[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 138 (Thursday, September 7, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12831-S12841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
STATEMENTS ON INTRODUCED BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. McCAIN (for himself, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Pell,
and Mr. Wellstone):
S. 1219. A bill to reform the refinancing of Federal elections, and
for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
the campaign finance reform act of 1995
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with my colleagues,
Senator Feingold and Senator Thompson, to introduce the Senate Campaign
Finance Reform Act of 1995. This bill, if enacted, would dramatically
change American political campaigns.
This legislation is intended to help restore the public's faith in
the Congress and the electoral system; to reaffirm that elections are
won and lost in a competition of ideas and character, not fundraising.
Toward that end, we hope to level the playing field between challengers
and incumbents.
Again, I want to note, this bill is about placing ideas over dollars.
While my Democrat cosponsors may disagree, I believe that Republicans
won majorities in Congress last year because the American people
understood and supported our ideas for changing the American
Government, not because we excelled at the money chase. We want to make
sure that decisions about who governs America--decisions that are so
profound in their consequences for current and future generations of
Americans--will be made by voters who have a fair understanding of
those consequences.
Campaigns, of course, cost money. This bill recognizes that fact. It
does not end campaign spending, but limits it in a manner that forces
candidates to rely more on their message than their money.
Mr. President, poll after poll reveals the public's loss of faith in
the Congress. One of the reasons this has occurred is that the public
believes--rightly or wrongly--that special interests control the
political and electoral system. In order to limit the ability of
special interests to control the process, and to change the perception
that money controls politics, we must enact campaign finance reform.
A recent USA Today-CNN Gallup poll revealed that 83 percent of
Americans want campaign finance reform enacted. According to the same
poll, the only two issues that the public feels are more important than
campaign finance reform are balancing the Federal budget and reforming
welfare. To the surprise of many, the poll showed that changing
Medicare and cutting taxes has less support than did campaign finance
reform.
Mr. President, I would like to outline what the bill does:
Spending Limits and Benefits: Senate campaign spending limits would
be based on each State's voting-age population, ranging from a high of
over $8 million in a large State like California to a low of $1.5
million in a smaller State like Wyoming. Candidates that voluntarily
comply with spending limits would receive:
Free Broadcast Time--Candidates would be entitled to 30 minutes of
free broadcast time.
Broadcast Discounts--Broadcasters would be required to sell
advertising to a complying candidate at 50 percent of the lowest unit
rate.
Reduced Postage Rates--Candidates would be able to send up to two
pieces of mail to each voting-age resident at the lowest 3d-class
nonprofit bulk rate.
New Variable Contribution Limit--If a candidate's opponent does not
agree to the spending limits or exceeds the limits, the complying
candidate's individual contribution limit is raised from $1,000 to
$2,000 and the complying candidate's spending ceiling is raised by 20
percent.
On the issue of Personal Funds: Complying candidates cannot spend
more than $250,000 from their personal funds. Candidates who spend more
than that amount are considered in violation of this act and therefore
qualify for none of this Act's benefits.
Also candidates are required to raise 60 percent of campaign funds
from individuals residing in the candidate's home State.
There is a ban on political action committee contributions. In case a
PAC ban is ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, backup limits
on PAC contributions are also included. In such an instance, PAC
contribution limits would be lowered from $5,000 to the individual
contribution limit. Additionally, candidates could receive no more than
20 percent of their contributions from PAC's.
All franked mass mailings banned in year of campaign.
[[Page S 12832]]
There is a requirement increased disclosure and accountability for
those who engage in political advertising.
Bundling is limited.
It requires Full Disclosure of all Soft Money contributions.
There is a ban on personal use of campaign funds, which codifies a
recent FEC ruling that prohibits candidates from using campaign funds
for personal purposes such as mortgage payments or vacation trips
This bill will affect both parties equally. It does what other bills
in the past did not, not benefit just one party. And that is also why
it has bipartisan support.
Mr. President, is this a perfect bill? No, it is not. I do not know
if it is even possible to write a perfect campaign reform bill. But it
is a good bill, that addresses the partisan and nonpartisan concerns
that have undermined previous reform attempts. As the Washington Post
said, ``it would represent a large step forward.'' Also, as many have
noted, we cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
We must take this step. The American people expect us to do at least
that much.
Mr. President, I want to make a few additional comments. I note the
presence of my friend and colleague from Wisconsin, who is my partner
in this effort, Senator Feingold.
Sometimes, residing here in the Nation's capital, as we have to do a
great percentage of our time, we have a tendency to not be aware of the
hopes and aspirations and frustrations of the American people. Last
week there was a CNN poll that showed what the American people want
Congress to do and what they expect Congress to do. Mr. President, 88
percent of the American people want Congress to balance the budget; 31
percent believe that they will do it. The next highest on that list is
88 percent want Congress to reform welfare; 47 percent expect them to
do it. Next in line is 83 percent of the American people want Congress
to reform campaign financing, while only 30 percent of the American
people believe that Congress will do it.
The article goes on to say Congress meanwhile has fallen to a 30-
percent approval, its lowest level since Republicans won control in
January. Analysts say it is largely due to the slowdown in legislation
as items have moved to the Senate coupled with an increase in partisan
bickering over Medicare and GOP squabbles over welfare reform.
Mr. President, I do not think we should rest easy when the approval
of the American people of Congress is as low as 30 percent.
Recently there was a poll done by respected pollsters in this city. I
would like to quote three very important items from that poll.
When asked: We need campaign finance reform to make politicians
accountable to average voters rather than special interests, voters
stated this was very convincing, 59 percent; somewhat convincing 31
percent; not very convincing, 5 percent; not at all convincing, 4
percent; and do not know, 2 percent.
Mr. President, let me repeat that. When asked: We need campaign
finance reform to make politicians accountable to average voters rather
than special interests, a total of 59 percent found that argument very
convincing, and 31 percent; somewhat convincing, a total of 90 percent
of those interviewed.
When asked: We do not need campaign finance reform, the election in
November helped clean up a lot of problems in Washington, respondents
said their argument was very convincing, 13 percent; somewhat
convincing, 19 percent; not very convincing, 22 percent; and not at all
convincing, 39 percent.
Reducing the amount special interest groups can contribute to a
candidate would be very effective, 54 percent; somewhat effective, 34
percent.
Mr. President, when the respondents were asked: Those who make large
campaign contributions get special favors from politicians, respondents
said this is one of the things that worries you most, 34 percent;
worries you a great deal, 34 percent. Sixty-eight percent of the
American people believe that those who make large contributions get
special favors from politicians bothers them most or bothers them a
great deal.
What I am saying is that we need to reform this business. We must
understand that money will always play a role in political campaigns.
In an ideal world that would not be the case. We do not live in an
ideal world. But there should be accountability.
I am pleased that Senator Feingold and Senator Thompson and others
are joining in this effort, the first bipartisan effort in over 10
years. This is not a popular issue, Mr. President. It is not one that
the Congress would like to address. There are those who are cynical
about the real prospects of fundamental campaign finance reform since
it has been a high item on the agenda for a long time.
Frankly, I do not know if we will reform campaign financing. But I do
know this: If we do not do something in this area, the very high
disapproval that the American people have for our activities here in
Congress will be reflected at the polls in November of 1996 since the
American people have no other recourse. It is not clear to me what that
reaction will be, whether it is a search for an independent party or
candidate.
About 2 weeks ago was there was a poll taken by the Wall Street
Journal and NBC that showed that 6 out of 10 Americans now would
support an independent party for a candidate, or whether they would go
back to the Democratic Party or they would believe that those on this
side of the aisle are making a good effort. But I do know this: If we
continue to experience such high disapproval ratings, the American
people lose confidence in our ability to carry out their mandates and
the repercussions cannot be good for our system of government.
So, Mr. President, I hope we will look at this issue carefully. I
hope we will continue to try to work on a bipartisan basis. And I hope
that all of those who are interested in this issue will understand that
the Senator from Wisconsin and I do not believe that we have come up
with a perfect document, there are parts of this bill that I have
reservations about, parts of this bill that the Senator from Wisconsin
has reservations about. We cannot let perfect be the enemy of the good.
And always, if there is one lesson here, it
is that this issue must be addressed on a bipartisan basis and from a
bipartisan standpoint.
I reserve the remainder of my time and yield such time as he may use
to the Senator from Wisconsin.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin is recognized.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
Mr. President, I especially want to thank the Senator from Arizona. I
am pleased to be a part of this effort, to be one of two authors in the
McCain-Feingold bill, and am pleased to hear that Senator Thompson has
joined us.
I have worked with the Senator from Arizona already this year on a
number of issues and on a bipartisan basis about our concern about the
revolving door. Members of Congress and staff sometimes move rather
quickly over to lobbying ventures. We are trying to do something about
that.
