about making this process more 
accountable and making representative democracy operative in our 
country.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Good morning, Madam President.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky is 
recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, this vote we will have this morning 
will be an opportunity for us to for the last time this year, and I 
believe for the last time for years to come, put an end to the notion 
that it is somehow appropriate for the Government to dictate how much 
speech will be allowed in political campaigns in America, and, further, 
to have that speech paid for by the taxpayers of the United States. 
That notion, it seems to me, has been clearly discredited over the last 
few years and particularly in the course of this debate. Hopefully, 
this morning we can put that foolish notion to rest forever.
  Just to recount a little bit of how we got to where we are, Madam 
President, the Senate passed a campaign finance bill September 17, 
1993. That is last year, June of last year. On November 22, 1993, the 
House of Representatives passed a different version of the campaign 
finance bill. Now all these months later, just days before the final 
adjournment of the 103d Congress, the majority has decided it wants to 
appoint conferees to reconcile the two bills. Keep in mind, Madam 
President, these bills came out of the House and the Senate last year. 
Campaign finance bills are not like fine wine; their prospects do not 
improve with age. In fact, the older the vintage, the more likely the 
contents are spoiled goods.
  Yet here we are today: after 10 months of Common Cause direct-mail 
solicitations; after 10 months of Roll Call and Congress Daily 
articles; after dozens and dozens of haranguing editorials in the 
Washington Post and the New York Times; after 10 months of speculation 
that it would be next week, next month, before the Easter recess, 
before the Memorial Day recess, before the Fourth of July recess, 
before the August recess; after 10 months during which the east coast 
froze and thawed and started getting chilly again; 10 months during 
which the Santa Monica Freeway collapsed and rose again from the 
rubble; one Super Bowl, one NBA final, one March Madness, one Dream 
Team, one World Cup, and one baseball strike later.
  Finally, Senate, and House Democrats have come to an agreement among 
themselves.
  After 10 tortuous, nail-biting, edge-of-your-seat months, and just 
when the suspense had become almost unbearable, Senate and House 
Democrats have broken the campaign finance gridlock--among themselves.
  Yes, Madam President, it is true. Gridlock. As I say that awful, ugly 
word, shivers run down the spines of decent folk everywhere. I regret 
to inform you, Madam President, that gridlock has invaded these 
hallowed Chambers.
  Yes, we have got trouble right here in River City. That starts with 
``T'' and that rhymes with ``G'' and that stands for gridlock.
  But the gridlock was just over on the other side of the aisle. Or to 
use the majority leader's favorite new word, Democratic obstructionism. 
Senate and House Democrats have been the ones holding up action on 
campaign finance reform for the last 10 months. That is where the 
gridlock has existed for nearly a year: on the other side, on their 
version of campaign finance reform. And what is truly amazing is that 
these bills, which were written entirely by the other side's 
congressional leadership, have been obstructed because they could not 
agree on what should be in their final package. It has been an epic 
struggle over the last year, but the truth is that Republicans have 
played no part in it.
  It was the other side that was deadlocked over who to stick with the 
bill for a new entitlement program for politicians, or whether to even 
start such an entitlement program, given the violent opposition of most 
voters.
  And then there was the critical issue of what to do about political 
action committees. PAC's: To be or not to be that was the question that 
bedeviled those meetings between House and Senate Democratic leaders.
  Whether 'tis nobler in the campaign to suffer the deprivation of such 
outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of challengers, and 
by accepting PAC money, defeat them. That was the question that wracked 
the very souls of those stalwart Democratic negotiators.
  But now, after almost a year of bickering between House and Senate 
Democratic leaders on their own campaign finance bills, they have 
finally ended the gridlock--the obstructionism--among themselves.
  A Democrats-only conference has produced a deal that only Common 
Cause could love: chockfull of PAC's, taxpayer financing for 
congressional campaigns, carefully concealed incumbent protection 
devices, separate rules for the House and Senate, and obscenely 
unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.
  This is the kind of bill that gives gridlock a good name. The 
highlights of this deal are as follows:


