[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]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, like so much we do around here, you will 
not know anything about a proposal unless you look beyond the label and 
read the fine print.
  Everyone is for health care reform, until you find out that reform 
means a Government takeover of the best health care delivery system in 
the world. Everyone wants to support a crime bill, until you find out 
that it actually coddles criminals and wastes billions and billions of 
taxpayer dollars on misguided social-welfare programs. And, I suspect, 
most people would support legislation advertised as campaign finance 
reform, unless they took a moment to look behind the label and examine 
what reform actually means.
  Mr. DOMENICI. May we have order, Madam President?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Could we have order?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader will 
withhold. The Senate will be in order.


                    taxpayer financing of campaigns

  Mr. DOLE. For starters, reform apparently means a new entitlement 
program. Not for the needy. Not for the working poor. Not even for the 
middle class. But for politicians.
  Under the so-called campaign reform compromise unveiled yesterday, 
each House candidate would have been eligible to receive up to $200,000 
in taxpayer funds. When the smoke finally cleared after each election 
cycle, the total taxpayer-payout could have amounted to hundreds of 
millions of dollars.
  So, as public approval of Congress sinks to an all-time low, our 
first instinct is not to change our own behavior, but to look to the 
taxpayers themselves as the funding source for our own political 
campaigns: more money for politicians. Less money for the American 
people. That is what is known in Washington as a reform proposal.
  Republicans are proud to stand with the taxpayers and against the 
public-financing of congressional campaigns. We opposed this taxpayer 
hand-out, and we are proud to have done so.


                            spending limits

  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle constantly remind us 
that we spend too much on campaign advertising, which is another way of 
saying that we spend too much on political speech.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may we have order in the Senate?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader will 
withhold. Will all Senators please take their conversations to the 
Cloakroom.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the distinguished Senator.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, there is still not order in the Senate.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will be in order.
  The Republican leader is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. I may not agree with what the Republican leader is saying, 
but he is entitled to be heard.
  Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I am not sure the Senator from West Virginia is finished. 
There is not enough order in the Senate.
  I thank the Chair.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Republican leader.
  Mr. DOLE. As a result, they have proposed placing an overall cap on 
the amount a campaign may spend in any election cycle. This cap is 
called a spending limit.
  But if we spend too much on politics, what should be our spending 
priorities? Instead of politics, should we spend more money on 
hamburgers? On cars? On video games? On vacations?
  Is participating in politics by making a voluntary campaign 
contribution to a candidate of your own choosing really such a bad 
thing?
  Expert after expert has testified that spending limits not only 
reduce political speech, they also make it much more difficult for 
challengers to mount successful campaigns against entrenched incumbents 
who enjoy huge advantages: High-name recognition. The franking 
privilege. Large staffs. And easy access to the media.
  Inflexible spending limits, in other words, are anticompetitive and 
pro-incumbent.
  Of course, the Supreme Court has held that spending limits are 
constitutional if they are voluntary. But as my distinguished colleague 
from Missouri, Senator Danforth, pointed out last week, there is 
nothing voluntary about the socalled speech tax that would have been 
imposed on candidates who did not abide by the limits. The speech tax 
is a club, a way to beat candidates into submission so that they will 
have no other choice but to accept the spending limit. The biggest 
winners, of course, are the incumbents. And the biggest loser is the 
Constitution of the United States.
  As Roll Call magazine pointed out last year,

       The version of campaign finance reform passed by the Senate 
     * * * is a miserable piece of legislation. Its key 
     provision--the spending limit--is outrageously 
     unconstitutional. Why would Senators pass a bill that so 
     blatantly restricts the right of free political speech, as 
     the Supreme Court clearly defined in Buckley versus Valeo? 
     Partly, to rescue themselves from the political liability of 
     failing to pass a campaign bill but, more importantly, to 
     keep their own seats warm and secure.

