[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 51 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3711-S3713]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, it looks like a very ambitious agenda 
has been announced for this session until Memorial Day. I welcome much 
of that agenda, and I especially welcome the type of bill that we 
handled yesterday, the so-called Kennedy-Kassebaum bill.
  That bill regarding health care reform is a classic example of a 
good, bipartisan effort that I think the American people are really 
starved for. They want nothing more than to see those of us who have 
the honor of being elected to Congress work together on a bipartisan 
basis. What we did yesterday, I think, exemplifies better than anything 
else the possibilities of working together in this body for the good of 
the country.
  In fact, Mr. President, in his State of the Union, President Clinton 
endorsed the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill, saying that that bipartisan effort 
was acceptable to him and that he would be happy to sign it. That gave 
the bill a lot of impetus, and I think it was a very important moment 
in the State of the Union.
  Mr. President, the President of the United States also endorsed 
another bipartisan bill that night on another topic that might be even 
more fundamental--I would say it is even more fundamental than the 
important bill we passed yesterday. The topic that the President was 
referring to was campaign finance reform, and the bill that he endorsed 
was S. 1219, the first bipartisan bill on campaign reform in this body 
in about 10 years.
  Mr. President, I rise today--and, in a moment, a couple of my 
colleagues will also rise--to say that the time is now to take up the 
issue of campaign finance reform on this floor, to take up this 
bipartisan effort, which, among other things, will, for the first time, 
voluntarily limit the overall amount a candidate can spend when they 
run for the U.S. Senate or the House of Representatives, and for the 
first time say that you have to get a majority of your campaign 
contributions from individuals, from the people from your own home 
State, not from PAC's or from out-of-staters, but the majority from 
your own home State, if you want to get the benefits of the bill; and 
finally, for the very first time, some reasonable incentives to get 
people to not spend unlimited amounts of their own cash, so that people 
get the sickening feeling that elections can be bought.
  All of this is highlighted in S. 1219. In doing so, of course, Mr. 
President, I especially pay tribute to the first sponsor of the bill, 
who has been central to the bipartisan reform efforts in the 104th 
Congress, the senior Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain.
  He has been steadfast and very dedicated to this effort. He, I, and 
the others who are involved in this speak almost every day about how we 
can move this effort from concept to fruition during the 104th 
Congress.
  In addition, my friend who will speak next, the Senator from 
Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and others have worked together almost on 
a daily basis to try to move this issue forward. We have been very 
encouraged that this is not just happening in this House. It is also 
happening in the other body where another very similar bipartisan 
effort is being led by a group of people from very disparate 
ideological viewpoints. It is one of the rare examples, I am told, 
where there is not just a bipartisan effort going on but a bicameral 
effort, a real groundswell of effort in both Houses working together 
for campaign finance reform.
  Of course, I would be remiss not to mention the tremendous public 
support we are finding for S. 1219--groups like Common Cause, Public 
Citizens, and over 50 newspapers have endorsed the bill.
  So I think it is fair to say we are in an excellent position to say 
that the time is now to have this issue debated on the floor.
  So I, Senator McCain, and the others who have been working together 
on this bill have come to the conclusion that it may well be necessary 
now to seek to amend another piece of legislation, perhaps the next 
appropriate vehicle, to move this issue forward given the inability of 
having this bill scheduled on its own at this point. I would prefer--I 
think we would all prefer--that the bill be scheduled separately. But, 
given the passage of time, I think we have very little alternative.
  Mr. President, given the unprecedented level of bipartisan support, 
there is clearly a consensus among the public that S. 1219 ought to 
come to the floor. Admittedly, there was a time some years ago when I 
did not think we could, having passed campaign finance reform in both 
Houses in the 103d Congress and see it die. I was skeptical. When I 
read the Contract With America and saw the other party win the 
election, campaign finance reform was not even mentioned in the 
Contract With America.
  Nonetheless, Mr. President, thanks to Members of both parties, this 
is truly a bipartisan effort. The reform agenda has arisen in the 104th 
Congress. It has been proven by not just introducing but by succeeding 
on the issues of the gift ban and lobby reform for which my friend from 
Minnesota was very central to in both causes. These are among the very 
few real accomplishments thus far in the 104th Congress. So the reform 
agenda has done surprisingly well.
  Mr. President, I want to especially remind the body today that it is 
important to do this. This is not just one Senator's view of what ought 
to be on the floor or just the view of the cosponsors of the bill. This 
is the will of the body of the U.S. Senate as voted on a bipartisan 
basis in July of 1995.
  Mr. President, last July I authored a bipartisan resolution that 
simply said we should consider campaign finance reform during the 104th 
Congress. I thought it would be a quick voice vote and be put away. But 
it was tested. It was sorely tested. The majority leader left his 
office and came to the floor personally and urged that that resolution 
which I had proposed be defeated, and called for a rollcall. As we 
know, the majority leader rarely fails to prevail. The majority leader 
almost never fails to get a majority. But on this one he did, and 13 
Republicans joined with many Democrats so that on a 57 to 41 vote the 
Senate voted not to table our resolution that campaign finance reform 
should be considered during the 104th Congress. Subsequently, in the 
next vote, campaign finance reform was added to a list of items that we 
all voted to say ought to be considered in the 104th Congress.
  Mr. President, I think that was a very key sign of the desire of this 
body to do campaign finance reform. I certainly believed that every 
Senator, when they said they wanted the issue considered, meant that 
they wanted it considered in a timely manner so that campaign finance 
reform could become law. In other words, I did not consider this to be 
something that Senators would want to do so late that it would not wind 
its way through this difficult process, and so that it would not get to 
the President who has said he is ready to sign the bill.