We worked hard together to try to do something about the great public
frustration about pork items being placed on appropriations bills, and
are trying to respond in another piece of legislation that is attached
to the line-item veto, a bill that could do something about putting
extraneous material on emergency spending bills.
I, of course, feel particular good about our recent effort and
success on the gift ban which this body enacted just prior to the
recess that we just had.
I have to tell you, back home the response to the gift ban was a lot
more intense than I expected. People are looking for any sign of hope
that things can change here in Washington. Even though the gift ban
itself is not something that changes the world or solves all of our
problems by any means, there was a feeling I got that people took some
heart from that.
Our effort today in introducing this campaign finance reform bill is
all about building on that initial success and doing it in an area that
is even far more important; as the Senator from Arizona has said, the
changing of the way we finance our campaigns. I am very optimistic that
a number of Members from both sides of the aisle will join us in this
effort soon. That is the indication I am getting from our
conversations.
[[Page S 12833]]
The Senator from Arizona said this is, will be, and will continue to
be a bipartisan effort. Senator McCain is speaking to Democrats and I
am speaking to Republicans about this. We are not dividing up the
Senate because this has to be a product of the Senate.
What we are really asking here is for both political parties to, in
effect, sort of mutually disarm this money race in politics and to have
a consensus that the Senate and the Congress in this country will all
be better off if we stop this horrible trend for outrageous spending in
campaigns.
I agree with the Senator from Arizona that this is not the perfect
bill or the ideal bill, if there is one. I believe in complete public
financing of campaigns. I think it would be better if we did not have
any campaign contributions, if it was illegal to ask for campaign
contributions. I think everybody would be better off. I suppose that is
my ideal world. But I know that cannot pass here.
I introduced my own bill earlier this year, S. 46. I thought it was a
good bill but it involved public financing. There are difficulties in
getting a majority on that issue. But because campaign finance reform
is such an overwhelming priority, I was not only pleased to see some of
the ideas of the Senator from Arizona, but I was very surprised to see
how far he would come to try to reach a consensus, to try to have a
bipartisan bill to solve this problem. I believe it is one of the
biggest problems we have in this country. I say the biggest problem we
have in terms of our day-to-day operations in trying to solve a
particular problem is balancing the Federal budget. That is No. 1.
But if we want to talk about the procedure, if we want to talk about
the way this Government is run and why people feel it does not run
right, I think the most important issue is changing the way campaigns
are financed.
I say this from the point of view of maybe three different groups.
The first group, the most important group, is the public at large. The
Senator from Arizona says one of the reasons he thinks the Republicans
won on November 8 is this issue. I think he is right. I think it is one
of the reasons Bill Clinton and some of us won in 1992. It does not
mean we earned that support if we do not do campaign finance reform.
But I think it is one of the reasons. I think it has been a little bit
surprising to people that in a reform Congress that this issue of
campaign finance reform has not really come to the fore.
So from the point of view of the public, when they see the hundreds
of thousands of dollars poured into the telecommunications bill or the
regulatory reform bill, you name it, this is all happening in this
Congress, the money race, the big contributions continue, and it makes
people feel that they are disconnected from their elected
representatives, that something is going on here, that after the
election somebody comes here and they are distracted or disconnected
from them, and that the big money in campaigns has a lot to do with it.
So from the point of view of the public, we need this legislation. We
also need this legislation from the point of view of people who are
challengers. We were all new candidates once for the Senate. We all had
to face the reality that people would come to us and say, ``Well, you
may be qualified, but where are you going to get the money?'' That
ended up being the first question I was asked any time I went anywhere
in Wisconsin or other places trying to figure out if I could run a
credible race.
How are you going to get the money?
Well, that has to change. Some of us were fortunate enough to win,
maybe even without a great deal of money. But I cannot even imagine the
thousands and thousands of Americans, good Americans, people who would
have been wonderful Senators who did not even consider running because
they believe this has become a game for either the wealthy or the well
connected.
Finally, there is a third group that this should have great appeal
for, and that is the 100 Members of this body. Ask any Senator what
they do not like about their job. Most are so delighted to be here and
consider it a great honor. The one thing that is the bane of any
Senator's existence, if there is one, is this necessity of raising
money. For many it is a demeaning process, to be told that if you do
not raise $10,000 a week, you are not going to have a chance and you
are going to have more opponents. It takes away from time with your
family; it takes away from time with your constituents; it takes away
from time to actually do the job here in Washington, to understand the
issues, to talk to other Senators and to work out solutions. So from
the point of view of the Senate and those who seek the Senate and those
who elect us, it is time to come together, compromise if necessary, and
have a real campaign finance reform bill.
The Senator from Arizona has outlined already the major provisions.
Let me just highlight what I consider to be the three core provisions
that I think make this bill very unique and not only strong but
balanced from a partisan point of view. And these are the three
provisions that all have to do with what happens if somebody complies
with the incentives and with the limits in the bill in order to get
various incentives.
First of all, there is a provision that might be called the more
Democrat-supported provision. It was the one in S. 3 last year, the one
that passed the Democratic Senate, and that is the voluntary limit. We
would place a voluntary limit based on the size of the population in a
State of how much can be spent in total in a U.S. Senate election from
about $1.5 million in the smaller States to a maximum of about $7
million to $8 million in California. And we know even though that
sounds like a lot of money, it does not even compare to the $50 million
that was spent in a Senate race in California this past year.
So we provide a voluntary limit, and if you abide by the limit, you
get benefits such as reduced television time and an opportunity to mail
on a reduced basis to the constituents in your State.
The second idea is what I would call a more Republican idea, an idea
that I have always liked, one idea I campaigned on and I believe in it,
and that is that you should have to get a majority of your campaign
contributions from individuals from your own home State--not from
PAC's, not from out-of-State interests, but a majority of the money has
to come from the folks for whom you work, the boss--in my case, the 5
million people who live in Wisconsin. I think that is a very important
provision to return us to the grassroots politics it has been.
The third major provision has to do with a rising trend that we have
all noticed and are all concerned about which makes the public terribly
cynical, and that is the proliferation of big money being spent by very
wealthy individuals to finance their own campaigns. This bill produces
a voluntary limit of approximately $250,000, depending on the size of
your State, saying that if you spend over that of your own money, your
opponent gets some advantages in terms of raising funds to make it more
competitive.
So this combination, doing something about the overall amount that is
spent, doing something about obtaining funds from outside of your own
home State, and doing something about the unfairness of the system that
allows only the very wealthy to be able to just get right in the middle
of an election, buy recognition and win an election, these three things
I think make for the core of a very effective bill. There are other
provisions that are important, but I think these three are the ones
that will make this bill work and make the bill pass.
In addition, if a complying candidate is faced by an opponent that is
pouring millions of dollars of their own money into their campaign, the
complying candidate is granted the ability to raise additional campaign
funds beyond the limits under current law.
I support that principle--that is, the idea that we should provide
incentives for candidates to limit their personal funding, and the idea
that if one candidate is facing someone with such vast resources, the
candidate without personal wealth should have access to resources of
equal value.
I do have concerns about this particular provision that raises the
individual contribution limits and allows the complying candidate to
raise hundreds of thousands of extra dollars. I am not sure that
furthers the goal of bringing down the overall costs of Senate
campaigns--in fact, it may only
[[Page S 12834]]
add fuel to the fire. Providing the complying candidate with greater
benefits may be a better alternative to raising the contribution
limits. But again I support the principle of finding a way to encourage
candidates to voluntarily limit their personal spending.
There are other important provisions in this legislation as well. We
eliminate a traditional incumbent advantage--franked mass mailings, in
the calendar year of an election. The bill contains another provision I
have concerns about, a ban on political action committee contributions
including the so-called leadership PAC's.
If such a ban is ruled unlawful, PAC contributions will be limited to
no more than 20 percent of a candidate's campaign funds collected and
the contribution levels for PAC's will be lowered from 5,000 dollars to
whatever the applicable individual contribution limits are.
Some view a PAC ban as a cure-all to our campaign finance problems. I
am not so sure of this. First, according to figures released by the
Federal Election Commission, PAC contributions have remained at fairly
equal levels over the past few election cycles. Aggregate PAC
contributions totaled $149 million in 1990, rose to $178 million in
1992 and remained at $178 million in 1994.
During the same period, overall campaign spending has risen from $446
million in 1990 to $724 million in 1994--a 62-percent increase. So even
though overall campaign costs have skyrocketed in recent years, the
level of PAC
contributions has remained relatively constant.
That is why I have very serious doubts that banning political action
committees will be very helpful in getting a grip on the rapidly rising
levels of overall campaign spending. The Senator from Arizona does
however make a compelling point that incumbents by and large are most
likely to benefit from PAC's as illustrated by the shift in PAC
contributions from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party
following the 1994 elections.