  And let me just say that I do not blame my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle for stacking the deck in their own favor. They 
control Congress now, and they want to continue to control Congress 
next year, and the following year, and into the next century. After all 
it's only human nature to try to hold on to what you do not want to 
give up, and, in all candor, if Republicans controlled Congress, we 
would probably be doing the same thing--bringing a bill out here that 
favors us. That is the way it works. And it does not take a rocket 
scientist to know you cannot tell anybody otherwise. Nobody is going to 
convince people who understand this that when one party has a majority 
they are not going to try to preserve that majority and write 
legislation and pass legislation that certainly helps them preserve 
that majority.

  That is why the distinguished majority leader and I asked a 
bipartisan group of experts to come up with campaign finance reform. It 
is my view, whether Democrats or Republicans control the Congress, we 
are not going to have real campaign reform until we have some outside, 
nonpartisan, objective group take a look at it.
  If we are going to look at it from the perspective of how we are 
going to protect Republicans or how we are going to protect Democrats, 
as long as that is the problem, it seems to me we are not going to get 
very far.
  We all know that PAC's love incumbents. In 1992, in races where 
Members of Congress were up for reelection, incumbents received a 
staggering 86 percent of the PAC contributions--86 percent. That is 
$126 million for incumbents versus a paltry $21 million for 
challengers.
  At the urging of Republicans, including my colleague from South 
Dakota, Senator Pressler, the Senate passed a bill last year that 
banned PAC's outright. No PAC's; no exceptions. That was a step in the 
right direction, a step that should have been taken by the House of 
Representatives.
  We had a strange mix in this so-called compromise where the Senate 
had one set of rules and the House had another set of rules. It seems 
to me it just does not add up. I want to particularly congratulate my 
colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell. He understands this 
probably as well or better than anybody in this body or anybody in this 
town. He spent a lot of time on it. He has worked day and night on it 
because he believes, and he truly believes, that this is bad 
legislation.
  It seems to me when all this is done behind closed doors, and 
Republicans are never consulted--we are always the ones that are 
charged with gridlock, obstruction and everything else--my view is that 
maybe this is one case where it was a good idea. I think the taxpayers 
will agree by about a 70 percent margin that public financing is bad.
  So for all the reasons I can think of, it seems to me the Senate has 
taken appropriate action, and maybe next year we will find some way of 
not being shut out of the process, not being shut out of meetings, not 
being shut out of negotiations.
  I do not think any of the seven Senators who wrote me a letter 
saying, if you do certain things, we will vote for the bill, I am not 
certain any of them were consulted. I checked with a couple. They never 
were consulted. They were supposed to be key to this process. They 
listed seven or nine principles that, if they were followed in the 
process, they would vote for cloture.
  As I looked at it yesterday and reviewed it, five of the seven were 
largely ignored. I do not believe any of the seven Members on our side 
were consulted in an effort to work it out. At least the ones I talked 
to had not been.
  And so I will also say to Senator Boren, certainly he was committed, 
convinced, felt strongly about this. I do not have any quarrel with his 
efforts, except I think in this case he was not able to persuade the 
House to go along. I think if maybe Senator Boren and others on his 
side might have had their way, it would have been a much better bill.
  Senator McConnell has brought intelligence to this debate. He is an 
expert. As far as I am concerned, there is no one in the United States 
today who can match his command of this complex subject. As I said 
before, I certainly extend my congratulations to Senator McConnell for 
his outstanding effort.
  Madam President, when I hear some of my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle complain that Republicans have somehow blocked campaign 
reform, I know it is time for a little history lesson.
  The Senate passed a bill more than a year ago, in June 1993. The 
House soon followed suit, passing its own version of campaign finance 
reform in November 1993. And, now, 10 months later, we have finally 
gotten around to working out the differences.
  It is not Republicans who have blocked campaign reform, it is my 
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. They are the ones who have 
been meeting behind closed doors. And they are the ones who waited 
until just yesterday to reach an agreement among themselves.
  Yes, restoring the credibility of Congress is critical.
  Yes, campaign reform is essential if we are to win back the 
confidence of the American people.
  And yes, Republicans want reform. That is why we introduced a bill at 
the beginning of this Congress, S.7--that would have banned PAC's, 
provided seed money for challengers, prohibited soft-money 
contributions, and required candidates to receive most of their 
contributions from their own constituents.