  Mr. President, since that time, many other items that were on that 
list that we all voted for have been passed or dealt with. Welfare 
reform has been dealt with, the Defense Department authorization, 
Bosnia arms embargo, job training, and legislative branch 
appropriations have all been considered on the floor of the Senate--but 
not campaign finance reform.
  Here we are in mid-April in the second year of the 104th Congress 
with no debate on campaign finance reform, no consideration, and thus 
far no votes on the issue.

[[Page S3712]]

  So this is obviously somewhat troubling, and it becomes much more 
troubling when we have a spate of news articles this week announcing 
what the agenda will be during this floor period ending with Memorial 
Day. In fact, we have begun the first of several days now that are 
going to be devoted not to campaign finance reform but just to the 
issue of term limits. Admittedly, many Americans want that debate on 
term limits. But where is the mention in the agreement about when 
campaign finance reform will come up?
  Some might say the bill need hearings. It has had extensive hearings 
in front of the Senate Rules Committee--helpful, meaningful hearings. 
But that opportunity has now been given, and the time has come to move 
forward.
  So, Mr. President, before I yield to my other colleagues, let me say 
that I remain very optimistic about this bill. We have preferred to go 
the route of a separate bill, and maybe that can still happen. But we 
have no choice at this point but to move forward and try to amend 
another piece of legislation.
  Some are saying that there is already not enough time to pass this 
bill in this Congress. But do know what that is? That is wishful 
thinking on the part of those who want this bill to go away. That is 
what you say when you hope you will try to slow the momentum of those 
pushing this issue. You tell everyone there is not enough time and we 
cannot do it until they move on to other things. But supporters of this 
bill all across the country know that we have bipartisan momentum and 
that we will come to the floor in the near future. And once that act 
begins, the public support and feeling about this issue will keep the 
issue moving in this Congress.
  Mr. President, on this one, the public knows because of the 
bipartisan support that they will reject excuses that there was not 
enough time. They know that 6 months remain, at least, before we 
adjourn, and they will certainly tell anyone who tries to tell them 
there was not time, they will say that, if there is a will, there is a 
way.
  So, Mr. President, I am very encouraged that we are ready to move.
  I now yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Thank you, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, first of all, let me just say that I am really proud 
to have introduced this bill with Senator Feingold, Senator McCain, and 
Senator Thompson. Now we have Senator Gramm and Senator Kassebaum. I 
think that is a really good, bipartisan working group.
  I am also especially proud to be out here with my colleague from 
Wisconsin from the Midwest. I think both of us see this issue in really 
the same way. This is all about trust.
  There was in the Washington Post not too long ago an article about 
the Harvard-Kaiser Foundation study--really, the erosion of trust that 
people have in basic institutions of American life. By the way, right 
there at the top of the Congress is politics. I think it is because of 
the money choice and the appearance of corruption and gifts. By the 
way, I am not arguing that there is individual corruption. I do not 
believe that. But the point is people want to have a political process 
that they believe in. They yearn for a political process that they 
believe in. All too often money is too important in campaigns.
  When I first came here almost 6 years ago, I came to the floor of the 
Senate. I said that the whole question of the way in which money 
dominates politics has become the ethical issue of our time. I have 
given many, many speeches on the floor of the Senate about the need for 
campaign finance reform. I have introduced many amendments and many 
bills. I thought at the end of the last Congress we were going to pass 
a bill. But it was filibustered and blocked at the end.
  But, Mr. President, let me just say that it just looks awful for the 
Congress to try to stonewall this issue. I do not think symbolic 
politics is going to work. On the House side they are talking about 
