S7346 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The bill clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Georgia [Mr. COVERDELL] 

proposes an amendment numbered 1152. 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that reading of 

the amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the end of title III, add the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING THE 

COSTS OF THE NATIONAL VOTER 

REGISTRATION ACT OF 1993. 

It is the sense of the Senate that within 

the assumptions under budget function 800 

funds will be spent for reimbursement to the 

States for the costs of implementing the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

Coverdell amendment is a sense-of-theSenate resolution stating that the 

funds within this resolution should be 

spent for reimbursement to States for 

motor-voter mandates. 

Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, as the 

lead Republican sponsor of the National Voter Registration Act, I was 

very interested in a recent New York 

Times article reporting on the progress 

of voter registration since the bill’s 

implementation in January of this 

year. Over 2 million new voters have 

been registered in the first quarter of 

1995 and the National Motor-Voter Coalition estimates that approximately 20 

million new voters will be registered 

by the 1996 Presidential election. 

It is very gratifying to hear that this 

important program is being implemented successfully and that the results are exceeding our expectations. I 

realize there are concerns about this 

law being a burden to the States and 

its financial impact on them. However, 

I would remind my colleagues that 

many innovative States, including Oregon, led the way for the Federal Government by adopting State motorvoter laws and supported a national 

law. Additionally, according to the 

Congressional Budget Office study on 

the implementation costs of motorvoter, the aggregate costs for States 

would be 20 to 25 million annually for 5 

years. Mr. President, this does not 

meet the requirements of the Federal 

unfunded mandate legislation passed 

earlier this year by the Senate—which 

I supported. 

It is our obligation as policy-makers 

to protect the voting process and, at 

the same time, to make it accessible. 

The motor-voter law effectively 

achieves both of these important responsibilities and, therefore, I voted 

against the Coverdell amendment to 

the budget resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Georgia. On 

this question, the yeas and nays have 

been ordered, and the clerk will call 

the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 51, 

nays 49, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 192 Leg.] 

YEAS—51 

Abraham 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Campbell 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—49 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Chafee 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1152) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I 

move to reconsider the vote by which 

the amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1153

(Purpose: To maintain public funding for 

Presidential campaigns) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. KERRY, proposes an amendment numbered 1153. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 64, strike lines 17 through 19 and 

insert the following: ‘‘$2,000,000 in fiscal year 

1996, $37,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 

1996 through 2000, and $72,000,000 for the period of fiscal years 1996’’. 

On page 66, line 6, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 66, line 13, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 66, line 14, decrease the amount by 

$28,000,000. 

On page 66, line 20, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 66, line 21, decrease the amount by 

$215,000,000. 

On page 67, line 2, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

On page 67, line 3, decrease the amount by 

$4,000,000. 

On page 67, line 9, decrease the amount by 

$70,000,000. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this removes instructions to the Rules Committee that repeals spending limits and 

public financing for Presidential campaigns, returning to pre-Watergate 

rules for those campaigns. Offset approximately $250 million over 7 years, 

of reduced overhead and administrative 

costs spread across Government by the 

Appropriations Committee. 

f 

PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN FUND 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, and I 

would like to thank the junior Senator 

from Massachusetts for offering his 

amendment that would derail this misguided effort to eliminate the Presidential election campaign fund. 

It came as a surprise—and a disappointment—to many of us that when 

the Republican Party announced last 

fall their new Contract With America 

and declared their commitment to reforming the Congress and ending business as usual in Washington, that they 

did not even bother to mention campaign finance reform in their contract. 

Well, we are now out from under the 

first 100 days of the contract, and there 

is still no indication that the Senate 

will be turning to campaign finance reform anytime soon. 

But not only are we going to be prevented from taking a step forward, the 

budget resolution before us today 

would push us back—20 years back—to 

the days before Congress recognized 

how fundamentally flawed our system 

of Presidential campaigns was. 