  Unfortunately, S.7 was never treated seriously by our Democrat 
colleagues. From day one, Republicans have been shut out of the 
process. No meetings. No negotiations. It has been take it or leave 
it--the Democrat plan or no plan at all.
  And that is why campaign finance reform failed again this year: For 
when all is said and done, the American people do not want a political 
document. They want a document they can trust--one that enjoys 
bipartisan--and nonpartisan support.
  A few years ago, Senator Mitchell and I tried the bipartisan approach 
when we appointed a six-member commission of outside experts to look at 
the campaign finance issue and report back to us with a package of 
recommendations. I thought many of these recommendations made some 
sense, but a it turned out, the report was largely ignored.
  In the future, convening a nonpartisan--or bipartisan--panel of 
outside experts may be the only way to break the logjam and craft rules 
that are equally fair--and equally unfair--to both parties. If recent 
history teaches us anything, it teaches us that the temptation to use 
the campaign laws to extract partisan advantage is perhaps too great to 
leave Congress to its own devices.
  Mr. BOREN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mathews). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. MITCHELL addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I yield to the majority leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the 
distinguished Republican leader, but I take very strong exception to 
the statement he just made. The bill described by the distinguished 
Republican leader and by his colleagues during the debate is not the 
bill that the Senate voted on. This has been a classic campaign of 
misinformation, opposing a bill that was not before the Senate, so as 
to obscure the issue.
  The fact of the matter is that Senate Republicans have just gone on 
record as favoring a continuation of the current discredited system of 
campaign finance reform, which has the effect of undermining public 
trust and confidence in the legislative process.
  Public opinion poll after public opinion poll shows that an 
overwhelming majority of Americans believe, unfortunately, in my view, 
but in reality believe that the Members of this Senate are responsive 
to the money interests who finance their campaign. And this system 
perpetuates that belief. Every Member of this Senate knows of the 
never-ending chase for money in which Senators engage on a regular 
basis, day in, day out, month in, month out, year in, year out. Every 
Senator knows that this system demeans the Members of the Senate, as it 
does those who contribute, as it does the American people and as it 
does democracy itself. To go around with your hand out to people day 
after day after day begging for money demeans the individual, demeans 
the process and corrodes the public trust and confidence in democracy 
itself.
  Our Republican colleagues said today, let us keep this system. Mr. 
President, that is what is at stake here. All of the arguments about 
taxpayer money; not a penny--not one penny--of general taxpayers' funds 
will be used under this bill, and the statements to the contrary are 
untrue.
  My distinguished friend and colleague from Oklahoma, who is the 
principal author of the bill and who I commend for his efforts in this, 
will describe the bill in more detail in a moment, and I ask him to pay 
particular attention to that.
  But it is simply not true. This is a system which will be financed by 
voluntary payments by those taxpayers who choose to do so under a 
voluntary checkoff system which has existed for a long time. And the 
spectacular irony of Republican Senators constantly complaining about 
taxpayer funds when Republican after Republican has run for President 
and received hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayers' funds in 
what is plainly and obviously a taxpayer-financed system. The largest 
recipients of public funding for elections in our Nation's history have 
been Republican candidates for President.
  In the 1970's, our Nation was shocked when the corrupt system of 
financing elections for President was exposed in full view as a 
consequence of the Watergate scandal. Americans learned that the 
highest officials in the country were affected by a system in which 
suitcases full of cash were carried into high public office, and 
members of the President's Cabinet were involved in shakedowns of cash 
from people who did business with the Government, and they revolted 
against that system and instituted for the election of the President a 
taxpayer-financed system.
  Our colleagues can rail all they want against taxpayer financing, but 
would they like to go back to the day when the President of the United 
States and the Vice President of the United States and Cabinet Members 
were going around the country shaking people down for cash to seek the 
highest office in the land and the most powerful office in the world? 
And yet if it is good enough to elect Presidents, why is it not good 
enough to elect Senators and Members of Congress?