                             pac's aplenty

  PAC contribution limits will be gently phased down to $6,000 per 
election cycle by 1998; this applies to both House and Senate 
candidates. Common Cause has stated publicly that lower PAC 
contribution limits will have virtually no effect on the total PAC 
receipts of House incumbents. A perfectly phony nonreform.
  The aggregate limit for PAC contributions is increased for House 
candidates only, from 33 to 40 percent of total receipts. The net 
result: House incumbents will be able to dun more PAC's for more money.
  Leadership PAC's maintained by Members of Congress will be phased out 
by the end of 1996--sort of the ``soft trigger,'' you might call it. Of 
course there will be a new entitlement program for Congress. Complying 
House candidates will be eligible for food stamps for politicians: 
taxpayer-funded matching payments to buy their TV ads. This is the 
House Democrats' revenge for not getting their pay raise, probably.
  All complying candidates will receive unlimited infusions of taxpayer 
dollars to counteract independent expenditures and excessive speech by 
their opponents.
  All complying candidates will get a generous mail subsidy, paid for 
by everyone in America who buys stamps. Plus they will get a 50-percent 
broadcast discount, the latest unfunded mandate.
  They are going to make the broadcast industry pay for these 
campaigns.
  The other side has claimed that their entire proposal will cost just 
$168 million over 5 years. Well, that is a lot of money, but quite 
frankly it is pretty hard to see how it could only cost $168 million.
   However, the other side's cost estimate is also simply incorrect. 
Leaving aside the independent expenditure counteracting funds, the mail 
subsidy, the financing of fringe candidates--all of which cost millions 
and millions of dollars--you can add it up on the back of a napkin that 
the basic package of matching funds for House candidates will run $174 
million every 2 years.
  And besides, what entitlement program has not ended up exceeding its 
initial cost projections?
  They usually grow out of sight.
  A lot of the funding for this new entitlement program comes from new 
taxes on speech. Among the funding provisions are income tax forms that 
will include an add-on of $5 per person, or $10 for joint filers, to 
fund campaigns for Congress. I bet that is going to get an overwhelming 
positive response from the people filing their tax returns.
  PAC's will be charged a 5-percent reporting fee--that is, tax--on 
their total receipts, for the privilege of giving to House incumbents.
  Everyone classified as a lobbyist will pay a fee--that is, tax--for 
the privilege of petitioning their Government. The filing fee for 
foreign agents will be increased.
  All candidates will have to pay the top corporate tax rate on their 
campaign committee investment income; amazingly, it's not retroactive.
  Then there is the speech tax which will impose the top corporate tax 
rate on the total receipts of any candidates who exceed the speech 
limit. That is a terrific idea. Maybe we could extend it further and 
tax pornography, dirty rock lyrics, TV violence, and how about 
newspaper editorials? That might be the favorite of many of us.
  After helping to obstruct this bill for nearly a year, the majority 
leader is complaining that the Republicans' supposedly obstructionist 
tactics have not been used in the Senate for 210 years. My response is 
that the Senate has rarely seen a bill in its 210-year history that so 
deserved to be obstructed as this one.
  Let us compare this 11th-hour deal to the principles outlined by the 
Republicans who supported cloture on the bill last year.
  On PAC's: The Senate voted 86 to 11 last year to ban PAC 
contributions and leadership PAC's. The Republicans' principles--which 
was not my position--included: First, PAC contribution limits should be 
no higher than individual contribution limits; second, we should pursue 
aggressive aggregate limits; and third, the House and Senate must play 
by the same rules.
  All of those were in the statement of principles of the Republicans 
last summer who supported cloture on the bill; not my position.
  This deal fails on all three counts.
  It would just phase down the PAC contribution limit to $6,000 per 
election cycle. Moreover, candidates could get up to $5,000 from PAC's 
before the primary, a measure clearly designed to benefit incumbents 
only.
  This deal would also raise the aggregate limit for House candidates 
only to 40 percent of total receipts.
  Not surprisingly, as of the middle of this year, House Democratic 
candidates have gotten on average 41 percent of their total receipts 
from PAC's.
  As I said earlier, Common Cause has said that these lower 
contribution limits would have almost no impact on House PAC receipts. 
It is a nonreform, a transparent trick.
  Let us look at the Republican statement of principles on taxpayer 
financing, Madam President. Again, this was reflected in a statement of 
principles last summer by the Republicans who supported cloture, not my 
position.
  Let us look at the Republican statement of principles on taxpayer 
financing. Last year, their letter said that we should avoid taxpayer 
financing and we should not create a new entitlement program for 
politicians.
  The Republican's point No. 9 stipulated that the bill must ``clearly 
incorporate the method for offsetting the cost;'' and ``if public 
financing is available during general elections, it must be available 
during primaries * * *.'' And House and Senate rules must be the same.
  This deal again fails all of these principles.
  The Democrats' 11th-hour deal provides matching funds for House 
campaigns only--no comparable funding for the Senate. There are no 
public funds available for primaries, which violates one of the 
Republican principles intended to protect challengers.
  Further, although the deal suggests some obscenely unconstitutional 
ways to fund this new entitlement for politicians, it's not clear where 
they intend to stick the actual financing mechanisms.
  It is also doubtful they will ever be able to come up with the money. 
I can just imagine the glut of taxpayers who will want to add another 
$10 to their tax bill on April 15--when they are already in a great 
mood--to pay for congressional campaign bumper stickers and negative 
ads.
  Who dreams up these ideas, anyway?
  Next, let us see how this deal stacks up against the Republican 
principle of same rules for the House and Senate.
  As the Republican letter clearly stated,

       * * * the House and Senate must play by the same rules. If 
     certain kinds of campaign practices are unacceptable for one 
     body, they shouldn't be permitted in the other.

  The Democrats' 11th-hour deal treats the House as if it is ethically 
challenged. It treats the House more leniently on PAC's, allows the 
House to send franked mass-mail during election years, and provides 
matching funds to House candidates in the general election.
  The obvious question is: What happens if a House Member runs against 
a sitting Senator?
  Let us go to another important issue raised by the group of 
Republicans who supported cloture last time.
  They stipulated that the final bill should prohibit campaigns from 
paying back personal loans made by the candidate. This was an effort to 
close the millionaire's loophole--whereby wealthy candidates can loan 
their campaigns huge sums of money, and then pay themselves back with 
post-election contributions after they win.
  In fact, the Senate-passed bill banned post-election paybacks of 
candidate loans.
  However, the Democrats' 11th-hour deal disposed of that provision, 
citing constitutional reasons. It is comforting that the other side has 
finally discovered the Constitution on this issue--but not terribly 
convincing.
  Let us look at another key issue. Last year, Senator Jeffords 
attached an important amendment to the Senate bill, which required full 
disclosure of all nonparty soft money--and allowed political parties to 
provide matching funds for candidates to respond.
  The proposal before us would require disclosure of nonparty soft 
money, but it omits the crucial provision allowing political party 
matching funds.
  As a result, candidates would be able to see who is shooting them and 
how much ammunition they have; but they would not have the wherewithal 
to shoot back. Some deal.
  Finally, I want to mention one other issue where the other side has 
ignored our serious concerns. Last year, Senator Cohen offered a key 
amendment deleting the bill's controversial FEC enforcement 
provisions--including one section that gave the FEC general counsel--an 
unelected career bureaucrat--a tie-breaking vote to initiate 
investigations.
  The 11th-hour deal put forth yesterday virtually ignores the 
legitimate concerns raised by Senator Cohen's amendment.
  It would restore nearly all of the deleted enforcement provisions--
except the section giving the general counsel tie-breaking vote. 
Instead, a Democratic leadership memo sent to the Republicans group 
states that:

       Consideration is also being given to providing the General 
     Counsel with subpoena power to expedite cases by eliminating 
     need to get Commission approval for each subpoena.

  The fact is that giving the general counsel unilateral subpoena power 
is a back-handed way of allowing him to initiate investigations without 
Commissioner approval. Another restored provision would give the FEC 
injunctive power to shut down campaigns for any alleged violations.
  Taken point by point, this 11th-hour deal does not pass the reform 
test posed by Republicans who supported cloture last year. It does not 
even come close.
  In conclusion, this is the kind of legislation that gives gridlock a 
good name.
  The other side has helped to obstruct the progress of this bill for 
almost an entire year. The least we can do--as Republicans who want to 
stop this entitlement program for politicians--is obstruct it for 
another week.
  His is the vote that counts. We now know what is in the other side's 
plan, and it is not going to change. Roll Call observed yesterday that 
any conference at this point would be a mere formality. They are right.
  We do not need to drag this out any further: Now is the time to stop 
this terrible bill.
  Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma is 
recognized.
  Mr. BOREN. Madam President, how much time to I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 9 minutes remaining.
  Mr. BOREN. I yield myself 8 minutes.
  Madam President, there is an old tactic used in any political 
argument and that is to throw up a smokescreen if you do not want to 
really talk about the issue at hand. That is exactly what happened in 
this debate. We have had smokescreen after smokescreen after 
smokescreen thrown up in the course of this debate, because those 
opposing this basic reform do not want to really talk about the major 
issue.
  The major issue is whether or not this Congress will finally put a 
stop to the money chase in American politics, whether or not we will 
finally adopt a system that will allow a reasonable amount of money to 
be spent, but not more than a reasonable amount; whether or not we can 
return competitiveness in American politics to competition based upon 
the ideas candidates put forward, based upon the character of those 
candidates, based upon the qualifications and experience of those 
candidates; or whether or not we are going to continue to have 
elections run and decided mainly on the basis of which candidate can 
raise the most money. That is the issue, clear and simple.
  Do the American people want the Members of the Congress of the United 
States using their time in dealing and grappling with the problems at 
hand, being full-time policymakers, listening to the American people, 
or do they want us to be part-time policymakers and full-time 
fundraisers? Because if you are going to raise the $4 to $5 million in 
the average State, or $10 to $20 million in a large State--which it 
costs on the average, according to all the figures to successfully wage 
a race for the U.S. Senate--there is no way that you can be anything 
other than a full-time fundraiser.
  The issue is whether or not we will take Congress off the auction 
block and make Congress again accountable to the average American 
citizen. As I have said time and time again on this floor in the last 
few days, well over 80 percent of the American people now say they do 
not believe that Congress cares about people like them. They do not 
believe that Congress represents people like them. We can no longer 
afford to play Russian roulette with the American political system by 
refusing to make reforms that would restore the trust and confidence of 
the American people back in their own political institutions. That is 
what is at issue here--whether or not we are going to have undue 
influence by those that have the ability to write thousand-dollar 
checks, or $5,000 and $10,000 PAC checks, or hold $300,000 and 
$400,000-a-night fundraisers here in Washington, or whether or not we 
are going to say that Members of the Congress should go back home to 
the grassroots, listen and talk to their people, learn about their 
problems, finance chair campaigns largely in contributions from the 
grassroots.
  Is it good for this country? Can we really say it has been good for 
this country that the cost of campaigns, just during the 16 years I 
have served in the Senate, have gone from half a million dollars on the 
average to win a successful U.S. Senate race to over $4 million, up 52 
percent in the last election cycle, well on the way to $10 million 
early in the next century. Is that good for the American political 
process? Is it good that over half of the money coming to over half the 
Members elected to this Congress, this sitting Congress, came not from 
the people in their own States and districts, not from people that have 
ever set foot in their States, but from special interest groups trying 
to affect the legislative agenda and the policy agenda of this country? 
Is that good?
  If you can say that has been good for this country, that more and 
more of the money to finance campaigns has come not from the people, 
but from the Political Action Committees, the interest groups outside 
the home State, then vote against this bill. If you can say you think 
it will be good for the political system for the average cost of 
campaigns, the cost of winning and mounting a successful race for the 
U.S. Senate, to have gone from half a million dollars to $4 million, on 
its way to $10 million and $20 million, then vote against this bill. 
Just say I like it as it is. If you think it is fair to have a system 
that protects incumbents and keeps out new people with new ideas and 
new hopes to contribute to their country, then vote against this bill, 
because under the current system with the unlimited right to raise 
money, incumbents, sitting Members of Congress, on the average, have 
raised 5 times as much as challengers. That is what the current system 
allows, since in over 90 percent of the cases the candidate that raises 
the most money wins, obviously the incumbents usually win. If you think 
you like a system under which the special interests, political action 
committees, give $10 to every sitting Member of Congress because they 
are already here with power and are on those key committees that effect 
their interest rates--$10 for every dollar they give to challengers, 
people with new ideas that want to break into the system, then vote 
against this bill, because you like the status quo, you like Congress 
on the auction block, you like the perception of the American people 
that the average citizen out there--that student, that teacher, that 
factory worker, that small business person, that farmer who cannot 
write $1,000 check, that perception they have that Congress no longer 
represents them because money is deciding American politics. If you 
believe that, then vote against this bill.
  That is the issue. The American people are watching us; the American 
people are holding us accountable. As I have said day in and day out, 
how long are we going to wait? We have waited, we have watched. The 
confidence in the American people in this institution is down. This is 
their Congress, their institution; they own everything in this room--
and they should. We have watched their confidence fall from 60 percent 
to 50 percent, and we waited on reform and saw it fall to 40 percent, 
and we waited on reform. Then we saw it fall to 30 percent and to 20 
percent, and now it is down to 14 percent.
  How long are we going to wait to give the American people back this 
institution? How long are we going to wait to take action that will 
cause the American people to say once again: We believe the Congress of 
the United States represents us. We believe the Congress of the United 
States cares about people like us. We want a system in which the 
Members running for election will not have to spend their time in New 
York, Miami, or Los Angeles, or Chicago, because that is where the 
money is. We will have a system where they can have the time to come 
back home and talk to us, the people who vote in the elections at the 
grassroots, the people to whom this Government should belong.
  We have heard a smoke screen, a smokescreen: ``Oh, this is going to 
cost,'' we heard in some debate, ``a billion dollars every 2 years.'' 
The Congressional Budget Office says it is going to cost $168 million 
every 5 years; $168 million in 5 years versus $1 billion in 2 years. It 
is not surprising that these figures get confused. It is ``close enough 
for Government work.'' Government is not very good on its estimates. It 
is just only about a tenfold error over 5 years.
  We have had another argument: This is an entitlement for politicians. 
This is not an entitlement. This is an appropriated fund. This bill 
says if there is not enough money in the fund to pay any of the 
benefits to induce people to have spending limits, then the benefits 
are cut back proportionally. It is not an entitlement for any politics. 
It is an entitlement for the American people to take back their own 
Government. Nor is it a tax on the American people. We have had that 
argument. This is a tax to pay for politicians. Look at how the revenue 
is raised: By registration fees on lobbyists, on those who represent 
foreign governments, agents of foreign powers; registration fees on 
political action committees, and investment income on campaign 
committees.
  That is not $1 of tax on the average American. It is a clean 
Government fund to put the Governmental power back in the hands of the 
American people.
  The issue is this: Do you want to stop the money chase in American 
politics? Do you want to take Congress off the auction block? This is 
your chance. Let us not wait until there is not a solitary soul left in 
this country that no longer has confidence in this institution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, after much soul searching I have come to 
the conclusion that I must vote against invoking cloture on the 
campaign finance reform bill. I believe that we must reform the 
campaign finance system. The money chase that occurs is obscene, and it 
must be stopped.
  I wanted to be able to allow this bill to go to conference so that a 
good bill could be crafted. However, yesterday afternoon I was made 
aware of the fact that House Speaker Foley, Congressman Gephardt, 
Senator Mitchell, Senator Ford, and Senator Boren held a press 
conference to announce that a deal had been struck on campaign finance 
reform. They distributed to the press gathered there a four-page 
summary of the bill they had agreed upon. With this announcement my 
hopes and aspirations for meaningful campaign finance reform were 
dashed.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the document I referred 
to be inserted in the Record at this point.
  There being no objection, the summary ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 Congressional Campaign Spending Limit and Election Reform Act of 1994