Though I question the legality and rationale in banning PAC
contributions, I think it is entirely appropriate to limit the amount
of PAC contributions a candidate may accept as a percentage of overall
fundraising. The backup provision in this bill--the 20 percent
aggregate limit on PAC contributions, as well as lowering PAC
contribution limits so they are equal to individual contribution
limits--is a good idea, and I would actually support lowering that
aggregate threshold, perhaps 10 percent.
The bill also places new disclosure requirements and limits on the
tremendous amounts of soft money, that is, the unregulated campaign
funds that are poured into Federal campaigns including Presidential
elections.
Soft money represents a real problem in our political system and this
is clearly one obstacle that Republicans and Democrats should be
working together to eliminate. The amount of soft money raised just
this year--numbering in the tens of millions of dollars--stands to
undermine the reforms of the Presidential Election System that have
worked so well for over 20 years now.
Let me say that I was disappointed in the Democratic National
Committee's recent fundraising effort that literally sought to sell
access to the President in exchange for campaign contributions. I am
very pleased that President Clinton, a longtime supporter of campaign
finance reform, denounced this effort and distanced himself from it.
This sort of fundraising has occurred while the White House was in
control of Democrats and Republicans alike--and let me be clear here--
both parties are guilty of this kind of fundraising tactic that only
underscores the need for comprehensive
reform that includes soft money limits and disclosure.
Finally, the bill will codify a recent ruling by the Federal Election
Commission that bars candidates from using campaign funds for personal
purposes, such as mortgage payments, country club memberships and
vacations.
Most of these provisions were included in S. 46, the campaign finance
reform legislation I introduced on the first day of the 104th Congress,
and I am delighted that Senator McCain and I were able to come
together, roll up our sleeves and produce a comprehensive reform bill
that is fair to Democrats and Republicans alike.
The fact is, I do not support everything in this bill. There are
provisions I would like to see modified. The legislation I introduced
in January called for full public financing for candidates that agree
to limit there overall campaign spending. I continue to believe that
public financing is the best way to reform a system that has created
dramatically unfair elections and caused Members of Congress to spend
increasingly more time hosting fundraisers and less time fulfilling
their legislative responsibilities.
However, if campaign finance reform is to pass with bipartisan
support, a vehicle for such reform must be found that can be supported
by Members from both parties and from across political ideologies. I
believe that this bill provides that vehicle.
Having a fair and competitive election system is not a Democratic or
Republican issue. How we elect our Representatives is a cornerstone of
our Democratic political system. As a Nation, we have always put a
tremendous value on participation in our Democratic process. We have
repeatedly passed laws, even constitutional amendments, to expand the
rights of our citizens to vote and express political viewpoints.
Yet here we are with a campaign system in which the average cost of
running for a seat in the U.S. Senate is estimated at $4 million. Four
million dollars. That is just the average. In 1994, nearly $35 million
was spent between the two general election candidates in California
alone. Nearly $27
million was spent by the candidates in the Virginia Senate race.
So unless you win the Powerball drawing, or strike oil in your
backyard or are an incumbent Member of Congress, you are an automatic
longshot to be even considered a credible candidate for the United
States Senate.
That is not expanding participation. That is not encouraging
democracy. That is sending out a clear message that unless you are
well-financed or well-connected, you should not be running for the
United States Senate.
Finally, the time consumed raising contributions for reelection
efforts is time taken away from legislative responsibilities of
incumbents. Members of Congress should not have to chose between those
responsibilities or making phone calls to potential contributors.
What we need to do is to return to a simple proposition: That is,
money should not determine the outcome of elections. Elections should
be decided by issues and ideas, not checkbooks and campaign coffers.
That does not mean that campaign contributions have no place in our
election system. It simply means that all candidates should have a
legitimate and reasonable opportunity to get their message out to the
electorate in their States.
I have reached that conclusion, the Senator from Arizona has reached
that conclusion and the majority of this body has reached that
conclusion.
Mr. President, we all know that Congress is not held in very high
regard by the American people. They are angry, they are cynical and to
a large extent they have lost faith in their Government. All of these
feelings have sprung from a common belief that is shared by so many of
our constituents--a belief that I find deeply troubling--that the
Congress simply does not represent them anymore.
They see the television news accounts of Members of Congress
relaxing on a beach vacation paid for by lobbyists. They find out that
their Representatives are receiving tens of thousands of dollars from
this interest group or that interest group, and they have begun to
wonder if the average American really has any sort of voice in
Washington DC. They feel alienated, they
feel disconnected and soon they become distrustful.
A few weeks ago, thousands of Americans who have been frustrated by
both parties' inability to produce meaningful political reform met at
the United We Stand America Convention in Dallas.
Politician after politician, from both parties, ranging from the
distinguished Senate majority leader to the general chairman of the
Democratic National Committee, stood at the lectern in Dallas and
railed for campaign finance reform. Why? As one attendee at this
convention framed it:
[[Page S 12835]]
When I look at a politician, I wonder who really owns him.
I do not see them as people with their own ideas. I think the
people who are financing them tell them what to think.
That viewpoint, Mr. President--one that I believe is shared by
millions and millions of other Americans--is precisely why we are in
such need of immediate and meaningful campaign finance reform.
Whether it is showering Members of Congress with free gifts, meals or
vacation trips, or funneling huge campaign contributions to incumbent
Members, it has become clear in the minds of the American people--and
justifiably so--that the key to gaining access and influence on Capitol
Hill is money.
And that is what our election system has become all about--money.
Candidates are judged first and foremost not on their positions on the
issues, not by their experience or capabilities but by their ability to
raise the millions of dollars that are needed in today's climate to run
an effective congressional campaign.
The bill we are introducing today will return our campaign system to
the people we represent. If an individual wants to run for the United
States Senate and can prove that their ideas and viewpoints represent a
broad base of support, they will have the opportunity to do so.
I have said many times that we should not have a campaign finance
system that favors challengers or incumbents, or candidates from either
party. The bill we are introducing today represents the comprehensive,
bipartisan reform that the American people have been demanding for
years.
This bill represents a compromise that can be supported by Senators
from across the ideological spectrum. It is not perfect and it includes
provisions which I and others might not support standing alone. Each of
us has swallowed hard in some areas to put together a responsible,
bipartisan proposal. Taken as a whole and on balance, it is a vast
improvement over our current system which can be described as unfair at
best and chaotic at worst.
Finally and very briefly, the question I am getting is: Why do you
think this is going to succeed? This has been tried time and again.
Well, I can understand that sentiment. Campaign finance reform is not
even mentioned in the Republican Contract With America. It is not even
there. But there is still a strong feeling that this should be done.
Even though there is a disconnect between what the Senator from Arizona
has said when he points out people believe this should be done but they
do not think it can be done, it will not happen, I think there are
signs it will happen.
First, this is the first bipartisan effort of its kind for 10 years.
That is very important.
Second, I think the gift ban effort showed that there is a
willingness on reform issues to cross party lines, to sometimes not
agree with the leadership, and to move on a bipartisan basis to change
the system.
Third, you cannot help but notice that at the conference in Dallas
run by Mr. Perot, even though it may not have been expected, one of the
leading topics was the need for campaign finance reform. And in the
first speech given at that conference by our former colleague, Senator
Boren said that the conference should go on record in favor of the
McCain-Feingold bill.
I also noticed that even before we introduced the bill today, we have
already had editorial endorsements across the country. It is rare to
receive editorial endorsements on a piece of legislation before you
even introduce it, but this bill has already merited it. We also
understand that at least a notice will go out today that a couple of
our colleagues in the House on a bipartisan basis will introduce this
same bill in the House. So there is reason to believe that it will not
just be an effort in the Senate.
Let me finally say I think the most telling proof that this thing can
work is the vote we took in July. I came to the floor of the Senate and
simply brought up a sense-of-the-Senate resolution along with Senator
McCain that said we ought to consider campaign finance reform during
the 104th Congress. I expected that this would just be accepted, that
people would say, ``Fine. Let's deal with that later.'' But the
majority leader, a person who has enormous respect in this body from
every Member, came down to the floor and indicated that he was not sure
there could be a bipartisan effort, and he moved to table my amendment
to not have campaign finance reform put on the agenda.
Mr. President, he lost that vote. He almost never loses a vote out
here. He has a tremendously high success record. But 13 Republicans
joined with various Democrats to say on a 57-41 vote that, yes, during
the 104th Congress we have to clean up this money mess that is in
Washington. We have to stop this race to raise all this money out here
that takes us away from our constituents.
I think that is a good sign. It is a sign that both parties want to
work together. And all I can say in conclusion is the thing I
especially like about working with the Senator from Arizona is he does
not just like introducing bills; he likes to win. This is an effort to
pass a bill--not talk about it, pass a bill--send it to the President,
and to have by January 1, 1997, a whole different way of electing
Senators.