  The fact of the matter is, Mr. President, every Senator knows this 
system stinks. Every Senator who participates in it knows this system 
stinks. And the American people are right when they mistrust this 
system, where what matters most in seeking public office is not 
integrity, not ability, not judgment, not reason, not responsibility, 
not experience, not intelligence, but money. We could have a candidate 
of the highest integrity, the highest intelligence, the most vast 
experience who can be overwhelmed by a tide of money by someone who has 
none of them. Money dominates this system. Money infuses the system. 
Money is the system. And our colleagues to score a few political points 
keep raising this argument about taxpayer money, which is not even 
true, even as they accept taxpayer money.

  Mr. President, Members of the Senate, several of us are leaving. I 
will speak only for myself, but I believe it is true of everyone who is 
leaving. Others can speak for themselves. I will miss a great deal of 
the Senate. I will miss all of my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle, friends of many years, people with whom I have worked closely. 
But I wish to say here and now, one thing I will not miss is the never-
ending money chase in which we have all had to be engaged. Every single 
Senator knows deep within his heart and soul and mind exactly what I am 
talking about.
  We had a chance here to do something about it. It was not--I repeat, 
it was not--a system intended to favor one party. It was a system to 
level the playing field between incumbents and challengers, to create a 
fair opportunity for competition, and that really is essentially the 
basis of the opposition. This is a case of incumbents protecting 
themselves, not wanting to give challengers a fair chance, wanting to 
accept the overwhelming advantages of incumbency.
  Of course, in this election we are seeing there are other offsetting 
disadvantages of incumbency, and so the tendency is to rack up even 
more money, to exploit even more fully the advantage so as to offset 
those disadvantages.
  I am very deeply disappointed, Mr. President, at this result--very 
deeply disappointed. I am disappointed not just in those of our 
Republican colleagues who overwhelmingly voted against it--92 percent 
of them voted against it, while 90 percent of Democrats voted for it. I 
am disappointed in those Democrats who chose to vote against this 
measure on what I believe to be sorely mistaken and inadequate grounds. 
But the fact is that 90 percent of Democrats voted for it, 92 percent 
of Republicans voted against it. So it is very clear who favored it and 
who killed it. It is a very regrettable result.
  This is, I believe, just a temporary setback. I think it is 
inevitable that there are going to be changes in this system, and I 
hope very much that those who remain and who have fought this battle so 
vigorously and with so much energy and effort over many years will 
continue the effort to create a situation where the American people can 
look at the Members of the Senate with pride and not with the 
embarrassment and the shame that so many feel now when they see this 
corrupting and corrosive system that exists, corrupting of the public 
trust in the Senate.
  The fact is I believe that the overwhelming majority of Members of 
the Senate are men and women of integrity. They are not adversely 
influenced, as many believe. But the impression is there, and the 
impression is so deeply held and so strongly fed by the system and by 
the reports of it, that it is inevitable that it must change because I 
think public attitudes are going to get worse and worse and worse.
  It is an irony, it is a huge and spectacular irony, that those who 
are opposed to changing this system in a way that will restore public 
trust are themselves seeking to become the beneficiaries of that public 
mistrust. The very people who want to keep this system which brings the 
institution of Congress into such disrepute are trying to be the 
beneficiaries of that disrepute--tear down the institution so that we 
can inherit the rubble.
  That is what is happening here, and it is a very sad and tragic day 
for the Senate and for those who remain in the Senate. But I hope very 
much that our colleagues will persevere, that in time the American 
people will rise up in indignation and demand that this system be 
changed.
  I want to conclude by saying one word, finally. No matter how many 
times our colleagues say it, this is not a taxpayer-financed system. 
This system is financed by voluntary participation by taxpayers. No 
general taxpayer will be forced to pay anything to fund this system. 
The distinguished chairman, the Senator from Oklahoma, the author of 
this bill, will describe it in a little more detail I hope. But I just 
want to make sure every American understands that, that these 
statements made to the contrary are simply not true.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield to the President pro tempore?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will be very brief. I know others have 
been standing on their feet.
