[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12604-S12607]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. FAIRCLOTH:
  S. 1560. A bill to require the Federal banking agencies to make 
certain certifications to Congress regarding new accounting standards 
for derivatives before they become effective; to the Committee on 
Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.


      the accurate accounting standards certification act of 1997

  Mr. FAIRCLOTH. Mr. President, several times during this session, the 
Securities Subcommittee of the Senate Banking Committee has held 
hearings on the issue of the Financial Accounting Standards Board 
(FASB) accounting standards for derivatives and other instruments.

  The hearings have demonstrated that there is great concern in the 
banking industry, and virtually every industry, about the FASB 
standards as they are presently written.
  In particular, there are concerns that the FASB will finalize these 
standards

[[Page S12605]]

by the end of this year, without re-exposing its draft for further 
public comment. FASB has received hundreds of comment letters 
expressing concern about the new standards. Yet, the comments appear to 
go unheeded. In particular, there is concern in the banking industry 
that the standards are not taking into account the unique nature of 
banks. Even Alan Greenspan has taken the unusual step of expressing his 
concern to the FASB.
  The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors said in his 
letter that ``FASB's planned approach would not improve the financial 
reporting of derivatives activities and would constrain prudent risk 
management practices.''
  Mr. President, I am a strong supporter of Generally Accepted 
Accounting Princples. I strongly believe that these standards should be 
set by the private sector. I am concerned, however, that the FASB, a 
private organization, is working too closely with the SEC, and 
therefore, is ignoring the concerns raised by bank regulators. In 
effect, this is not so much a dispute of a private body defying the 
wishes of an industry--but it is a dispute between two parts of our 
Government over how best to proceed on accounting for risk on the 
balance sheet. The FASB appears to be ignoring the concerns of the bank 
regulators, and by doing so, needlessly complicating disclosure to 
investors. Investors and analysts right now are fully capable of 
reviewing the balance sheets of depository institutions and determining 
who is well run and who is not.
  The Securities Subcommittee issued a report this year in which it 
stated that ``by focusing on derivatives risk exposure in isolation 
from the risk faced by companies, (the FASB proposals) are prone to 
present investors a distorted and misleading picture of company 
conditions and activities.''
  In my view, the new standards will throw a wrench into the present 
accounting rules that will only serve to confuse investors. It is 
highly ironic that financial institutions, the principal users of 
accounting information in order to make credit decisions, find the new 
standards confusing and cumbersome.
  For this reason I feel compelled to introduce legislation that would 
provide the banking regulatory agencies with the authority to reject 
the standards if they find that the new standards will not accurately 
reflect assets, liabilities and earnings. Further, the regulators could 
refuse to adopt the standards if the new rules would serve to diminish 
the use of the risk management techniques, thus, actually reducing 
safety and soundness in the operation of an insured depository 
institution.
  I think this is an appropriate solution to this problem. I have great 
faith that the banking regulators, the primary users of financial 
information from banks, can make the best determination if these 
standards are appropriate. Thank you Mr. President.
       By Mr. WARNER:
       S. 1561. A bill to reform the conduct of Federal elections; 
     to the Committee on Rules and Administration.