So I thank the Senator from Arizona very much, and I look forward to
this effort.
Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coverdell). The Chair recognizes the
Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I send this legislation to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately
referred.
Mr. McCAIN. Thank you, Mr. President. I just want to congratulate the
Senator from Wisconsin for a very fine statement. I hope this is the
beginning of a process that can be completed. I believe we have clearly
stated that we are interested in a bipartisan effort in this area. We
are not interested in seeking political advantage or campaign advantage
for either party. We are interested in leveling the playing field for
incumbents and challengers, which is clearly not the case today. I
appreciate the effort of the Senator from Wisconsin and I have grown to
appreciate not only his dedication but his tenacity.
Mr. President, I note the presence of the Senator from Maryland in
the Chamber, so I will yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to join my
colleagues, Senators McCain and Feingold, in the introduction of the
Senate Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1995.
It is well known that the American people have very little faith in
their elected representatives. It is a travesty that the commonly held
presumption is that Members of Congress are bought and controlled by
special interests.
Another problem that affects the reputation and quality of our
representative government is that once someone gets elected, they have
a significant advantage in subsequent elections.
Congress needs to move away from professionalism and more toward a
citizen legislature. It should be more open, instead of more closed.
And that's because of the role that money plays. Unless a candidate has
access to large sums of money he or she is pretty much cut out of the
process. This leaves the field to the professional politicians.
This legislation will do several things. First, it will help level
the playing field and help reduce the advantage that incumbents have.
And it will bring down the built-in advantage of individual wealth.
Second, it will reduce the reliance on private donations.
The new provisions which is the largest step in a new direction is
the one that requires that most of a candidate's money must be raised
in his or her own State. For myself, I'd probably be in favor of even
higher requirements on this.
The most important element in all this is what passage of this
legislation would do to improve public confidence. The public is
extremely cynical and skeptical of the process of our Congress and our
Government. We need to do everything we can to turn that around. Much
of the public's concern has to do with the role of money in our
process. This would be a step in a downplaying the importance of money
in electing our officials and in what is perceived to be its effect on
the decisions officials make after their election.
Much of the public perception of the process is justified. We have
got to
[[Page S 12836]]
start doing everything we can to enhance the stature and the confidence
that people have in the Congress. Otherwise, we are not going to be
able to exert the leadership we need to in other legislative areas.
Right now we've got feet of clay, and it makes the rest of the body
politic weak. Until we do something about these fundamental parts of
the political process, Congress is not going to have the strength to
sustain itself when we make the tough decisions on fiscal matters, and
other important areas such as welfare, tax reform, health care, and
crime.
This proposal will help level the playing field, open up the process,
and do away with some of the advantages of incumbency. It will reduce
the amount of time a candidate and office holder will have to spend on
fundraising. It will reduce the role of money and reduce the reliance
on private political contributions. And most importantly, it will help
renew public confidence.
Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am delighted to be an original
cosponsor of the bipartisan legislation introduced today by Senators
Feingold and McCain, to provide for broad, sweeping reform of the way
we conduct and finance congressional elections.
I have been proud to work with my colleagues from Arizona and
Wisconsin on a number of political reform issues, and was very pleased
to celebrate a major victory with them as allies on the gift ban,
passed just before the recess. After several years of struggle and
controversy in the face of strong and persistent resistance by certain
of my colleagues, including last year's filibuster by our Republican
colleagues, it was a major victory for reformers. And in my
conversations with people back in my State, they recognized its
importance and said that it gave them renewed hope that we in Congress
might respond to growing demands for political reform at the
grassroots.
But the gift ban, and the passage of lobbying reform, are only two
key elements of the political reform agenda. The more significant
reform, in my mind, and the one that will have even more far-reaching
consequences for stemming the tide of special interest influence in the
political process, is the effort to profoundly reshape the way we
finance and conduct political campaigns in this country.
For many years, I and others have pushed forward here in the Senate a
number of campaign finance reform bills, only to see them die in the
face of near-unanimous Republican opposition, including a sustained
filibuster against last year's bill. I hope that as this bill evolves,
it will serve as the basis for the grand bipartisan compromise on this
issue that has so far eluded us. For that to happen, each side will
have to consider giving up certain advantages that many believe the
current system now offers. Americans are looking for that kind of
cooperation and compromise on political reform. They believe it's long
overdue.
On the first day of this Congress, I reintroduced S. 116, my
comprehensive campaign reform legislation, which I believe should serve
as a model for real, thoroughgoing reform of our campaign finance
system. I said at the time that I hoped we would move forward quickly
on real reform, despite the persistent opposition of most of my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle. That bill has been bottled
up by the Governmental Affairs Committee, which has thus far refused to
even hold hearings on campaign reform.
There have been a number of other campaign reform bills introduced
this year, including the version of last year's comprehensive bill
introduced by Minority Leader Daschle. None of them have received
serious consideration by the committees on jurisdiction either. I hope
that additional elements of my bill will be incorporated into the final
version of this bill if it moves forward.
This bill is not perfect. Some of its provisions I don't support. But
even with its warts, I have decided to be an original cosponsor in the
hope that it might provide a vehicle for real, bipartisan reform
efforts this year. It does provide many of the central elements of any
significant reform plan. Its enactment would go a long way toward
restoring integrity to our political process.
Perhaps most important, it would impose strict limits on the amounts
that candidates could spend in their campaigns. That is critical if we
are to address the huge amount of big money that pours into campaigns,
often from well-heeled special interests. As with my bill, and others,
the formula would be based on the voting age population in each State.
Candidates who agree to abide by the limit would receive free broadcast
time, reduced postage rates, and broadcast discounts as incentives for
them to participate.
It also contains tough new provisions to ban special interests from
bundling contributions, bans contributions from political action
committees--with backup limits should the ban be found unconstitutional
by the courts--bans incumbent use of taxpayer-paid mass mailings in an
election year, imposes tough new limits on so-called soft money
contributions that can be used to circumvent Federal financing rules,
and prohibits the personal use of campaign funds.
Finally, it places a premium on contributions from a Member's own
home State, in an effort to ensure that Senators are more accountable
to those who elected them than to big-money special interests. It
requires that a substantial majority of funds come from one's State,
and that would be another big step toward reform. While it is true that
this specific provision has often been seen historically as being
harder on Democrats than Republicans, I believe this is an important
principle that should be preserved in some form as this bill moves
forward.
As I have said, there are some real problems with this bill, and both
of its primary sponsors have acknowledged that. I will only identify a
few. For example, if a noncomplying candidate refuses to abide by
spending limits, the bill allows an increase in contribution limits for
the complying candidate, as a deterrent to nonparticipation. I am very
troubled by this provision, because I think it could, in some
circumstances, increase individual contribution limits, rather than
decrease them, as I would prefer. Last year I offered several
amendments to reduce substantially individual contribution limits. I
continue to believe that this is the way to go, coupled with other
incentives. I hope that we will ultimately provide for another way to
offer carrots, and wield sticks, to encourage candidates to comply with
spending limits.
In addition, the bill provides for a limit on personal funds spent in
a campaign to $250,000. I believe this is much too high, which is why I
offered an amendment last Congress, approved overwhelmingly by the
Senate, to cut this limit down to $25,000. I believe that is where the
limit should be set, and I intend to work with my colleagues to reduce
that limit.
In short, while this measure is not as comprehensive as earlier
versions of campaign legislation which I have authored or supported in
the past, it would go a very long way toward real reform. I think that
as the bill moves forward, it can be improved upon, and I intend to
work to do that. But I commend Senators Feingold and McCain for their
effort, and I hope the introduction of this bill will help to move us
as soon as possible toward a major overhaul of the campaign finance
system, which has eluded us for so many years.
______
By Mrs. BOXER:
S. 1220. A bill to provide that Members of Congress shall not be paid
during Federal Government shutdowns; to the Committee on Governmental
Affairs.
federal government shutdown legislation
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation
that I believe is fair and necessary.
This bill says that if the Congress fails to do its work and cannot
reach agreement on the Federal budget--and the Federal Government
cannot pay its bills--Members of Congress will not receive pay.
Americans are being told every day that we may come to a train wreck
over the budget. Certainly, we have major differences among Members of
Congress and the President over what our national priorities should be.
Some in Congress favor a huge tax cut for the rich paid for by
crippling the Medicare system. I think that is cruel and unfair, and I
am going to fight it. But even if we cannot agree on priorities,
[[Page S 12837]]
all Members of Congress should agree that we must pass the budget on
time and enable the Government to continue operating.
I believe this legislation is important for two key reasons:
First, it will help avert the predicted Government shutdown because--
with their personal paychecks on the line--Members will understand the
fear and uncertainty now being felt by the millions of Americans who
rely on Government services--from small businesses with Federal
contracts to farmers to veterans to senior citizens to those who hold
U.S. Government bonds.