  Mr. President, when Cineas was sent to Rome by Pyrrhus, the king of 
Epirus, laden with gifts to buy the Senators and Senators' wives, 
Cineas returned following his mission and reported to Pyrrhus that he 
had witnessed the Senate of Rome and that it was veritably ``an 
assemblage of kings.'' This was in 280 B.C. There were no takers of his 
gifts.
  About 170 years later, Gaius Sallustius Crispus, a Roman historian 
who lived between the years 86 and 34 B.C., wrote about the conspiracy 
of Catiline and also about the Jugurthine war which occurred between 
the years 112 and 105 B.C. Sallustius writes that when the Roman Senate 
ordered Jugurtha to leave Italy and to return to Africa, Jugurtha 
passed through the gates of Rome and looked back at the city several 
times in silence, and finally exclaimed: ``Yonder is a city put up for 
sale, and its days are numbered if it finds a buyer.''
  What a sad commentary upon Rome and the Roman Senate which had so 
changed after 170 years.
  The same commentary can very well be said about this city.
  I am sorry to say it can also be said with respect to this 
institution. It is like property owned by the special interests. They 
hold title in fee simple to it--a title that is vested in special 
interests.
  Eight times, I tried to get cloture on campaign finance reform 
legislation when I was majority leader during the years 1987 and 1988. 
There were more cloture motions against that legislation at that time 
than ever were filed before or since, and I failed eight times to get 
cloture. And the current majority leader has tried many times, and he 
has failed.
  Mr. President, until the American people understand that campaign 
finance reform is more important than any other reform and until, as 
the majority leader stated, they rise up in indignation and say they 
have had enough, then this institution will continue to be the property 
of the special interests. We all know it. And it is too bad that the 
American people just don't get it and realize it to be the case. They 
are the real losers.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. BOREN. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  It is clear that the effort for campaign finance reform this year is 
over. I would announce to my colleagues that we will make no effort to 
lodge another cloture motion in order to try to bring this bill to 
conference. I think it is a sad day for the political system.
  This Congress was sent here by the American people to be the reform 
Congress. Throughout the last election, there was much discussion of 
reform. There were many pledges by Members of Congress on both sides of 
the Capitol and on both sides of the aisle that this would be the 
reform Congress. Now we run the risk that this Congress will adjourn, 
being known as the no reforms Congress except for a few largely 
cosmetic actions that do not affect the basic functioning of the 
political process.
  We may pass a bill with provisions that prohibit us from taking gifts 
over minimal amounts. We have failed to pass a bill now that would 
affect the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars that flow into 
the political process that give the American people the impression that 
Congress is on the auction block because our politics will be 
dominated, as the majority leader said so well, not by quality of the 
candidates, not by the abilities of the candidates, but by which 
candidate is most successful in raising campaign funds.
  It is a disappointment to me after 11 years of working on this 
legislation that we have come to this point. There have been many who 
have labored long and hard on both sides of the aisle to make this a 
reality, to bring about this change, including former Senator Goldwater 
and former Senator Stennis, who was the original author with me of the 
bill 11 years ago; including the President pro tempore, who just spoke 
a moment ago, who attempted through cloture votes to pass this 
legislation previously; including the majority leader, who will be 
retiring at the end of this session, who has fought valiantly for this 
effort in the course of the term of his leadership of this institution.
  I see also on his feet the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords, 
who I would say to my colleagues has been stalwart in this effort for 
campaign finance reform.
  It has been an effort by concerned individuals on both sides of the 
aisle to bring about change. Today, we see this bill the victim of what 
I would call buzz word politics. If we say the right buzz words long 
enough and loud enough, perhaps you can succeed. We have heard all the 
buzz words here. We have heard the buzz words taxpayer financing. We 
have even heard that we were trying to pick the pockets of the American 
taxpayers to pay for campaign finance reform.
  Mr. President, as the majority leader has said, not one single dollar 
of general taxpayer financing is in this bill. Not one single average 
American taxpayer is being asked to pay one single extra dollar in 
taxes to pay for cleaning up the political system.
  Where does the money in the trust fund come from that would be used 
to induce candidates to accept spending limits? It comes, one, from 
voluntary contributions, absolutely voluntary contributions, if 
citizens want to add an additional contribution to their tax returns. 