                 congressional election spending limits

       A system of voluntary flexible spending limits would be 
     established for Senate and House campaigns. For candidates to 
     the U.S. Senate, the spending limit would be based on state 
     voting age population, ranging from a minimum of $1.2 million 
     to a maximum of $5.5 million, for general election campaigns, 
     indexed from calendar year 1996. The spending limit for 
     primary elections would be 67% of the general election limit, 
     up to a maximum primary limit of $2,750,000. For candidates 
     to the U.S. House of Representatives, the spending limit 
     would be $600,000 per two-year election cycle, indexed from 
     calendar year 1992. The limit is increased $200,000 for 
     candidates who win a contested primary with a margin of 20% 
     or less, and for candidates forced into a runoff election.


             benefits for eligible congressional candidates

       Candidates for the Senate who raise a threshold amount 
     equal to 5% of the Senate general election spending limit and 
     candidates for the House of Representatives who raise 10% of 
     the House election cycle limit, in small individual 
     contributions ($250 for Senate candidates and $100 for House 
     candidates), and who voluntarily agree to abide by the 
     spending limits would be eligible to receive certain defined 
     benefits:
       A. Voter Communication Vouchers: Eligible House candidates 
     could receive vouchers on a matching basis equal to one-third 
     of the spending limit ($200,000) to purchase broadcast and 
     print advertisements, postage, and other voter contact 
     materials.
       B. Broadcast Discounts: Eligible Senate candidates would be 
     permitted to purchase non-preemptible television broadcast 
     time at one-half the lowest unit rate charged to commercial 
     purchasers.
       C. Low Cost Mail: Eligible Senate candidates would be 
     permitted to send campaign mailings at the bulk rate for 
     nonprofit organizations up to two pieces for each eligible 
     voter.
       D. Response to Independent Expenditures: Eligible House and 
     Senate candidates could receive matching resources to respond 
     to independent expenditures aggregating more than $10,000 
     from any one source during the general election period.
       E. Contingent Public Financing: Eligible Senate candidates 
     would receive additional public funding if an opposing non-
     participating candidate exceeds the spending limits.