Second, it codifies a principle that all other workers in America
live by: If you don't do your job, you shouldn't get paid. One of
Congress' most important functions is to pass the Nation's budget. If
we fail in that critically important task, it simply makes sense that
our pay should be docked.
This legislation would require that pay for Members of Congress be
docked if either there is a lapse in appropriations for any Federal
department or agency or the Federal debt ceiling is reached.
I am very pleased that a companion measure is being introduced in the
House of Representatives today by Congressman Dick Durbin.
I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in
the Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1220
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. PAY OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DURING GOVERNMENT
SHUTDOWNS.
No Member of Congress may receive basic pay for any period
in which--
(1) there is a lapse in appropriations for any Federal
agency or department as a result of a failure to enact a
regular appropriations bill or continuing resolution; or
(2) the Federal Government is unable to make payments or
meet obligations because the public debt limit under section
3101 of title 31, United States Code has been reached.
SEC. 2. RETROACTIVE PAY PROHIBITED.
No pay forfeited in accordance with section 1 may be paid
retroactively.
______
By Mrs. KASSEBAUM (for herself and Mr. Jeffords):
S. 1221. A bill to authorize appropriations for the Legal Services
Corporation Act, and for other purposes; to the Committee on Labor and
Human Resources.
LEGAL SERVICES REAUTHORIZATION LEGISLATION
Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I introduce legislation along
with Senator Jeffords to reauthorize the Legal Services Corporation
[LSC] Act.
Through this federally established corporation, thousands of low
income Americans have access to our legal system. Clients seek
assistance with landlord-tenant disputes, domestic violence cases,
writing of wills, and other civil matters. Sometimes the cases need to
be litigated, but frequently, the clients simply need legal counseling.
Regrettably, Legal Services has been plagued with controversy over
the last decade. Critics have charged, with some validity, that Legal
Services attorneys have acted as advocates for political causes, such
as welfare reform and state redistricting cases. As a result, LSC has
not been reauthorized since 1977.
Today, I am introducing a Senate companion bill to H.R. 1806,
legislation introduced by Representatives McCollum and Stenholm in the
House of Representatives. I want to give Representatives McCollum and
Stenholm credit for their hard work in putting this bill together, and
for their dedication to assuring that low income Americans retain
access to our legal system.
The legislation being introduced today addresses the concerns that
have been expressed over the past several years by limiting the types
of activities that Legal Services attorneys can handle. For instance,
under the bill, Legal Services attorneys cannot represent tenants being
evicted from public housing projects for drug dealing. In addition,
attorneys will not be representing incarcerated individuals on prisoner
rights cases.
The legislation also has new accountability provisions. Lawyers will
be required to keep time sheets so federal auditors can monitor the
types of cases being handled. New litigation safeguards will be
implemented to protect against the filing of frivolous class action law
suits. And we will require LSC grantees to bid competitively for their
LSC contracts.
Mr. President, Legal Services is an important program. I urge my
colleagues to support the legislation being introduced today, and ask
unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the
Record.
There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the
Record, as follows:
S. 1221
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS; REFERENCE.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Legal
Services Reform Act of 1995''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents is as
follows:
Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents; reference.
Sec. 2. Findings.
Sec. 3. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 4. Prohibition on redistricting activity.
Sec. 5. Protection against theft and fraud.
Sec. 6. Solicitation.
Sec. 7. Procedural safeguards for litigation.
Sec. 8. Lobbying and rulemaking.
Sec. 9. Timekeeping.
Sec. 10. Authority of local governing boards.
Sec. 11. Regulation of nonpublic resources.
Sec. 12. Certain eviction proceedings.
Sec. 13. Implementation of competition.
Sec. 14. Research and attorneys' fees.
Sec. 15. Abortion.
Sec. 16. Class actions.
Sec. 17. Aliens.
Sec. 18. Training.
Sec. 19. Copayments.
Sec. 20. Fee-generating cases.
Sec. 21. Welfare reform.
Sec. 22. Prisoner litigation.
Sec. 23. Appointment of Corporation president.
Sec. 24. Evasion.
Sec. 25. Pay for officers and employees of the Corporation.
Sec. 26. Location of principal office.
Sec. 27. Definition.
(c) Reference.--Whenever in this Act an amendment or repeal
is expressed in terms of an amendment to or repeal of a
section or other provision, the reference shall be considered
to be made to section or other provision of the Legal
Services Corporation Act (42 U.S.C. 2996 and following).
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Section 1001 (42 U.S.C. 2996) is amended to read as
follows:
``findings
``Sec. 1001. The Congress finds the following:
``(1) There is a need to encourage equal access to the
system of justice in the United States for individuals
seeking redress of grievances.
``(2) There is a need to encourage the provision of high
quality legal assistance for those who would otherwise be
unable to afford legal counsel.
``(3) Encouraging the provision of legal assistance to
those who face an economic barrier to legal counsel will
serve the ends of justice consistent with the purposes of the
Legal Services Corporation Act.
``(4) It is not the purpose of the Legal Services
Corporation Act to meet all the legal needs of all
potentially eligible clients, but instead to be a catalyst to
encourage the legal profession and others to meet their
responsibilities to the poor and to maximize access of the
poor to justice.
``(5) For many citizens the availability of legal services
has reaffirmed faith in our government of laws.
``(6) To preserve its strength, the legal services program
must be made completely free from the influence of political
pressures and completely free of lobbying and political
activity.
``(7) There are over 2,000 non-profit organizations
advocating on behalf of the poor throughout the United States
and it is not appropriate for funds regulated under the Legal
Services Corporation Act
to be expended lobbying for or against positions taken by
those groups.
``(8) Attorneys providing legal assistance must protect the
best interests of their clients in keeping with the Code of
Professional Responsibility, the Canon of Ethics, and the
high standards of the legal profession.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
Subsection (a) of section 1010 (42 U.S.C. 2996i) is amended
to read as follows:
``(a) There are authorized to be appropriated for the
purposes of carrying out the activities of the Corporation--
``(1) $278,000,000 for fiscal year 1996,
``(2) $278,000,000 for fiscal year 1997
``(3) $278,000,000 for fiscal year 1998,
``(4) $278,000,000 for fiscal year 1999, and
``(5) $278,000,000 for fiscal year 2000.''.
SEC. 4. PROHIBITION ON REDISTRICTING ACTIVITY.
Section 1007(b) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)) is amended--
(1) in paragraph (9), by striking ``or'' after the
semicolon;
(2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period and inserting
``; or''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
[[Page S 12838]]
``(11) to--
``(A) advocate or oppose, or contribute or make available
any funds, personnel, or equipment for use in advocating or
opposing, any plan or proposal, or
``(B) represent any party or participate in any other way
in litigation,
that is intended to or has the effect of altering, revising,
or reapportioning a legislative, judicial, or elective
district at any level of government, including influencing
the timing or manner of the taking of a census.''.
SEC. 5. PROTECTION AGAINST THEFT AND FRAUD.
Section 1005 (42 U.S.C. 2996d) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h) For purposes of sections 286, 287, 641, 1001, and
1002 of title 18, United States Code, the Corporation shall
be considered to be a department or agency of the United
States Government.
``(i) For purposes of sections 3729 through 3733 of title
31, United States Code, the term ``United States Government''
shall include the Corporation, except that actions that are
authorized by section 3730(b) of such title to be brought by
persons may not be brought against the Corporation, any
recipient, subrecipient, grantee, or contractor of the
Corporation, or any employee thereof.
``(j) For purposes of section 1516 of title 18, United
States Code--
``(1) the term `Federal auditor' shall include any auditor
employed or retained on a contractual basis by the
Corporation,
``(2) the term `contract' shall include any grant or
contract made by the Corporation, and
``(3) the term `person', as used in subsection (a) of such
section, shall include any grantee or contractor receiving
financial assistance under section 1006(a)(1).
``(k) Funds provided by the Corporation under section 1006
shall be deemed to be Federal appropriations when used by a
contractor, grantee, subcontractor, or subgrantee of the
Corporation.
``(1) For purposes of section 666 of title 18, United
States Code, funds provided by the Corporation shall be
deemed to be benefits under a Federal program involving a
grant or contract.''.
SEC. 6. SOLICITATION.