It comes from additional charges on lobbyists, additional registration 
charges on lobbyists who try to seek to influence, who are paid to seek 
to influence legislation. It comes from higher registration fees on 
those who are agents of foreign powers, those who come here trying to 
represent the other interests of other countries, including the 
economic interests of other countries, to try to influence the Congress 
of the United States. It comes with increased reporting charges on 
political action committees, PAC's, that are usually formed to look 
after a particular economic interest. It comes from increased taxes on 
the investment income of political campaign committees of those 
candidates who refuse to accept spending limits, who want to have the 
right to take in all the money they can possibly take in from special 
interest groups.
  You notice I did not mention one single average American taxpayer. 
But the buzz word taxpayer financing has been used. Which taxpayers? 
The taxpayers that are agents of foreign governments?
  Mr. President, do you think if you polled the American people that 
the American people would say we are going to rise up in arms because 
those who are paid to lobby for the economic interests of other 
countries, which sometimes are not the same as our own interests, that 
they are going to have to pay more to register to lobby, to be paid to 
lobby for foreign governments? I do not think so. But that is the buzz 
word that was used.
  Then there was the buzz word entitlements, as if we were going to 
write checks to political candidates out of a fund financed the way I 
just described, whether there was money in it or not, added to the 
deficit, another entitlement.
  Mr. President, anyone who bothers to read the bill knows that there 
was a separate trust fund set up; that if the money from the sources I 
have just talked about was not sufficient to pay the incentives for 
spending limits in this bill, then those incentives would have been 
reduced proportionately. There was no entitlement in this bill.
  Then we were told incumbents cannot be trusted to write a campaign 
reform bill. Mr. President, incumbents wrote the present rules. The 
rules that we are now living under were written by incumbents. They 
were passed by both Houses of Congress, and no wonder they set up the 
current system. No wonder incumbents would want to keep the present 
system. The facts speak for themselves.
  In the last election, incumbents, sitting Members of Congress, were 
able to raise five times as much money as challengers--five times as 
much. Do you think incumbents would want to change the system to put 
spending limits in place when they can raise five times as much as new 
people trying to break into politics? The current rules were written by 
incumbents. They allowed political action committees to pour $10,000 
into every election committee, for each political action committee, and 
the political action committees poured in $10 for incumbents for every 
$1 that they gave to challengers--a 10-to-1 advantage.
  Of course, incumbents wrote those rules. And that is why it is so 
difficult to get incumbents, the Members who are sitting here now, to 
vote to change it, because they have so much advantage, so much 
advantage in a system dominated by money when sitting Members of 
Congress have so much more power to raise money than the new people 
trying to break into the system.
  So, Mr. President, what we have seen today is buzz word politics at 
its best using false words about taxpayer financing and entitlement and 
incumbent protection to present an image to the American people of this 
bill that is absolutely opposite from, in fact, what it would have 
provided.

  Mr. BIDEN. If the Senator will yield for a question, I compliment him 
for his work on this. I have been with him from the beginning. I am 
sorry he is leaving.
  This is the question: In the time the Senator has been here, has he 
ever seen a circumstance where on the floor of the Senate--on almost 
any bill, but this bill in particular--where a Senator can stand up on 
the floor, criticize what is being proposed, and be the very recipient 
of the very thing he is criticizing? I think it is evident that the 
public and the press have already discounted this--not this, but 
discounted this institution. Does the Senator ever recall when somebody 
can say, by the way, this is the public dole and the public trough and 
this is going to provide all this money for incumbents, and those 
persons have already accepted tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars 
from the same system?
  Mr. BOREN. No; I say, Mr. President, that the Senator is absolutely 
correct. I have thought that we have strained the boundaries of 
possible hypocrisy in the past, but I believe we have finally broken 
through them with the extreme example that we have seen in the course 
of this debate.