                               FINANCING

       The preliminary CBO estimate of the five year cost of the 
     bill $168 million. No tax revenues collected from the general 
     public could be used to fund the bill. The bill would be 
     funded as follows: a voluntary tax checkoff, a reporting fee 
     on PACs, registration fees on lobbyists and foreign agents, 
     an increase in the marginal tax rate on candidate committee 
     investment income, and the imposition of a tax on the excess 
     expenditures of nonparticipating congressional candidates.


         LIMITATIONS ON CONTRIBUTIONS FROM PACs AND INDIVIDUALS

       The maximum allowable contribution from political 
     committees to federal candidates would be reduced from 
     $10,000 per election cycle to $6,000 per election cycle, with 
     no more than $5,000 allowed for any one election.
       Senate candidates would be limited to receiving aggregate 
     PAC contributions aggregating no more than 20 percent of the 
     election cycle spending limit, but not less than $375,000 nor 
     more than $825,000. House candidates would be limited to 
     receiving PAC contributions aggregating no more than \1/3\ of 
     the election spending limit, and individual contributions 
     greater than $200 aggregating no more than one-third of the 
     election spending limit.


                            leadership pacs

       Effective after the 1996 election cycle, all leadership 
     PACs would be prohibited. In their place, each chamber's 
     party leadership would be permitted to establish one 
     committee to cover the cost of campaign travel and research 
     expenses.


                        independent expenditures

       Clarifies communications which are ``express advocacy'' and 
     thus subject to federal election law--those which taken as a 
     whole suggest support for or opposition to specific 
     candidates or parties. Clarifies definition of independent 
     expenditures to exclude expenditures by those who have 
     communicated with or assisted candidates in the election 
     cycle. Provides for enhanced reporting and disclosure 
     requirements for persons who make independent expenditures 
     aggregating more than $10,000 per candidate. Requires 
     broadcasters to make offer of equal opportunity to 
     participating candidates to respond to broadcast independent 
     expenditures.


                           soft money reforms

       Prohibits national parties from soliciting or receiving any 
     contributions not subject to the limitations, prohibitions 
     and reporting requirements of the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act (FECA), except for funds transferred to state parties and 
     used solely for certain defined activities which do not 
     affect federal candidates. Prohibits state parties from 
     soliciting or receiving contributions not subject to the 
     limitations, prohibitions and reporting requirements of FECA 
     for any activity that identifies or promotes a federal 
     candidate regardless if a state or local candidate is also 
     identified (including GOTV during a Presidential election 
     year, voter registration, any other generic activity).
       Authorizes state parties to establish State Party 
     ``Grassroots Funds'' for generic campaign activities, GOTV on 
     behalf of the presidential candidates, and voter 
     registration. The amounts raised and spent by State Party 
     ``Grassroots Funds'' would have to comply with the 
     contribution limitations and prohibitions of FECA.
       The bill would increase the allowable amount an individual 
     may contribute to candidates, political parties, and 
     political committees from the current $25,000 per year to 
     $60,000 per election cycle.
       Prohibits federal candidates and officeholders from 
     soliciting and receiving contributions not subject to 
     limitations and prohibitions of FECA.
       Requires corporations and membership organizations to 
     promptly disclose to the FEC partisan communications and 
     nonpartisan get-out-the-vote campaigns directed at their 
     shareholders and members.


                        restrictions on bundling

       Bundling in excess of the contribution limits would be 
     prohibited to all party committees; political committees 
     connected to a trade association, corporation or labor 
     organization; lobbyists, and individuals acting on behalf of 
     corporations, labor unions, or trade associations. 
     Nonconnected political committees which do not lobby and have 
     no affiliation with any organization that lobbies would not 
     be covered by the rule.


                  prohibits contributions from minors

       Prohibits contributions from dependents who have not 
     attained the legal age for voting for federal elections.


                          campaign advertising

       A. Lowest Unit Rate: All federal candidates would be 
     entitled to purchase non-preemptible broadcast time at the 
     lowest unit rate charged to commercial broadcasters during 
     the 30 days before a primary election and during the 45 days 
     prior to a general election. Eligible Senate candidates would 
     be permitted to purchase broadcast time at half the lowest 
     unit rate during the 30 days before a primary and during the 
     60 days prior to a general election.
       B. Candidate Accountability: An image of the candidate will 
     be required to appear in broadcast campaign advertisements 
     with an audio statement by the candidate identifying the 
     candidate and stating that the candidate has approved of the 
     communication.


       restrictions on the use of campaign funds for personal use

       Present and former candidates would be prohibited from 
     using campaign funds for any use which confers a personal 
     benefit.


           restrictions on the use of the congressional frank

       Prohibits Senate members and House members who become a 
     candidate for the Senate, from mailing franked mass mail 
     during the federal election calendar year.


                 fec reform and reporting requirements

       Enforcement of the law would be strengthened by a number of 
     changes to current law, including an increase in penalties 
     for violation of the law, improved reporting requirements, 
     random audits, authority for the FEC to seek injunctions in 
     court for violations of the law, and expedited procedures to 
     dispose of cases.