Mr. President, what in the world is 

the logic behind this? As far as I know, 

even the most vocal opponents of the 

Presidential campaign system are not 

willing to suggest that we have had a 

single unfair Presidential election in 

the past 20 years. Nor has any general 

election candidate for President, to my 

knowledge, ever said in the past 20 

years that their loss was attributable 

to the lack of financial resources. 

That is because the Presidential campaign finance system is based on simple principles. One principle is that 

money should not determine the outcome of elections. Another is that 

elected officials should not be spending 

inordinate amounts of time on the 

phone soliciting campaign funds. 

That is what the Presidential system 

is about. If there is a problem of inadequate funding of the Presidential 

campaign fund, then that should be addressed. We did it 2 years ago and we 

can do it again. 

But instead, this resolution is trying 

to fix a wristwatch with a sledgehammer, preferring to discard the one 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7347 

Federal campaign system that has produced fair and competitive elections 

during the last 20 years rather than 

finding a targeted solution to ensuring 

the solvency of the Presidential fund. 

Finally, I have to ask why the Republicans are trying to do this under 

the camouflage of the budget resolution. If opponents of the Presidential 

system want to eliminate it, then let 

us have public hearings in the Rules 

Committee and have an intelligent discussion about it. 

If opponents of public financing are 

so convinced that the American people 

are also opposed to public financing, 

why are the opponents so reluctant to 

have a public debate on this issue on 

the floor of the U.S. Senate? 

There is not a single word in the 

budget resolution about what we are 

going to replace the Presidential system with. 

But again, I have not heard anyone in 

the nearly 20 years of this system’s existence criticize it for being unfair to 

challengers, unfair to either party, or 

dominated by special interests. 

This is a system we need to emulate, 

not eliminate. 

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts for his leadership on this issue 

and I yield the floor. 

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, since I 

was elected to the Senate in 1972, one 

of my central themes has been to get 

special-interest money out of political 

campaigns. The first testimony I every 

gave as a U.S. Senator was before the 

Senate Rules Committee in favor of 

public funding—instead of special-interest funding—of political campaigns. 

Unfortunately, we have not moved 

forward as much as I would have liked 

or as much as I have repeatedly advocated. And, what little we have done is 

now on the chopping block. 

The Republican budget would eliminate the only positive step we have 

taken in the last 20 years to clean up 

our political campaign system—getting 

special-interest money out of the general election campaigns for President 

and limiting the amount Presidential 

candidates can spend. Now, the Republicans are trying to let the special-interest, big money back in. 

The Republican budget would repeal 

the Presidential campaign check-off 

system. It is a rather simple system. 

When you file your income taxes each 

year, you can check off the box at the 

top of the tax form to have $3 of your 

taxes go to finance Presidential campaigns. It is a voluntary system. No 

one has to check it off. No ones taxes 

are affected by the decision. And, the 

only money that goes to Presidential 

campaigns is the money that people 

check off voluntarily. In exchange for 

taking the money, Presidential candidates must limit how much they 

spend. 

A simple system. A voluntary system. And, yet the system has worked. 

No more special interest money in the 

general election, and no more runaway 

spending. 

In the last 20 years, very few people 

have accused Presidential candidates 

of being beholden to special interest. 

Less than 1 percent of the money in 

Presidential campaigns comes from 

PAC’s—political action committees. 

And, once the Presidential primaries 

are over, the quest for money essentially ends. Candidates can spend their 

time debating the issues—not catering 

to special-interests. 

Meanwhile, spending has been held 

down. Consider this: in the 1992 Presidential election, President Clinton and 

President Bush combined spent less in 

constant dollars then President Nixon 

spent all by himself in the Watergate 

election of 1972—before there were 

spending limits and before there was 

the Presidential check-off system. 

What has been the result of all of this 

compared to the old system? Cleaner 

campaigns, fairer campaigns, more 

competitive campaigns, campaigns 

more focuses on the issues, and campaigns with limited spending. 