Section 1007 (42 U.S.C. 2996f) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(i) Any recipient, and any employee of a recipient, who
has given in-person unsolicited advice to a nonattorney that
such nonattorney should obtain counsel or take legal action
shall not accept employment resulting from that advice, or
refer that nonattorney to another recipient or employee of a
recipient, except that--
``(1) an attorney may accept employment by a close friend,
relative, former client (if the advice given is germane to
the previous employment by the client), or person whom the
attorney reasonably believes to be a client because the
attorney is currently handling an active legal matter or case
for that specific person;
``(2) an attorney may accept employment that results from
the attorney's participation in activities designed to
educate nonattorneys to recognize legal problems, to make
intelligent selection of counsel, or to utilize available
legal services if such activities are conducted or sponsored
by a qualified legal assistance organization;
``(3) without affecting that attorney's right to accept
employment, an attorney may speak publicly or write for
publication on legal topics so long as such attorney does not
emphasize the attorney's own professional experience or
reputation and does not undertake to give individual advice
in such speech or publication; and
``(4) if success in asserting rights or defenses of a
client in litigation in the nature of class action is
dependent upon the joinder of others, an attorney may accept,
but shall not seek, employment from those contacted for the
purpose of obtaining that joinder.''.
SEC. 7. PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS FOR LITIGATION.
Section 1007 (42 U.S.C. 2996f), as amended by section 6 of
this Act, is further amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(j)(1) No recipient or employee of a recipient may file a
complaint or otherwise pursue litigation against a defendant
unless--
``(A) all plaintiffs have been specifically identified, by
name, in any complaint filed for purposes of litigation,
except to the extent that a court of competent jurisdiction
has granted leave to protect the identity of any plaintiff;
and
``(B) a statement or statements of facts written in English
and, if necessary, in a language which the plaintiffs
understand, which enumerate the particular facts known to the
plaintiffs on which the complaint is based, have been signed
by the plaintiffs (including named plaintiffs in a class
action), are kept on file by the recipient, and are made
available to any Federal department or agency that is
auditing the activities of the Corporation or any recipient,
and to any auditor receiving Federal funds to conduct such
auditing, including any auditor or monitor of the
Corporation.
Other parties shall have access to the statement of facts
referred to in subparagraph (B) only through the discovery
process after litigation has begun.
``(2) No recipient or employee of a recipient may engage in
precomplaint settlement negotiations with a prospective
defendant unless--
``(A) all plaintiffs have been specifically identified,
except to the extent that a court of competent jurisdiction
has granted leave to protect the identity of any plaintiff;
and
``(B) a statement or statements of facts written in English
and, if necessary, in a language which the plaintiffs
understand, which enumerate the particular facts known to the
plaintiffs on which the complaint will be based if such
negotiations fail, have been signed by all plaintiffs
(including named plaintiffs in a class action), are kept on
file by the recipient, and are made available to all
prospective
defendants or such defendants' counsel, to any Federal
department or agency that is auditing the activities of
the Corporation or any such recipient, and to any auditor
receiving Federal funds to conduct such auditing,
including any auditor or monitor of the Corporation.
``(3)(A) Subject to subparagraph (B), any Federal district
court of competent jurisdiction, after notice to potential
parties to litigation referred to in paragraph (1) or to
negotiations described in paragraph (2) and after an
opportunity for a hearing, may enjoin the disclosure of the
identity of any potential plaintiff pending the outcome of
such litigation or negotiations, upon the establishment of
reasonable cause to believe that such an injunction is
necessary to prevent probable, serious harm to such potential
plaintiff.
``(B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the court shall, in
a case in which subparagraph (A) applies, order the
disclosure of the identity of any potential plaintiff to
counsel for potential defendants upon the condition that
counsel for potential defendants not disclose the identity of
such potential plaintiff (other than to investigators or
paralegals hired by such counsel), unless authorized in
writing by such potential plaintiff's counsel or the court.
``(C) In a case in which paragraph (1) applies, counsel for
potential defendants and the recipient or employee counsel of
the recipient may execute an agreement, in lieu of seeking a
court order under subparagraph (A), government disclosure of
the identity of any potential plaintiff.
``(D) The court may punish as a contempt of court any
violation of an order of the court under subparagraph (A) or
(B)--or of an agreement under subparagraph (C).
``(4) Any funds received from a defendant by a recipient on
behalf of a class of eligible clients shall be placed in an
escrow account until the funds may be paid to such clients.
Any such funds which are not disbursed to clients within one
year of the date on which such funds were received shall be
returned to the defendant.''.
SEC. 8. LOBBYING.
Section 1007(a)(5) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(a)(5)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(5) ensure that no funds made available to recipients are
used at any time, directly or indirectly--
``(A) to influence the issuance, amendment, or revocation
of any executive order or similar promulgation by any
Federal, State or local agency, or to undertake to influence
the passage or defeat of any legislation by the Congress of
the United States, or by any State or local legislative body,
or State proposals made by initiative petition or referendum,
except to the extent that a governmental agency, a
legislative body, a committee, or a member thereof is
considering a measure directly affecting the recipient or the
Corporation;
``(B) to pay for any publicity or propaganda intended or
designed to support or defeat legislation pending before the
Congress or State or local legislative bodies or intended or
designed to influence any decision by a Federal, State, or
local agency;
``(C) to pay for any personal service, advertisement,
telegram, telephone communications, letter, printed or
written matter, or other device, intended or designed to
influence any decision by a Federal, State, or local agency,
except when legal assistance is provided by an employee of a
recipient to an eligible client on a particular application,
claim, or case, which directly involves the client's legal
rights or responsibilities and which does not involve the
issuance, amendment, or revocation of any agency promulgation
described in subparagraph (A);
``(D) to pay for any personal service, advertisement,
telegram, telephone communication, letter, printed or written
matter, or any other device intended or designed to influence
any Member of Congress or any other Federal, State, or local
elected official--
``(i) to favor or oppose any referendum, initiative,
constitutional amendment, or any similar procedures of the
Congress, any State legislature, any local council, or any
similar governing body acting in a legislative capacity,
``(ii) to favor or oppose an authorization or appropriation
directly affecting the authority, function, or funding of the
recipient or the Corporation, or
``(iii) to influence the conduct of oversight proceedings
of a recipient or the Corporation; or
``(E) to pay for any personal service, advertisement,
telegram, telephone communication, letter, printed or written
matter, or any other device intended or designed to influence
any Member of Congress or any other Federal, State, or local
elected official to favor or oppose any Act, bill,
resolution, or similar legislation;
and ensure that no funds made available to recipients are
used to pay for any administrative or related costs
associated with an activity prohibited in subparagraph (A),
(B), (C), (D), or (E);''.
[[Page S 12839]]
SEC. 9. TIMEKEEPING.
Section 1008(b) (42 U.S.C. 2996g(b)) is amended--
(1) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(b)''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The Corporation shall require each recipient to
maintain records of time spent on the cases or matters with
respect to which that recipient is engaged in activities.
Pursuant to such requirements, each employee of such
recipient who is an attorney or paralegal shall record, by
the name of the case or matter, at the time such employee
engages in an activity regarding such case or matter, the
type (as defined by the Corporation) of case or matter, the
time spent on the activity, and the source of funds to be
charged for the activity.''.
SEC. 10. AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNING BOARDS.
Section 1007(c) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(c)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``(1)'' and ``(2)'' and inserting ``(A)''
and ``(B)'', respectively;
(2) by inserting ``(1)'' after ``(c)''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
``(2) The board of directors of any nonprofit organization
that is--
``(A) chartered under the laws of one of the States, a
purpose of which is furnishing legal assistance to eligible
clients, and
``(B) receiving funds made available by or through the
Corporation,
shall set specific priorities pursuant to section
1007(a)(2)(C) for the types of matters and cases to which the
staff of the nonprofit organization shall devote its time and
resources. The staff of such organization shall not undertake
cases or matters other than in accordance with the specific
priorities set by its board of directors, except in emergency
situations defined by such board. The staff of such
organization shall report, to the board of directors of the
organization on a quarterly basis and to the Corporation on
an annual basis, all cases undertaken other than in
accordance with such priorities. The Corporation shall
promulgate a suggested list of priorities which boards of
directors may use in setting priorities under this
paragraph.''.
SEC. 11. REGULATION OF NONPUBLIC RESOURCES.
Section 1010(c) (42 U.S.C. 2996i(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c)(1) Any non-Federal funds received by the Corporation,
and any funds received by any recipient from any source other
than the Corporation, shall be accounted for and reported as
receipts and disbursements separate and distinct from
Corporation funds. Any funds so received, including funds
derived from Interest on Lawyers Trust Accounts, may not be
expended by recipients for any purpose prohibited by this
title or the Legal Services Reform Act of 1995. The
Corporation shall not accept any non-Federal funds, and any
recipient shall not accept funds from any source other than
the Corporation, unless the Corporation or the recipient, as
the case may be, notifies in writing the source of such funds
that the funds may not be expended for any purpose prohibited
by this title or the Legal Services Reform Act of 1995.