                          presidential system

       The Presidential system would be simplified by removing the 
     state by state primary limits and the separate fundraising 
     limits. The threshold to qualify for primary matching 
     payments would be increased from the requirement that $5,000 
     be raised in 20 states, to the requirement that $15,000 be 
     raised in 26 states. Persons who have been convicted of 
     violating the presidential system campaign financing rules 
     would be prohibited from receiving any public financing.


                             effective date

       The provisions of this bill would be effective for federal 
     election activities occurring after January 1, 1995.

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, this document is clear evidence that there 
is regrettably no reason for us to convene a conference because the 
deals have already been made--a deal that falls far short of the 
reforms we must make and that the American people deserve.
  Early last year, I declared on the floor a set of principles that I 
believed and continue to believe must be contained in any campaign 
reform bill. I then outlined those principles in letters to all 
concerned parties.
  I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter appear in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                      Washington, DC, May 6, 1993.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     Office of the Republican Leader,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Bob: We are writing to inform you of several key 
     principles that will be guiding our decisions when Campaign 
     Finance Reform comes to the Senate floor.
       We are optimistic that campaign finance reform can become 
     law this year. We believe that this reform must be bipartisan 
     and must not favor one party over the other.
       At the outset, we would like to emphasize that there are 
     significant areas of common ground in both S. 3 and S. 7, the 
     Democratic and the Republican campaign finance reform bills. 
     For example, both proposals would prohibit bundling by 
     special interest groups and would require disclosure of 
     independent expenditures. Congress should not hesitate to 
     adopt proposals that are clearly bipartisan, broadly 
     supported reform goals.
       Each of us is committed to other campaign finance reform 
     principles that are not included in this letter or go further 
     than those listed in this letter, but that we individually 
     believe are essential elements of reform. The following is a 
     list of core principles that we have in common that we 
     believe will constitute meaningful campaign finance reform?
       1. Politician Action Committee (PAC) contributions should 
     be subject to further limitation. PAC contribution limits 
     should be no higher than individual contribution limits, so 
     that PACs have no more of a financial advantage than the 
     average citizen. In addition, we should pursue aggressive 
     aggregate limits.
       2. The House and Senate must play by the same rules. If 
     certain kinds of campaign practices are unacceptable for one 
     body, they shouldn't be permitted in the other.
       3. Disclose all soft money, not just party soft money. It 
     doesn't make sense to selectively target political party soft 
     money but ignore the soft money that pours into elections 
     from tax-exempt special interests. Sunshine is still one of 
     the best disinfectants.
       4. In-state contributions should be favored over out-of-
     state contributions. The individual limit for out-of-state 
     contributions should be lowered from $1000 to $500. 
     Candidates should receive most of their financial support 
     inside their state, from the citizens they seek to represent.
       5. Severability. If one provision of the campaign finance 
     reform package is struck down as unconstitutional, the rest 
     of the reforms should survive intact.
       6. Campaign fundraising should be limited to the actual 
     election cycle. Candidates who are not in an election cycle 
     should be able to raise funds only from their constituents.
       7. Campaign committees should not pay back loans that 
     candidates make to their own campaigns. We need to address 
     the unfair advantage of millionaires who are able to bankroll 
     their own campaigns.
       8. Avoid taxpayer financing of campaigns. At a time when 
     the federal government is calling on Americans to make 
     sacrifices to reduce the deficit, Congress shouldn't create a 
     new entitlement program for politicians. We are not opposed 
     to spending limits, but it might not be necessary to swallow 
     the bitter pill of taxpayer financing to get them. Now is the 
     time for creative proposals that test the boundaries of 
     Buckley v. Valeo and provide for voluntary spending limits 
     without dipping into the federal treasury.
       9. Any bill that provides for public financing must be paid 
     for. The bill presented to the Senate must clearly 
     incorporate the method for offsetting the cost, and this 
     method must not increase the deficit. In addition, if public 
     financing is available during general elections, it must be 
     available during primaries to give a fair shake to 
     challengers.
       We have taken the responsibility of crafting reform 
     principles very seriously, since campaign finance reform is 
     actually incumbents writing the rules for their own re-
     election. We believe that campaign finance reform should be 
     meaningful, and it must also be bipartisan. We hope that our 
     efforts will help to build the consensus that will be 
     necessary to enact campaign finance reform this year.
           Sincerely,
     Dave Durenberger.
     John H. Chafee.
     William S. Cohen.
     John McCain.
     James M. Jeffords.