  Mr. President, if we want to know where we are in this country, I 
would recount, without using any names, a conversation I heard on the 
floor of the U.S. Senate a few days ago. I overheard two of my 
colleagues discussing a candidate. They said the candidate was trying 
to decide whether or not he wanted to spend the next 2 weeks 
campaigning, out telling the people of his State what he believed in, 
out discussing the issues, out listening to the people about what was 
on their minds, the problems they wanted solved, or whether he should 
spend that 2 weeks on the telephone raising money. Mr. President, both 
of my colleagues' advice was: If that candidate had any sense, he 
better spend the 2 weeks on the telephone raising money instead of out 
discussing the issues with the people or listening to the people.
  Sadly, my two colleagues were right. They were right, because if that 
candidate wanted to have a chance, he has to understand that he is 
participating in a system in which money--not what the people back home 
think, not the problems on their minds, not the ideas he or she has to 
present to the voters, but who can get the money to buy more of those 
30-second television attack spots--that is what is dominating 
elections.
  So, Mr. President, I can only say this: We are playing Russian 
roulette with our system of Government, because when we allow a system 
to continue that so undermines the faith and confidence of the American 
people, that so clearly allows money to be the deciding factor, that 
shuts out the majority of Americans who do not have the financial means 
to write that $1,000 check, or that $5,000 or $10,000 PAC check, we are 
continuing to erode the confidence of people in their own Government.
  I have to believe--and I have faith and confidence in what the 
majority leader said--that some day the system will be changed. He and 
I will not be here. We will both be leaving the Senate at the end of 
this session and trying to serve the public in other ways. But I know 
that one of these days--and I hope we are both invited, along with 
others who have been part of this cause--the President of the United 
States will sign a bill that will change this rotten and corrupt 
system. I hope we will be invited to be there for that bill signing. I 
know there will be others in this institution who will carry forward 
this fight and battle. It cannot be allowed to continue, nor should we 
allow it to continue. If we do, we further erode that trust and we 
erode the legitimacy of the system.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I know the majority leader would like to 
speak. I would like to discuss the past bill for 2 minutes, if that 
would be all right, or else I could yield now if that is not 
convenient.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I want to get a unanimous-consent agreement with 
respect to the GATT implementing legislation. So if the Senator wants 
to speak for 2 minutes, or a short time, I will be pleased to yield to 
him for that purpose.
  Mr. BOREN. I yield to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I would like to make an inquiry of 
Senator Boren. I listened to the majority leader and I agree with 
everything he said. I am one of the 8 percent he referred to who has 
been working hard here to try and get an agreement. I was discouraged 
to hear from the Senator from Oklahoma that the bill is dead. I would 
like to bring to his attention those things which I feel would have to 
be modified in order to reach the agreement that the six or seven of us 
had to vote for cloture. I would like to comment, and then get your 
comment, as to whether or not it would be foreseeable to try to get 
those changes in the time we have left.
  I commend the Senator for the tremendous work he has done. I have 
enjoyed working with him. The elements that we have concern about are 
basically as follows: First of all, the reduction of the PAC limits. 
The Democrats in the House, who have been holding this process up, came 
down in their limit. They came down from a $10,000 to a $6,000 total 
limit for the election cycle. That is not even halfway from where we 
started. I would hope they would agree to come down at least another 
$1,000. The more difficult part of the PAC aspect relates to the 
differences between the House and Senate limits, regarding what 
percentage of the total money can be used within the spending limits. 
It is 20 percent for the Senate in PAC's and 40 percent for the House. 
This is in violation of the guideline that we had. They had to be the 
same.
  The frank is another area where there is a difference which creates 
difficulties on this side. As far as the Senate is concerned, we would 
have no frank during the election period, whereas, in the House there 
is no agreement on this issue. These are, I think, the major areas of 
concern. I am perhaps an incurable optimist, but I hate to give up. I 
would like to inquire as to whether or not it would be conceivable that 
we could get adjustments in these areas so that we could perhaps get 
back together again on cloture.
  Mr. BOREN. I thank the Senator from Vermont. Mr. President, I would 
have to say to the Senator, in all honesty, we have pursued 
negotiations over a long period of time, and let me say that the 
minority leader commented that, as far as he knew, there has been no 
consultations with those on the other side of the aisle, the seven who 
had voted previously to push this legislation forward. I want to say 
that we have had consultations. I personally have had consultations 
with every single person as we have gone through the process--
certainly, as the Senator knows, with him individually on several 
occasions.