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues 

to support the Kerry amendment, 

which I have cosponsored. It would 

keep the Presidential check-off system 

in tact. Now is not the time to return 

Presidential campaigns to the days of 

runaway spending controlled by special 

interests. 

This system is not broken. We should 

not break it. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1154 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1153

(Purpose: To express the Sense of the Senate 

on use of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund in regard to sexual harassment) 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

send a second-degree amendment to the 

desk and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. MCCONNELL] proposes an amendment numbered 1154 

to amendment No. 1153. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed 

with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place, insert the following: 

SEC. . SENSE OF THE SENATE. 

It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying function 800 include 

the following: that payments to presidential 

campaigns from the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund, as authorized by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, should 

not be used to pay for or augment damage 

awards or settlements arising from a civil or 

criminal action, or the threat thereof, related to sexual harassment. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, 

today—on C–SPAN—we answer the 

question: can we ever get rid of any 

government program? 

Even if the program is wasteful, even 

if it is a proven failure, even if we’ve 

been spending taxpayers’ money on it 

against their will—will we put a stop 

to it? 

Even if the program is a complete 

boondoggle for politicians—in fact, 

politicians receive every dime from it—

can Congress bring itself to kill such a 

program? Stay tuned. 

The Budget Committee, under the 

able leadership of Chairman DOMENICI, 

wisely chose to end the failed Presidential Election Campaign Fund program. Make no mistake: the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is not 

simply troubled or fraught with problems—it is an utter failure. 

It has not achieved any of its stated 

objectives. It does not limit special interests. It does not lessen the money 

chase. It does not even limit spending. 

On the other hand, it does distort the 

political process, by causing campaigns 

to employ battalions of lawyers to seek 

out and exploit loopholes. It does fork 

over millions of taxpayer dollars to 

fringe candidates like Lenora Fulani, 

and even criminals like Lyndon 

LaRouche. 

It was the reformers’ dream. It has 

become the taxpayers’ nightmare. 

From beginning to end, the Presidential system of spending limits and 

voluntary taxpayer funding is a hoax 

that 85 percent of American taxpayers 

are not falling for. The tax return 

checkoff mechanism, which feeds the 

fund, is itself a fraud. The checkoff appropriates money out of the Treasury. 

It gives a tiny minority—14.5 percent 

of filers checked ‘‘yes’’ on their 1993 returns—the power to appropriate tax 

dollars paid by all Americans. 

The system is not voluntary for the 

85 percent of American taxpayers who 

choose not to check ‘‘yes,’’ but are 

forced to pay for the few who do. These 

checkoff dollars don’t come out of the 

pocket of those who check ‘‘yes’’—anymore than appropriations bills come 

out of the pockets of the Senators who 

vote for them. 

Democracy would be aided—not imperiled—by the demise of the Presidential fund. Every year, Americans 

vote on this fund, via the tax checkoff. 

It is the largest single public opinion 

poll conducted annually in this country, on the popularity of taxpayer financing of campaigns. 

The high water-mark—28.7 percent 

checking ‘‘yes’’—was realized on the 

1980 tax returns. It’s been a downward 

trajectory since, even though the dollar checkoff has itself been eroded by 

inflation and presumably would be an 

increasingly inexpensive proposition. 

Therefore, to get more money out of 

fewer people, President Clinton’s 1993 

budget/tax bill tripled the checkoff to 

$3. The result was a 23-percent decrease 

in the checkoff rate—fewer people than 

ever supporting it—while the total 

amount diverted from the Treasury increased 258 percent, from $28 million to 

$71 million. 

I can tell you there is no outpouring 

of support among Kentuckians, or residents of any other State, for this program. In fact, they are crying out that 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7348 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

they do not want their tax dollars paying for anyone’s campaign. Not the 

President’s. Not Lenora Fulani’s. Not 

anybody’s. 

And certainly they aren’t interested 

in paying for a campaign that Lyndon 

LaRouche ran from his prison cell. 