``(2) Paragraph (1) shall not prevent recipients from--
``(A) receiving Indian tribal funds (including funds from
private nonprofit organizations for the benefit of Indians or
Indian tribes) and expending them in accordance with the
specific purposes for which they are provided; or
``(B) using funds received from a source other than the
Corporation to provide legal assistance to a client who is
not an eligible client if such funds are used for the
specific purposes for which such funds were received, except
that such funds may not be expended by recipients for any
purpose prohibited by this title or the Legal Services Reform
Act of 1995 (other than any requirement regarding the
eligibility of clients).''.
SEC. 12. CERTAIN EVICTION PROCEEDINGS.
Section 1007 (42. U.S.C. 2996f), as amended by sections 6
and 7 of this Act, is further amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(k)(1) No funds made available by or through the
Corporation may be used for defending a person in a
proceeding to evict that person from a public housing project
if the person has been charged with the illegal sale or
distribution of a controlled substance and if the eviction
proceeding is brought by a public housing agency because the
illegal drug activity of that person threatens the health or
safety of other tenants residing in the public housing
project or employees of the public housing agency.
``(2) As used in this subsection--
``(A) the term `controlled substance' has the meaning given
that term in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21
U.S.C. 802); and
``(B) the terms `public housing project' and `public
housing agency' have the meanings given those terms in
section 3 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U.S.C.
1437a).''.
SEC. 13. IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION.
(a) In General.--Section 1007 (42 U.S.C. 2996f), as amended
by sections 6, 7, and 12 of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(l)(1) All grants and contracts awarded by the
Corporation for the provision or support of legal assistance
to eligible clients under this title shall be awarded under a
competitive bidding system.
``(2) Rights under sections 1007(a)(9) and 1011 shall not
apply to the termination or denial of financial assistance
under this title as a result of the competitive award of any
grant or contract under paragraph (1), and the expiration of
any grant or contract under this title as a result of such
competitive award shall not be treated as a termination or
denial of refunding under section 1007(a)(9) or 1011.
``(3) For purposes of this subsection, the term
`competitive bidding' means a system established by
regulations issued by the Corporation which provide for the
award of grants and contracts on the basis of merit to
persons, organizations, and entities described in section
1006(a) who apply for such awards in competition with
others under promulgated criteria. The Corporation shall
ensure that the system incorporates the following:
``(A) The competitive bidding system shall commence no
later than one year after the date of enactment of this
provision and all previously awarded grants and contracts
shall be set aside and subjected to this system within one
year thereafter.
``(B) All awards of grants and contracts made under this
system shall be subject to periodic review and renewed with
the opportunity for others to compete for the award, and in
no event shall any award be granted for a period longer than
5 years.
``(C) Timely notice for the submission of applications for
awards shall be published in periodicals of local and State
bar associations and in at least one daily newspaper of
general circulation in the area to be served by the award
recipient.
``(D) The selection criteria shall include but not be
limited to the demonstration of a full understanding of the
basic legal needs of the eligible clients to be served and a
demonstration of the capability of serving those needs; the
reputations of the principals of the applicant; the quality,
feasibility, and cost effectiveness of plans submitted by the
applicant for the delivery of legal assistance to the
eligible clients to be served; a demonstration of willingness
to abide by the restrictions placed on those awarded grants
and contracts by the Corporation; and, if an applicant has
previously received an award from the Corporation, the
experiences of the Corporation with the applicant.
``(E) No previous recipient of an award of a grant or
contract may be given any preference.
``(m)(1) The Corporation shall define service areas and
funds available for each service area shall be on a per
capita basis pursuant to the number of poor people determined
by the Bureau of the Census to be within that area. Funds for
a service area may be distributed by the Corporation to one
or more recipients as defined in section 1006(a).
``(2) The amount of the grants from the Corporation and of
the contracts entered into by the Corporation under section
1006(a)(1) shall be an equal figure per poor person for all
geographic areas, based on the most recent decennial census
of population conducted pursuant to section 141 of title 13,
United States Code, regardless of the level of funding for
any such geographic area before the enactment of the Legal
Services Reform Act of 1995.
``(3) Beginning with the fiscal year beginning after the
results of the most recent decennial census have been
reported to the President under section 141(b) of title 13,
United States Code, funding of geographic areas served by
recipients shall be redetermined, in accordance with
paragraph (2), based on the per capita poverty population in
each such geographic area under that decennial census.''.
(b) Requirements of Recipients.--Section 1007(c) (42 U.S.C.
2996f(c)), as amended by section 10 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(3) Funds appropriated for the Corporation may not be
used by the Corporation in making grants or entering into
contracts for legal assistance unless the Corporation ensures
that the recipient is either--
``(A) a private attorney or attorneys,
``(B) State and local governments or substate regional
planning and coordination agencies which are composed of
substate areas whose governing board is controlled by locally
elected officials, or
``(C) a qualified nonprofit organization chartered under
the laws of one of the States--
``(i) a purpose of which is furnishing legal assistance to
eligible clients, and
``(ii) the majority of the board of directors or other
governing body of which is comprised
of attorneys who are admitted to practice in one of the
States and are approved to serve on such board or body by
the governing bodies of State, county, or municipal bar
associations the membership of which represents a majority
of the attorneys practicing law in the locality in which
the organization is to provide legal assistance.
The approval described in subparagraph (B)(ii) may be given
to more than one group of directors.''.
SEC. 14. POWERS, RESEARCH, AND ATTORNEYS' FEES.
(a) Powers.--Section 1006(a)(1)(A)(ii) is amended to read
as follows:
``(ii) State and local governments or substate regional
planning and coordination agencies which are composed of
substate areas whose governing board is controlled by locally
elected officials,''.
(b) Research.--Section 1006(a) (42 U.S.C. 2996e(a)) is
amended by inserting ``and'' at the end of paragraph (1), by
striking ``; and'' at the end of paragraph (2) and inserting
a period, and by striking paragraph (3).
[[Page S 12840]]
(c) Attorneys' Fees.--Section 1006 (42 U.S.C. 2996e(f)) is
amended by striking subsection (f) and inserting the
following:
``(f)(1) A recipient, or any client of such recipient, may
not claim or collect attorneys' fees from nongovernmental
parties to litigation initiated by such client with the
assistance of such recipient.
``(2) The Corporation shall create a fund to pay defendants
or clients under paragraphs (3). In addition to any other
amounts appropriated to the Corporation, there is authorized
to be appropriated to such fund for each fiscal year such
sums as may be necessary.
``(3) If a Federal court has found an action commenced by a
plaintiff with the assistance of a recipient involves a
violation of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
or if the president of the Corporation finds that an action
commenced by a plaintiff with the assistance of a recipient
in any court involves a violation of the standards of Rule
11, or was commenced for the purpose of retaliation or
harassment, the president of the Corporation shall, upon
application by the defendant, award from the Fund all
reasonable costs and attorneys' fees incurred by the
defendant in defending the action.
``(g)(1) The Board, within 90 days after the date of the
enactment of the Legal Services Reform Act of 1995, shall
issue regulations to provide for the distribution of
attorneys' fees received by a recipient, in accordance with
paragraph (2).
``(2) Such fees shall be transferred to the Corporation and
the Corporation shall distribute such fees among its grantees
for the direct delivery of legal assistance, except that,
subject to approval by the Corporation--
``(A) a recipient shall not be required to transfer fees or
other compensation received as a result of a mandated court
appointment;
``(B) a recipient may retain reasonable costs customarily
allowed in litigation against an unsuccessful party; and
``(C) a recipient may retain the actual cost of bringing
the action, including the proportion of the compensation of
each attorney involved in the action which is attributable to
that action.''.
SEC. 15. ABORTION.
(a) Prohibition.--Section 1007 (42 U.S.C. 2996f), as
amended by sections 6, 7, 12, and 13 of this Act, is further
amended by adding at the end the following:
``(n) No funds made available to any recipient from any
source may be used to participate in any litigation with
respect to abortion.''.
(b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1007(b) (42 U.S.C.
2996f(b)), as amended by section 4, is amended by striking
paragraph (8) and redesignating paragraphs (9), (10), and
(11) as paragraphs (8), (9), and (10), respectively.
SEC. 16. CLASS ACTIONS.
Section 1006(d)(5) (42 U.S.C. 2996e(d)(5)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``No'' and inserting ``(A) Subject to
subparagraph (B), no''; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) No recipient or employee of a recipient may bring a
class action suit against the Federal Government or any State
or local government unless--
``(i) the governing body of the recipient has expressly
approved the filing of such an action;
``(ii) the class relief which is the subject of such an
action is sought for the primary benefit of individuals who
are eligible for legal assistance under this title; and
``(iii) before filing such an action, the project director
of the recipient determines that the government entity is not
likely to change the policy or practice in question, that the
policy or practice will continue to adversely affect eligible
clients, that the recipient has given notice of its intention
to seek class relief, and that responsible efforts to resolve
without litigation the adverse effects of the policy or
practice have not been successful or would be adverse to the
interest of the clients.''.