  It was not my purpose, in any way, to pass a bill to seek partisan 
advantage for this side of the aisle or the other side, but to be 
evenhanded. And we have had very fine cooperation from several 
individuals, including the Senator from Vermont, on the other side of 
the aisle.
  We pushed very hard for all of the points that were raised in the 
letter, from those on the Republican side of the aisle who voted to 
send this bill forward. We succeeded to some degree--not to every 
degree, but to some degree. We did get the amount of PAC spending that 
could go to candidates reduced, as the Senator said, from $10,000 to 
$6,000. I wish we could have gotten it reduced much further. We did 
succeed in keeping the McCain amendment, which made certain that 
campaign funds would not be used for personal use.
  We did make a great deal of progress on nonparty soft money, along 
the lines suggested by the Senator from Vermont, requiring that when 
nonparty groups are utilizing soft money to influence elections, that 
soft money has to be disclosed--within 20 days of the election--every 
24 hours. We made some progress on further curtailing mass mailings and 
misuse of the frank in elections, although there were some 
differences--the Senator is right--and there were differences on the 
aggregate amount of PAC money that could be accepted.
  The final result in the House was one-third, 33 percent. We did not 
get down to 20 percent. We did bring it down some. We got it down to 33 
percent.
  I just say to my colleague that we did the best that we could. I 
believe we had a bill that still with its shortcomings, and there were 
shortcomings, and I think the Senator from Vermont has enumerated some 
of those shortcomings, I think it is still well worth passing.
  I do not believe at this point and given the procedural situation 
where we have a postcloture filibuster of 30 hours even if we get 
cloture--we failed to get cloture today --I think given that 
circumstance the majority leader pointed out this is the first time in 
210 years in the history of this institution that this tactic has been 
used of filibustering the motion to even go to conference, the motion 
to even try to sit down with the House and form a bill.
  So it is clear, I believe, at this late hour and in this Congress 
with the tactics that have been employed, and undoubtedly will continue 
to be employed by some who opposed this bill, we would have time for 
additional negotiations.
  I have to say with reluctant sadness after 11 years of personal work 
on this matter that I believe with this Congress this legislation is 
now dead for this year.
  I know my colleague will be returning to the Senate. I hope that he 
will continue his effort for a bipartisan solution. I hope that others 
on his side of the aisle will join him. I hope there will be those on 
this side of the aisle who have been for this provision in the past for 
major reform will continue this.
  I wish him well in that effort. I will never cease to have an 
interest in it and never cease to speak out about whatever my role in 
life might be.
  Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying to the Senator from Vermont 
that it has been a personal privilege for me to have served with him as 
a Member of the U.S. Senate. I have talked very often about the need to 
set aside partisanship. I have said on some occasions I wish I could 
speak from the center of the aisle because if there is any affliction 
along the way we finance campaigns that I think is undermining our 
political process it is that all too often we think of ourselves, 
first, as Republicans or Democrats and then, second, as Americans. We 
have it mixed up.
  We were sent here to it be Americans first. We were sent here to work 
together without regard to parties for what is good for this country.
  Let me say that among those Members of the Senate who have worked the 
hardest to present themselves as Americans who have worked in a 
bipartisan spirit for genuine and basic reform, the Senator from 
Vermont stands in that group for which I have the greatest admiration. 
The people of Vermont are very fortunate to have such a Senator 
representing them, and I have the utmost respect for him.
  I simply want to say in this public forum there has been no one on 
either side of the aisle during my time of working on the issue of 
campaign finance reform that has worked harder or more sincerely or 
with more dedication and determination for this effort than has the 
Senator from Vermont.
  If we were close at hand I would shake his hand with thanks for being 
an American first and putting the interests of this country ahead of 
any personal or partisan political considerations, and I state again in 
closing that it has been a real privilege to serve with him in this 
institution.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank the Senator for the comments, and I share them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

                          ____________________