Nevertheless, LaRouche received Federal matching funds for the Presidential campaign he conducted while 

serving a 15-year sentence for fraud. 

Having run in 1980, 1984, 1988, and 1992, 

he’s now planning another run in 1996—

courtesy of the taxpayers. Maybe the 

fifth time’s a charm. 

And then there’s Lenora Fulani—I’m 

hoping to make Ms. Fulani as famous 

as Senator GRAMM has made Dicky 

Flatt; because no one knows who she 

is. Well, you may not know Ms. Fulani, 

but you’re paying her campaign bills 

through the presidential fund. 

Lenora Fulani is with the New Alliance Party, another household word in 

politics. Ms. Fulani is the lucky recipient of over $3.5 million in taxpayer dollars over the course of three elections—

1994, 1988, 1992. 

In fact, she’s gotten so good at the 

game that she was the first candidate—

ahead of George Bush, Bill Clinton, and 

all the rest—to qualify for matching 

funds for the 1992 campaign. Anyone 

want to bet there will be another 

Fulani candidacy in 1996? Who could resist millions of dollars in taxpayer largesse? 

As these fringe candidates proliferate, I can imagine the Presidential 

fund enlisting Ed McMahon to notify 

all those who qualify that they have 

won the grand prize: an all-expensepaid Presidential election campaign—

not from Publishers Clearinghouse, but 

from the American taxpayers. 

Some proponents of taxpayer-financed campaigns say it is inappropriate—even hypocritical—for those 

who have participated in the Presidential system to oppose it. That is absurd. If that were the case—that participating in the system is tantamount 

to endorsing it—then what should be 

said about all those from the other side 

who run for the Senate under a system 

they want to replace with taxpayer financing and spending limits? 

Mr. President, playing by the rules as 

they exist does not, nor should it, preclude anyone from trying to change 

them for the better. I haven’t seen anyone from the other side volunteer to 

abide by spending limits because they 

think they’re such a great idea. Is that 

what is being suggested? 

In the same way, Presidential candidates must participate in the system 

as it is, not as they would like it to be. 

That being the case, every single candidate running for President but two 

has decided, quite logically, to accept 

the funding—because not to do so 

would cede a huge financial advantage 

to other candidates. 

Not surprisingly, the only two major 

candidates who have turned down this 

generous subsidy were extremely 

wealthy: millionaire John Connally in 

1980 and billionaire Ross Perot in 1992. 

So the notion that you are precluded 

from reforming a program that you 

have almost no choice but to participate in is absolutely ludicrous, and 

should be ignored. 

But there is another argument 

against reforming the Presidential system that should not just be ignored—it 

should be condemned. 

Common Cause—which has perfected 

the art of hysterical, money-grubbing 

direct-mail appeals—issued a letter on 

May 11 in which it said that opposition 

to taxpayer financing of Presidential 

campaigns is an endorsement of corruption. It went on to charge that a 

vote for the budget resolution—as is—

is a vote for corruption. 

Over the years, Common Cause has 

dished up so much disinformation on 

campaign finance reform, under the 

guise of good government, that even 

the Democrats ignore them—or barely 

tolerate them. They have become a 

parody of their former selves—just another self-interested Washington lobby, 

adding to the cacophony of government-bashing, while making a tidy 

sum in the process. But this goes beyond the pale. 

The Presidential Election Campaign 

Fund is a failed relic from the post-Watergate reform era. In fact, most of the 

proposals that were enacted in that era 

were struck down by the Supreme 

Court as wholesale trampling of constitutional freedoms. So the fact that 

this system was conceived in the wake 

of Watergate is not necessarily an impressive pedigree. 

But since the proponents of taxpayer 

financing like to invoke Watergate, I’d 

like to read directly from the report 

prepared by the Senate Select Committee on Watergate, which was 

charged with making legislative recommendations to deal with the issues 

raised by this scandal. 