SEC. 17. RESTRICTIONS ON USE OF FUNDS FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE TO
ALIENS.
Section 1007 (42 U.S.C. 2996f), as amended by sections 6,
7, 12, 13, and 15 of this Act, is further amended by adding
at the end the following:
``(o) No funds made available to any recipient from any
source may be expended to provide legal assistance for or on
behalf of any alien unless the alien is present in the United
States and is--
``(1) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence as
defined in section 101(a)(2) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(20));
``(2) an alien who is either married to a United States
citizen or is a parent or an unmarried child under the age of
21 years of such a citizen and who has filed an application
for adjustment of status to permanent resident under the
Immigration and Nationality Act, and such application has not
been rejected;
``(3) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States
pursuant to an admission under section 207 of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1157, relating to refugee
admissions) or who has been granted asylum by the Attorney
General under such Act;
``(4) an alien who is lawfully present in the United States
as a result of the Attorney General's withholding of
deportation pursuant to section 243(h) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1253(h)); or
``(5) an alien to whom section 305 of the Immigration
Reform and Control Act of 1986 applies, but only to the
extent that the legal assistance provided is that described
in that section.
An alien who is lawfully present in the United States as a
result of being granted conditional entry pursuant to section
203(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
11553(a)(7)) before April 1, 1980, because of persecution or
fear of persecution on account of race, religion, or
political opinion or because of being uprooted by
catastrophic natural calamity shall be deemed to be an alien
described in paragraph (3).''.
SEC. 18. TRAINING.
Section 1007(b)(6) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)(6)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(6) to support or conduct training programs for the
purpose of advocating particular public policies or
encouraging political activities, labor or antilabor
activities, boycotts, picketing, strikes, or demonstrations,
including the dissemination of information about such
policies or activities, except that this paragraph shall not
be construed to prohibit the training of attorneys or
paralegal personnel necessary to prepare them to provide
adequate legal assistance to eligible clients, to advise any
eligible client as to the nature of the legislative process,
or to inform any eligible client of the client's rights under
any statute, order, or regulation;''.
SEC. 19. COPAYMENTS.
Section 1007 (42 U.S.C. 2996f), as amended by sections 6,
7, 12, 13, 15, and 17 of this Act, is further amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(p) The Corporation shall undertake one or more
demonstration projects in order to study the feasibility of
using client copayments to assist in setting the service
priorities of its programs. Based on these projects and such
other information as it considers appropriate, the
Corporation may adopt a permanent system of client copayments
for some or all of its programs of legal assistance.''.
SEC. 20. FEE-GENERATING CASES.
(a) Representation in Fee-Generating Case.--Paragraph (1)
of section 1007(b) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(1) to provide legal assistance with respect to any fee-
generating case, except that this paragraph does not preclude
representation of otherwise eligible clients in cases in
which the client seeks benefits under titles II or XVI of the
Social Security Act;''.
(b) Definition.--Section 1007(b) is amended by adding at
the end the following:
``For purposes of paragraph (1), the term `fee-generating
case' means any case which if undertaken on behalf of an
eligible client by an attorney in private practice may
reasonably be expected to result in a fee for legal services
from an award to a client from public funds, from the
opposing party, or from any other source.''.
SEC. 21. WELFARE REFORM.
Section 1007(b) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)), as amended by section
15(b), is amended--
(1) by striking ``or'' at the end of paragraph (9),
(2) by striking the period at the end of paragraph (10) and
inserting a semicolon, and
(3) by adding after paragraph (10) the following:
``(11) to provide legal representation for any person or
participate in any other way in litigation, lobbying, or
rulemaking involving efforts to reform a State or Federal
welfare system, except that this paragraph does not preclude
a recipient from representing an individual client who
seeking specific relief from a welfare agency where such
relief does not involve an effort to amend or otherwise
challenge existing law; or''.
SEC. 22. PRISONER LITIGATION.
Section 1007(b) (42 U.S.C. 2996f(b)), as amended by section
21, is amended by adding after paragraph (11) the following:
``(12) to provide legal representation in litigation on
behalf of a local, State, or Federal prisoner.''.
SEC. 23. APPOINTMENT OR CORPORATION PRESIDENT.
Section 1005 (42 U.S.C. 2996d) is amended in subsection
(a)--
(1) by striking ``The Board shall'' and inserting ``The
President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate,
shall'';
(2) by adding ``who shall serve at the pleasure of the
President'' after ``the president of the Corporation,'';
(3) by striking ``as the Board'' and inserting ``as the
President''; and
(4) by striking ``by the Board'' and inserting ``by the
President''.
SEC. 24. EVASION.
The Legal Services Corporation Act is amended--
(1) by redesignating sections 1013 and 1014 as sections
1014 and 1015, respectively; and
(2) by inserting after section 1012 the following new
section:
``evasion
``Sec. 1013. Any attempt, such as the creation or use of
`alternative corporations', to avoid or otherwise evade the
provisions of this title or the Legal Services Reform Act of
1995 is prohibited.''.
SEC. 25. PAY FOR OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE CORPORATION.
Section 1005(d) (42 U.S.C. 2996d(d)) is amended--
(1) by striking ``V'' and inserting ``III''; and
(2) by striking ``5316'' and inserting ``3514''.
SEC. 26. LOCATION OF PRINCIPAL OFFICE.
Section 1003(b) (42 U.S.C. 2996b(b)) is amended by striking
``District of Columbia''
[[Page S 12841]]
and inserting ``Washington D.C. metropolitan area''.
SEC. 27. DEFINITION.
As used in section 1009(d) of Legal Services Corporation
Act, the term ``attorney client privilege'' protects only a
communication made in confidence to an attorney by a client
for the purpose of seeking legal advice. Claims of such
privilege and claims of confidentiality do not, except to the
extent provided by court order, protect from disclosure to
any Federal department or agency that is auditing the
activities of the Legal Services Corporation or any recipient
(as defined in section 1002 of the Legal Services Corporation
Act), or to any auditor receiving Federal funds to conduct
such auditing, including any auditor or monitor of the
Corporation, the names of plaintiffs that are a matter of
public record or documents which have been seen by third
parties, including all financial books and records. The
Corporation shall not disclose any such information, except
to the Inspector General of the Corporation, to Federal or
State law enforcement, judicial, or other officials, or to
officials of appropriate bar associations for the purpose of
conducting investigations of violations of rules of
professional conduct.
______
By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
S. 1222. A bill to prevent the creation of an international bailout
fund within the International Monetary Fund, and for other purposes; to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
international monetary fund legislation
Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, I have spoken on a number of
occasions in opposition to the United States bailout of Mexico. To
date, the United States has provided $12.5 billion for Mexico to prop
up the Mexican peso. I remain skeptical that the United States will
ever have this money repaid.
The Banking Committee held hearings approximately 2 months ago in
which a number of Mexican citizens, some of them prominent political
opposition leaders, said that we would never be repaid.
What is particularly bothersome about the Mexico debacle is that the
United States taxpayer is guaranteeing repayment to investors in
Mexican bonds who at the time were earning extraordinary returns, some
30 percent to 40 percent on Mexico bonds. These investors were aware of
the risks.
As a reponse to this crisis, the administration, along with the
International Monetary Fund [IMF], is now considering the establishment
of an international fund to bail out other countries that find
themselves in the same position as Mexico. The administration calls
this an Emergency Financing Mechanism--but the truth is that it's
another bailout on an international scale.
The most troubling aspect of this is that the new fund will create a
moral hazard for other countries. What will stop a country from
pursuing reckless economic policies, from going deeper into debt--
knowing that if they fail, the newly created fund stands ready for a
bailout. What will prevent investors from investing in the most risky
Government bonds--with full knowledge that the IMF stands ready for an
emergency bailout.
I think this is a bad idea, and I think the United States and the
International Monetary Fund [IMF] should abandon further discussions
about its creation.
Unfortunately, I am not sure this administration will back away from
this proposal. For this reason, I am introducing legislation today that
will stop the creation of any new international bailout fund.
The bill will prevent any funds from being used, directly or
indirectly, for the creation of this new international fund.
Mr. President, our own country is going into debt approximately $800
million a day. We simply cannot afford to be bailing out foreign
countries that have pursued poor economic policies. It is bad enough
that we have spent $12.5 billion on Mexico. After this, we should say
no more to Mexico, and no more to any other country.
If the United States keeps up this spending pattern, who is going to
bail out this country? We sent a troubling signal to the world that we
were not going to get our economic house in order when the Senate
refused to pass a balanced budget amendment, and the dollar declined as
a result. I know for certain that we will never balance the budget if
we continue policies like bailing out Mexico.
Mr. President, in conclusion, if the United States is serious about
balancing our budget--and about avoiding other debacles like Mexico, we
will move quickly to stop the creation of this new fund. I would urge
the Senate to move forward on this legislation.
____________________