  Mr. McCAIN. I have fought for those basic principles believing that 
they reflect the real reform Americans want. However, the deal that was 
agreed upon by the Democratic leaders in the House and Senate did not 
meet these core principles.
  First, last year, the Senate voted 86-11 to ban PAC's--including 
leadership PAC's. The public believes--rightly so that PAC's must be 
eliminated.
  However, under the Democratic deal, PAC's would not be eliminated, or 
even greatly reduced. Instead, PAC contributions would be limited to 
$6,000 per election cycle. Additionally, leadership PAC's would not be 
banned until the end of 1996, and Emily's List and other nonpolitical, 
nonconnected PACs that do not lobby may continue to bundle campaign 
contributions.
  Second, principle No. 8 stipulated that we should avoid taxpayer 
financing and ``shouldn't create a new entitlement program for 
politicians.'' Point 9 stipulates that the bill must ``clearly 
incorporate the methods for offsetting the cost'' and ``if public 
financing is available during general elections, it must be available 
during primaries * * *.''
  Again, the deal announced falls short on this point. Reality tells us 
that no one is going to add $10 to their tax bill for congressional 
campaigns. Additionally, the other taxes mandated in this bill to pay 
for congressional and Senate races de facto force our constituents to 
pay for our campaign. That is wrong, and I cannot support these new 
taxes.
  The second principle stipulates: ``The House and Senate must play by 
the same rules. If certain kinds of campaign practices are unacceptable 
for one body, they shouldn't be permitted in the other.'' As we all 
know, under current law, both House and Senate campaign operate under 
exactly the same rules.
  However, the deal presented yesterday, contains different rules for 
House and Senate candidates on: First, aggregate PAC contribution 
limits; second, matching funds for House candidates only; third, 
different limits on large contributions for House and Senate 
candidates; fourth, different rules for House and Senate candidates if 
a House candidate wins the primary in a close election; fifth, use of 
broadcast vouchers, and sixth, election-year franking restrictions for 
Senate candidates only.
  Mr. President, there is simply no reason for the House and Senate to 
live by different rules. Differing rules will only result in increased 
litigation and electoral confusion.
  Point 7 stipulates that campaigns should not be allowed to pay back 
personal loans made by candidates. The Senate-passed bill banned post-
election paybacks of candidate loans.
  The sponsors of the pending bill, however, now state that disallowing 
payback of loans violates the ability of someone to contribute. This is 
simply not true. A candidate could still contribute as much as he or 
she wants. However, they would not be allowed to be reimbursed. This is 
not a prohibition on free speech. This is the same as the ``personal 
use'' restriction: if you can't reimburse yourself for cars and 
clothes, you shouldn't be able to reimburse loans. This is a wide-open 
loophole to circumvent the personal use prohibition, favoring the 
wealthy.
  Mr. President, I wish we had been able to pass campaign finance 
reform. We have been debating this issue for too long and the public is 
growing weary of inability to reform the system. They are right to feel 
that way.
  But the public does not want us to pass sham campaign finance reform, 
and that is unfortunately what has been presented to us today. I have 
fought for good campaign finance reform. I will redouble my efforts in 
the future. When we return next year, we must do what is right and pass 
real campaign finance reform. If we do not attempt to do so, then the 
public will reform the system by sending new representatives to 
Washington. And they will be right in doing so.
  Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, as one who has long supported a 
complete overhaul of our campaign finance laws, I am disappointed that 
this effort once again has failed. However, despite significant 
progress in some areas, it is clear that we cannot and should not 
attempt to force this effort through the Congress in the final days of 
this session.
  That is why I have voted today against sending this issue to a House-
Senate conference. In fact, a conference has effectively already been 
held by the Democratic leadership, and it is clear their legislation is 
what would be returned to the Senate after a token meeting.
  The agreement, which has been widely reported in the press, was 
reached among the House and Senate Democratic leadership is not 
acceptable reform of our campaign finance laws. I could not support it 
now or later for several reasons.
  First, it fails to effectively reduce the role of special interest 
money in our campaigns. As I understand the Democratic plan, the 
maximum contribution from political action committees, the so-called 
PAC's, would be reduced from a total of $10,000 to $6,000. This 
compares with the elimination of PAC contributions in the Senate bill, 
which I supported, or, if that were found to be unconstitutional, a 
maximum limit of $2,000, which is the limit I have applied in all of my 
Senate campaigns.
  As all of us know, PAC contributions have been the key sticking point 
in the negotiations that occurred among the Democratic leadership. The 
House insisted on retaining the current $10,000 limit and only 
reluctantly agreed to the proposed reduction to $6,000. I note, 
however, that the outline I have been given indicated that PAC's still 
would be allowed to give up to $5,000 in general elections--exactly as 
they can under current law, if they give only $1,000 in the primary 
election.
  A second fundamental problem is that the proposed Democratic plan 
sets up different campaign finance systems for the House and the 
Senate. House candidates would be eligible for partial public financing 
of their campaigns, while Senate candidates would be eligible for 
reduced broadcast rates and low-cost mailings, with a backup system of 
public financing in certain cases.
  Incumbent Senators and incumbent House Members running for the Senate 
would be prohibited from using franked mailings during an election 
year--but House incumbents running for reelection to the House would 
still be able to send out mass mailings at the taxpayers' expense.
  Mr. President, there are other serious problems with this proposal 
that bother me deeply. One is that new restrictions are imposed on so-
called bundling of campaign contributions, but a special exception is 
then included for groups such as Emily's List.
  There are good features in the proposal, but all of the fine-tuning 
that has occurred in the negotiations among Democrats has carried this 
plan further and further toward protecting incumbents rather than 
effectively reforming our campaign finance laws. For that reason, I 
have concluded that it is time to terminate this effort for now. It is 
my hope that we can and will try again in the new Congress, when we may 
be able to shape a plan that is genuinely bipartisan and makes real, 
substantive changes in the way we finance our campaigns.