        THE CONSTITUTIONAL AND EFFECTIVE REFORM OF CAMPAIGNS ACT

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, today I introduce the Constitutional and 
Effective Reform of Campaigns Act, or ``CERCA''. This legislation is 
the product of 2 years of hearings in the Rules Committee, discussions 
with numerous experts, party officials, and candidates, and nearly two 
decades of participating in campaigns and campaign finance debates in 
the Senate. Many of the proposals in this bill have been made in some 
form by several of my Senate colleagues and by Members of the House, 
and I readily acknowledge drawing on their expertise. Most 
particularly, the important discussions during the meetings of this 
year's task force headed by Senator Nickles, at the request of Majority 
Leader Lott, were invaluable.
  This legislation offers an opportunity for bipartisan support. It is 
a good faith effort to strike a middle ground between those who believe 
public financing of campaigns is the solution, and those who believe 
the solution is to remove current regulations. It offers a package of 
proposals which realistically can be achieved with bipartisan support 
and meet the desire of the majority of Americans who believe that our 
present system can be reformed. In my judgment, we will not succeed 
with any measure of campaign reform in this complicated field without a 
bipartisan consensus.
  In drafting this legislation, I began with four premises. First, all 
provisions had to be consistent with the First Amendment: Congress 
would be acting in bad faith to adopt provisions which have a 
likelihood of being struck down by the federal courts. Second, I oppose 
public financing and mandating ``free'' or reduced-cost media time 
which in my mind is neither free nor a good policy idea. Why should 
seekers of federal office get free time, while candidates for state 
office or local office--from governors to local sheriffs--do not 
receive comparable free benefits? Such an inequity and imbalance will 
breed friction between federal and state office seekers. Third, I 
believe we should try to increase the role of citizens and the 
political parties. Fourth, any framework of campaign reform legislation 
must respect and protect the constitutional right of individuals, 
groups, and organizations to participate in advocacy concerning 
political issues.
  This bill is designed to be a ``bilateral disarmament'' on the tough 
issues of soft money and union dues: each side must give up equivalent 
ground. The Republicans should give ground by placing a cap on soft 
money which has tended to favor our side. And Democrats should give 
ground by allowing union members to decide voluntarily for themselves 
whether to contribute the portion of dues which goes to political 
contributions or activities.
  Specifically, on the issue of soft money, no reform can be considered 
true reform without placing limits on the corporate and union donations 
to the national political parties. This bill places a $100,000 cap on 
such donations. While this provision addresses the public's legitimate 
concern over the propriety of these large donations, it allows the 
political parties sufficient funds to maintain their headquarters and 
conduct their grassroots efforts. In addition, the current limits on 
``hard'' contributions must be updated. The ability of citizens to 
contribute voluntarily to a wide range of candidates and to their 
parties is fundamental.
  At the same time, the practice of mandatory union dues going to 
partisan politics without union members' consent must end: it is 
counter to all the political freedoms that make America a true 
democracy. The concept of ``paycheck protection'' must be included in 
any campaign finance reform, so that these deductions are voluntary, 
whether these dues fund direct contributions to candidates or parties, 
or pay for undisclosed spending on phone banks, get-out-the-vote 
efforts, literature, and television ads.
  Under this legislation, unions would be required to obtain advance, 
written consent before deducting money for political activities from 
union members' paychecks. The present state of the law requires most 
union workers to give up their rights to participate in the union if 
they seek refunds of that portion of dues going to politics. In 
addition, this section would strengthen the reporting requirements for 
unions engaged in political activities and enhance an aggrieved union 
member's right to challenge a union's determination of the portion of 
dues going to political activities.
  In the Senate debates thus far, there has been much discussion about 
whether corporations should be required to obtain shareholder approval 
to make political contributions. This is an issue which warrants 
consideration. My proposal not only limits these corporate and union 
contributions to $100,000, it also includes a requirement that 
companies disclose their donations to federal political parties in 
their annual reports. And under current policies of the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, shareholders have the same rights to make 
recommendations to boards of directors on the propriety of political 
donations as they do on any business issue related to the company.
  In addition, the SEC is in the process of making it easier for 
shareholders to raise questions related to social policy matters at 
annual meetings. I am monitoring how these changes are implemented: if 
they are insufficient to guarantee adequate rights to shareholders, I 
will consider amending my bill to protect these rights.
  As an aside, I reject the notion that the status of union members is 
similar to those who belong to groups such as the National Rifle 
Association or the

[[Page S12606]]