some committee or commission and another study. This has an Alice in 
Wonderland quality to it--appoint another study by another commission 
followed by the same recommendations, followed by the same inaction, 
followed by nothing happening.
  We know what the problems are. The problems are clear. There is too 
much money in the political process. It is too important in determining 
the outcome of elections. It gives the appearance of corruption. We 
should have a more open political process, and we should make every 
effort possible to try to get a lot of this big money out of politics.
  Mr. President, I do not have time to go into the features. But trying 
to get some agreed-upon limits makes all the sense in the world. Trying 
to have some accountability about where the money comes from makes all 
the sense in the world. Trying to move toward debates and have a 
political process more accountable to people makes all the sense in the 
world.
  I do not agree with every provision. I think the $250,000 limit on 
what an individual can spend on his campaign is too high. A lot of us 
cannot afford that.
  I also think there is a variable campaign limit that goes up if your 
opponent does not agree, and I would like to work on improving that.
  We came together as a bipartisan working group because we decided the 
time is now. The idea of campaign finance reform is an idea, 
colleagues, Democrats and Republicans alike, whose time has come in 
America. The idea for campaign finance reform for politics, for 
campaigns and for elections that people can believe in, this is an idea 
whose time has come in America.
  This is deja vu to me, I say to my colleague from Wisconsin. We tried 
to do it on gift ban and lobbying disclosure. We kept getting put off 
and put off and put off. In all due respect to my colleagues, it just 
looks to me as if some people are not listening. We are not out here 
for symbolic reactions. We just announced, all of us together, we will 
bring this to the floor in May as an amendment if we do not get a time 
certain for an up-or-down vote on this piece of legislation, and we 
intend for the Senate to go on record in May. It is important that all 
of us do it. It is important we do it in a bipartisan way.
  Let me just say again this is all about trust. We want, Democrats and 
Republicans alike, people to trust this political process. We want 
people to trust their Congress. We want people to have trust in their 
public officials. I am just telling you that this system in which all 
of us have to operate is fundamentally flawed. It is a core problem. It 
is badly needing reform. There is enough time that has gone by, and we 
are not going to let this Congress stonewall it. We are going to make 
sure that action is taken by this Senate and that action will be taken 
this May.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the Senator 
from Minnesota. I yield the remainder of my time to the junior Senator 
from Tennessee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Tennessee is recognized.
  Mr. THOMPSON. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague.
  I join in the proposition that it is time we address the issue of 
campaign finance reform in this body. It is too bad that we are having 
to consider it in what may be considered the midst of a Presidential 
campaign year. It should not be a partisan matter. Senator John McCain, 
of course, has been the leader, along with Senator Feingold, on the 
bill on which I am privileged to be one of the original cosponsors. So 
we are trying to take a bipartisan look at it.
  We have spent entirely too much time in times past as parties trying 
to figure out what would be to our advantage and our disadvantage, and 
both parties have done that. Nobody really knows the result of reforms 
we might make in terms of the success of political parties. I continue 
to believe that the primary ingredient is the quality of the candidate 
and the quality of the message regardless of what rules we play under.
  I have the simple belief that there is too much money in the system. 
I know that it is becoming currently in vogue to say there is not 
enough money in the system; we need to have more. I do not believe 
that. I have had the opportunity in very short order to run as a 
challenger. I am now running for reelection after 2 years. Because I 
had the unexpired term of Vice President Gore, I am now running as an 
incumbent. I have seen it from both sides. It

[[Page S3713]]