                the myth called campaign finance reform

  Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, for years the public has complained, 
understandably, that political campaigns cost too much, last too long, 
and are financed by too much special interest money. Last year, several 
of us demonstrated our willingness to set aside partisanship in an 
effort to address these concerns. We were hopeful that the House of 
Representatives would put aside self interests to enact reforms which 
strengthen, rather than weaken, legislation approved this summer by the 
Senate.
  The compromise reform package that was agreed upon in the Senate 
provided for a system of voluntary spending limits to cap expenditures 
at reasonable levels. The current system of unrestrained campaign 
spending benefits incumbents in almost every instance and inhibits 
electoral competition far more than would reasonable spending limits. 
In some races, the task of raising as much money as is available to the 
incumbent is so daunting that credible challengers cannot be found.
  The Senate-passed bill limited the influence of special interest 
money. To ensure the primacy of individual citizens in the political 
process, political action committee contributions to federal candidates 
were prohibited, soft money gifts and expenditures by business and 
labor were restricted, and the bundling loophole was closed.
  In an effort to curb the amount of time that is spent on fundraising, 
contributions to Senate candidates from out-of-State donors were 
prohibited, except during the 2 years before the election. To reduce 
further the advantage of incumbency, publicly financed election year 
mass mailings by Members of Congress seeking reelection were 
eliminated. Important at a time of staggering Federal deficits, the 
Senate approved system of campaign finance reform was self financing.
  Unfortunately, Democratic leaders in the House of Representatives 
crafted legislation which ignored the underlying Senate bill and 
efforts toward real political reform.
  Rather than limit campaign spending to promote political competition, 
the House legislation would have permitted incumbent representatives to 
raise and spend sums approaching $1 million in each 2-year period. 
Rather than limit taxpayer-financed mass mailings, ban soft money and 
address the problem of bundling, the measure proposed minor changes or 
maintained the status quo.
  Rather then moving dramatically away from candidate reliance on 
PAC's, the proposed House bill did virtually nothing to create a system 
in which candidates would require the support, both financial and 
electoral, of those they seek to represent.
  Under the House bill, House incumbents would be able to raise 
$200,000 in chunks of $5,000 from PAC's, who overwhelmingly contribute 
to incumbents over challengers. With a superior fundraising apparatus, 
incumbents would easily raise the $200,000 in other contributions that 
would qualify them for another $200,000 in taxpayer dollars. All the 
while, they would be able to communicate with voters in their district 
through mass mailings at the taxpayer's expense. This kind of reform 
would leave challengers in the dust.
  During the last Congress, the House and Senate easily approved 
campaign finance reform legislation that had no possibility of becoming 
law. President Bush was sure to veto it, and he did.
  This year we had the opportunity to begin restoring public confidence 
in Congress. We had the chance to enact campaign finance reform 
legislation that would address the key problems that have discredited 
our current system. I supported efforts to bring the House and Senate 
bills to conference with the hope that the Senate bill would prevail.
  Yesterday, we learned that the Democratic leadership had reached an 
agreement on what would be included in a conference report, and that 
agreement was far from the reform that I had hoped for. When he 
introduced the administration's plan for campaign fiance reform 
legislation, President Clinton said he wanted to make sure that ``the 
voice of the people is heard over the voice of the special interests.'' 
But if the Democratic compromise had been agreed to, the voice of the 
people would have been little more than a whisper compared with that of 
special interests.
  The so-called compromise would have permitted PAC's to contribute up 
to $6,000 per candidate for Federal office. Some might say that's a 
good start, down from $10,000. According to an article that appeared in 
the Washington Post on June 13, 1994, ``The average PAC donation to a 
candidate in the 1992 elections was only about $1,600, according to an 
analysis of Federal Election Commission records. The median donation 
was $1,000, and the most common donation was $500.'' In other words, 
reducing the PAC limit to $6,000 would have absolutely no affect on 
reducing special interest influence on the election process.
  The Senate has made great strides in eliminating the incumbent 
advantage provided by the frank. The Senate-passed bill included my 
amendment to prohibit unsolicited, franked mass mailings during a 
Senator's election year, and the legislative branch appropriations bill 
for fiscal year 1995 eliminates the use of the frank for all 
unsolicited, mass mailings other than town meeting notices. The 
Democratic leadership's compromise did nothing to end excessive 
election year franking in the House. An editorial that appeared in Roll 
Call on September 22, indicated that ``Use of the frank by House 
Members surged by 33 percent in the first half of 1994 over 1993, 
obviously because this is an election year.'' The editorial went on to 
say that ``Members facing tough reelection races or trying to move on 
to a new office do so by sending out gobs of free mail.'' Certainly, we 
should be able to erase this blatant incumbent advantage.
  I hope that when we address this troubling issue in the next 
Congress, the House will be more forthright in its efforts.
  Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Kentucky, [Mr. 
McConnell] is recognized.
  Mr. McCONNELL. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 44 seconds remaining.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I take this opportunity to thank my 
staff, and particularly Steven Law, my chief of staff, who has done an 
absolutely brilliant job on this issue over the last 6 or 7 years and 
Tamara Somerville, whose outstanding work and good sense of humor has 
contributed mightily on this side.
  I also thank Bob Peck and the American Civil Liberties Union, who has 
been a very important part of our debate on this from the beginning; 
and my Secretary, Susan Oursler, who has done spectacular job of 
scheduling Senators last week, and all Republican Senators who spoke 
during the extended discussion of taxpayer funding of elections.
  I also thank staff members Valerie Wilson, Scott Douglas, and Chip 
Begley, who have done a great job with the support work this effort 
entailed these last few weeks.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. All time has expired.

                          ____________________