Sierra Club. Nobody is compelled to join these types of organizations, 
and those that do, know or should know that their dues are going in 
part to political causes.
  Furthermore, I considered including in this bill a narrowly-tailored 
disclosure requirement for individuals and groups spending large sums 
on public advertising affecting the public image of candidates during 
election seasons. However, in keeping with my first basic premise that 
reforms must pass the federal court test of constitutionality, I 
concluded that such a provision, in view of a long line of Supreme 
Court cases, likely would be declared unconstitutional, and thus I did 
not include the provision.
  The McCain-Feingold bill was thoroughly debated in the Senate, and 
any objective observor of the Senate would agree that we are genuinely 
deadlocked. This body needs to move beyond the debate of McCain-
Feingold. I hope that all Members will review my bill as an objective 
and pragmatic approach to current problems with our campaign system. I 
encourage other Members to come forward, as I have, with proposals 
which objectively represent pragmatic approaches to what can be 
achieved. I do not claim to have the only solution: those with other 
ideas should come forward.
  In addition to the issues of soft money and union dues discussed 
above, nine other fundamental problems--all of which can be solved in a 
constitutional manner--are the most pressing. Here are these problems, 
in no particular order, and my proposed solutions:
  Problem 1: Politicians spend too much time fundraising, at the 
expense of their legislative duties for incumbents, and, for both 
incumbents and challengers, at the expense of debating the issues with 
voters.
  Solution: The current individual contribution limit of $1,000 has not 
been raised, or even indexed for inflation, for over 20 years. This 
fact requires that candidates must spend more and more time seeking 
more and more donors. The limit should be doubled, as well as indexed 
for inflation.
  Problem 2: The influence of voters on campaigns has been diminished 
by the activities of political action committees and interest groups.
  Solutions: I propose a $100 tax credit for contributions made by 
citizens, with incomes under specified levels, to Senate and House 
candidates in their states: this credit should spark an influx of small 
dollar contributions to balance the greater ability of citizens with 
higher incomes to participate.
  In addition, the increased individual contribution limit should 
balance the activities of political action committees.
  Problem 3: The influence of voters on campaigns has been diminished 
by contributions from those not eligible to vote.
  Solution: If you are not eligible to vote, you should not contribute 
to campaigns. My bill would prohibit contributions by those ineligible 
to vote, including non-citizens, children, and persons under felony 
convictions. It also codifies current regulations concerning political 
donations by domestic subsidiaries of foreign companies.
  Problem 4: Compared to incumbents, challengers face greater 
difficulties raising funds and communicating with voters, particularly 
at the outset of a campaign.
  Solutions: This legislation will allow candidates to receive ``seed 
money'' contributions of up to $10,000 from individuals and political 
action committees. This provision should help get candidacies off the 
ground. The total amount of these ``seed money'' contributions could 
not exceed $100,000 for House candidates or $300,000 for Senate 
candidates. To meet the constitutional test, this provision would apply 
to both challengers and incumbents alike, but in the case of an 
incumbent with money carried over from a prior cycle, those funds would 
count against the seed money limit.
  Second, Senate incumbents would be barred from using the franking 
privilege to send out mass mailings during the election year, rather 
than the sixty day ban in current law.
  Problem 5: Candidates with personal wealth have a distinct advantage 
through their constitutional right to spend their own funds.
  Solution: If a candidate spends more than $25,000 of his or her own 
money, the individual contribution limits would be raised to $10,000 so 
that candidates could raise money to counter that personal spending. 
Again, to meet constitutional review, this provision would apply to all 
candidates.
  Problem 6: Current laws prohibiting fundraising activities on federal 
property are weak and insufficient.
  Solution: The current ban on fundraising on federal property was 
written before the law created such terms as ``hard'' and ``soft'' 
money. This bill updates this law to require that no fundraising take 
place on federal property.
  Problem 7: Reporting requirements and public access to disclosure 
statements are weak and inadequate.
  Solutions: Under this proposal, the FEC would be required to post 
reports on the Internet for all to see, and to require that candidates, 
and groups making independent expenditures, make faster and more 
complete reports. In addition, registered lobbyists would be required 
to report their campaign contributions and those of their employer on 
their lobbyist disclosure reports.
  Problem 8: The Federal Election Commission is in need of procedural 
and substantive reform.
  Solutions: This legislation contains a number of procedural and 
substantive reforms of the FEC, including term limits for 
commissioners, and increases in penalties for serious violations.
  Problem 9: The safeguards designed to protect the integrity of our 
elections are compromised by weak aspects of federal laws regulating 
voter registration and voting.
  Solutions: The investigations of contested elections in Louisiana and 
California have shown significant weaknesses in federal laws designed 
to safeguard the registration and voting processes. The requirement 
that states allow registration by mail has undermined confidence that 
only qualified voters are registering to vote and only registering 
once: states should be allowed to decide whether to allow mail-in 
registrations. In addition, states should be allowed to require proof 
of citizenship when registering and proof of identification when 
voting: we require a photo ID to buy beer or cigarettes and can 
certainly allow states to protect the voting process by requiring a 
photo ID. Lastly, this bill would allow states to purge inactive voters 
and to allow state law to govern whether voters who move without 
reregistering should be allowed to vote.
  These are the problems which I believe can be solved in a bipartisan 
fashion. Attached to this statement is a section by section review of 
the legislation. I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact 
meaningful campaign reform, by looking at reform beyond the usual 
soundbites and addressing the real problems with our present system of 
campaigns.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill 
summary be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the item was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