takes entirely too much time to raise the millions of dollars it takes 
to run for political office in this country, time that we ought to be 
spending on the Nation's business.
  People are cynical of the system that we now have. After a brief rise 
in public opinion, it seems, after the last Congress, we are going 
right back to where Congress has always been in the view of the 
American people, and that is basically abysmally very low. People look 
at the huge amounts of money in the system that both parties raise, 
that all candidates raise if they have any hope of being successful, 
and they simply do not think there is no relationship between the huge 
amounts of money being paid out and the actions that are being taken.
  That is one of the reasons why people have less and less faith in 
their Government. It is heavily weighted toward incumbents. As I have 
said, I have seen it from both sides now, as the old song goes, and 
incumbency brings the finances that a challenger cannot bring against a 
well-entrenched incumbent who has had the opportunity to spend the last 
several years raising money and putting it back. Someone must have the 
temerity to go out and challenge him and overcome that big advantage 
the incumbent has.
  That is not a good system. It is not serving us well. We can look at 
the bottom line and tell it is not serving us well. It is not producing 
the results. Whether it is the fiscal policy or social policy or 
anything you want to look at in terms of the indicators as to what 
direction our country is going, it is not producing the results we want 
to see produced in this country.
  There are a lot of problems with any particular piece of legislation. 
I am sure there are problems with the piece that we will be supporting. 
To me, it is a much broader and more basic question than whether you 
have a $1,000 limit or a $500 limit or $250 or $5,000 or even whether 
you have PAC's or not. Political action committees were touted as a 
great reform measure just a few years ago. Now they are out of favor. I 
do not think it makes any difference. Individuals can contribute around 
PAC's anyway. PAC's at least are fully disclosed and there are some 
limitations on them. The same people contributing to the PAC's can 
contribute individually. So that is all kind of a sideshow as far as I 
am concerned. I think if we can do something about the overall amounts 
we will be making real progress.
  So I join with my colleague's statement, and I am looking forward to 
making some progress on this, this year.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have heard from several of my 
colleagues about the need to move forward on campaign finance reform. I 
wholeheartedly agree--but we must not move forward without reviewing, 
analyzing, and understanding what those reforms entail.
  Campaign finance reform is indeed a very important issue and one that 
has received increasing publicity and discussion among the American 
people.
  The Senate Rules Committee has taken a bipartisan lead in bringing 
the full spectrum of the issues surrounding campaign finance to this 
discussion, and there are many important and significant issues 
surrounding the reform efforts.
  In a series of hearings specifically designed to permit the 
examination and full discussion of this very important subject, the 
Rules Committee has heard from Senators McCain, Feingold, Thompson, 
Wellstone, Feinstein, and Bradley, about legislation they have 
proposed. We have also received testimony from Members of the House--
Messrs. Shays and Meehan, and Mrs. Smith--on legislation they 
introduced in the House.
  We have benefited in our understanding of the scope of these 
proposals from several distinguished lawyers and scholars who have 
raised significant--and serious--concerns about the constitutionality 
of some of the proposed reforms. This should cause every Senator to 
tread slowly, and ensure we have the benefit of full analysis. It 
remains my greatest concern that many of the reform proposals carry a 
high risk of being held unconstitutional. The American people would be 
rendered a serious disservice if we were to knowingly pass legislation 
which would likely prove to be an empty solution to the problems 
associated with campaign financing. To this end I have asked--just this 
past Wednesday--that the chairmen of the Republican and Democratic 
National Committees provide us with their analysis of the 
constitutionality of several of the major reform proposals, including: 
The ban on political action committees; the limitations placed on 
independent expenditures; and the soft money restrictions placed on the 
political parties.
  In addition to appreciating the constitutional problems with some of 
the reform proposals, we need to understand the effects of these 
proposals. We should not head into a darkened tunnel without benefit of 
a light.
  To this end, we heard pros and cons for various aspects of campaign 
finance reform from prestigious policy institutes--CATO Institute, 
Brookings Institute, and Heritage Foundation, as well as general calls 
for significant reform by several advocate groups.

  Our hearings have permitted organizations and individuals to provide 
us with their perspective of campaign finance reform proposals that 
would eliminate political action committees [PAC's] and the bundling of 
funds.
  We have also learned about the costs and management problems 
associated with the proposals that candidates for election be given 
reduced-fee postage. There is no free lunch--reduced-fee postage 
ultimately means increased prices to the American postal user. This 
does not necessarily mean the idea is bad, but we should understand 
what the costs are and who we are asking to bear those costs.
  The committee has also heard positive, thought-provoking testimony 
about new ideas for reform that should be considered in any campaign 
reform evaluation. Ideas such as increasing the spending limits to 
adjust for inflation and increasing the role of the political parties 
in supporting campaigns.
  In our continuing effort to cover the issues in a complete and timely 
manner, our next hearing is scheduled for May 8. We will bring 
representatives of the broadcast industry to address the costs and 
mechanics of implementing the reduced-fee broadcast proposals. We also 
hope to have testimony on the broadcast industry's efforts to 
voluntarily provide free broadcast time for the Presidential election--
and assess the applicability of this effort to Senate elections.
  In addition, we will hear from a panel of experts on the issue of 
campaign financing and reform, who will hopefully present meaningful 
analysis of the proposals as well as provide us with concrete and 
clearly constitutional suggestions for meaningful reform.
  These bipartisan hearings are providing the basis for intelligent and 
meaningful floor discussion and knowledgeable voting when the vote is 
taken.
  We should not proceed without hearing from those who are directly 
affected; without understanding the constitutional concerns associated 
with some of the reform proposals; or without permitting those who have 
studied this matter to present their understanding of the consequences 
of the proposed reforms and their suggestions for improvement.
  I assure my fellow Senators, the Rules Committee will continue to 
hold hearings at an aggressive pace to cover the remaining issues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 4 minutes yielded to the Senator from 
Tennessee have expired. The Senator from California is informed there 
are 10 minutes remaining.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I thank the Chair.

                          ____________________