   Constitutional and Effective Reform of Campaigns Act--Section-by-
                                Section


              title i--enhancement of citizen involvement

       Section 101.--Prohibits those ineligible to vote (non-
     citizens, minors, felons) from making contributions (``hard 
     money'') or donations (``soft money''). Also bans foreign 
     aliens making independent expenditures and codifies FEC 
     regulations on foreign control of domestic donations.
       Section 102.--Updates maximum individual contribution limit 
     to $2000 per election (primary and general) and indexes both 
     individual and PAC limits in the future.
       Section 103.--Provides a tax credit up to $100 for 
     contributions to in-state candidates for Senate and House for 
     incomes up to $60,000 ($200 for joint filers up to $120,000).


          title ii--leveling the playing field for candidates

       Section 201.--Seed money provision: Senate candidates may 
     collect $300,000 and House candidates $100,000 (minus any 
     funds carried over from a prior cycle) in contributions up to 
     $10,000 from individuals and PAC's.
       Section 202.--``Anti-millionaires'' provision: when one 
     candidate spends over $25,000 of personal funds, a candidate 
     may accept contributions up to $10,000 from individuals and 
     PAC's up to the amount of personal spending minus a 
     candidate's funds carried over from a prior cycle and own use 
     of personal funds.
       Section 203.--Bans use of Senate frank for mass mailings 
     from January 1 to election day for incumbents seeking 
     reelection.

[[Page S12607]]

          title iii--voluntariness of political contributions

       Section 301.--Union dues provision: Labor organizations 
     must obtain prior, written authorization for portion of dues 
     or fees not to be used for representation: Establishes civil 
     action for aggrieved employee. Requires employers to post 
     notice of rights. Amends reporting statute to require better 
     disclosure of expenses unrelated to representation.
       Section 302.--Corporations must disclose soft money 
     donations in annual reports.


               title iv--elimination of campaign excesses

       Section 410.--Adds soft money donations to present ban on 
     fundraising on federal property and to other criminal 
     statutes.
       Section 402.--Hard money contributions or soft money 
     donations over $500 which a political committee intends to 
     return because of illegality must be transferred to the FEC 
     and may be given to the Treasury as part of a civil or 
     criminal action.
       Section 403.--``Soft'' and ``hard'' money provisions. Soft 
     money cap: no national party, congressional committee or 
     senatorial committee shall accept donations from any source 
     exceeding $100,000 per year. Hard money increases: limit 
     raised from $25,000 to $50,000 per individual per year with 
     no sub-limit to party committees.
       Section 404.--Codifies FEC regulations banning conversion 
     of campaign funds to personal use.


                      title v--enhanced disclosure

       Section 501.--Additional reporting requirements for 
     candidates: weekly reports for last month of general 
     election, 24-hour disclosure of large contributions extended 
     to 90 days before election, and end of ``best efforts'' 
     waiver for failure to obtain occupation of contributors over 
     $200.
       Section 502.--FEC shall make reports filed available on the 
     Internet.
       Section 503.--24-hour disclosure of independent 
     expenditures over $1,000 in last 20 days before election, and 
     of those over $10,000 made anytime.
       Section 504.--Registered lobbyists shall include their own 
     contributions and soft money donations and those of their 
     employers and the employers' coordinated PAC's on lobbyist 
     disclosure forms.


              title vi--federal election commission reform

       Section 601.--FEC shall develop and provide, at no cost, 
     software to file reports, and shall issue regulations 
     mandating electronic filing and allowing for filing by fax.
       Section 602.--Limits commissioners to one term of eight 
     years.
       Section 603.--Increases penalties for knowing and willful 
     violations to greater of $15,000 or 300 percent of the 
     contribution or expenditure.
       Section 604.--Requires that FEC create a schedule of 
     penalties for minor reporting violations.
       Section 605.--Establishes availability of oral arguments at 
     FEC when requested and two commissioners agree. Also requires 
     that FEC create index of Commission actions.
       Section 606.--Changes reporting cycle for committees to 
     election cycle rather than calendar year.
       Section 607.--Classifies FEC general counsel and executive 
     director as presidential appointments requiring Senate 
     confirmation.


       title vii--improvements to national voter registration act

       Section 701.--Repeals requirement that states allow 
     registration by mail.
       Section 702.--Requires that registrants for federal 
     elections provide social security number and proof of 
     citizenship.
       Section 703.--Provides states the option of removing 
     registrants from eligible list of federal voters who have not 
     voted in two federal elections and did not respond to 
     postcard.
       Section 704.--Allows states to require photo ID at the 
     polls.
       Section 705.--Repeals requirement that states allow people 
     to change their registration at the polls and still vote.
                                 ______