Recommendation No. 7, which appears on page 572 of that report, reads 

as follows: 

The committee recommends against the 

adoption of any form of public financing in 

which tax moneys are collected and allocated to political candidates by the Federal 

Government. * * * [t]he committee takes 

issue with the contention that public financing affords either an effective or appropriate 

solution. Thomas Jefferson believed ‘to compel a man to furnish contributions of money 

for the propagation of opinions which he 

disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.’

The Committee’s opposition is based, like 

Jefferson’s, upon the fundamental need to 

protect the voluntary right of individual 

citizens to express themselves politically as 

guaranteed by the first amendment. Furthermore, we find inherent dangers in authorizing the Federal bureaucracy to fund and 

excessively regulate political campaigns. 

The abuses reexperienced during the 1972 

campaign and unearthed by the Select Committee were perpetrated in the absence of 

any effective regulation of the source, form, 

or amount of campaign contributions. In 

fact, despite the progress made by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, in requiring full public disclosure of contributions, the 1972 campaign still was funded 

through a system of essentially unrestricted, 

private financing. 

What now seems appropriate is not the 

abandonment of private financing, but rather the reform of that system in an effort to 

vastly expand the voluntary participation of 

individual citizens while avoiding the abuses 

of earlier campaigns. 

That is what the Watergate Select 

Committee had to say about the matter. So you can call taxpayer financing 

of campaigns a Common Cause reform, 

but don’t call it a Watergate reform, 

because the Senate committee in 

charge of formulating a response to the 

crisis rejected the idea, flat-out. 

The fact that the Presidential Election Campaign Fund slipped through, 

thereby putting the Government in the 

business of bribing people to forfeit 

their constitutional rights, is an unfortunate legacy of those tumultuous 

years. But just because the fund has 

barely survived for two decades—teetering on the brink of bankruptcy before President Clinton bailed it out 2 

years ago with taxpayers’ money—does 

not justify its perpetuity. 

It is the myopia of big-Government 

liberals that prevents them from seeing 

that anything could possibly replace a 

Government program. So we need to 

answer the question: What would exist 

after the Presidential fund’s demise? 

Why, a system in which private citizens voluntarily contribute publicly 

disclosed and limited donations to the 

candidates of their choice—in other 

words, the system contemplated by the 

Watergate Select Committee. 

Perhaps now, 20 years after Watergate, Congress can finally get it right. 

Of course, I expect the professional 

government-bashers like Common 

Cause to say that reverting to a privately funded Presidential system is 

somehow a guarantee of corruption. 

They have been calling the privately financed congressional system corrupt 

for years. In their view, the only clean 

money is the taxpayers’ money. 

You see, they have this theory that 

your hard-earned money is dirty and 

corrupting until it’s been laundered by 

the Internal Revenue Service. It’s a 

very interesting theory, to say the 

least. 

However, we have already pumped 

nearly a billion dollars of the taxpayers’ money into the Presidential 

system, and it has not achieved any of 

the purported goals of that system. 

The congressional system, on the other 

hand, doesn’t use a dime of taxpayers’

money for political campaigns, and if 

there are instances where it has bred 

corruption, then—as chairman of the 

Senate Ethics Committee—I would like 

to hear about them and we will investigate them to the fullest. 

If the issue really is corruption, then 

contribution limits and public disclosure are the best preventive measures—

not another taxpayer-funded Government program. 

But I think the charge of corruption 

here is just a convenient smoke-screen 

to maintain the status quo and to let 

this failed and wasteful system continue in perpetuity. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7349 

I think the real issue before us is 

whether this Congress, faced with a $4.7 

trillion-dollar debt, will step up to the 

challenge of eliminating any Government program, even one with as dismal 

a record as the failed Presidential system. 

As I said at the outset: despite the 

expenditure of millions of tax dollars, 

this system has not curbed special interests. It has not ended the money 

chase. It has not reduced the emphasis 

on fundraising. It has not even limited 

campaign spending, as misguided a 

goal as that is. 

In fact, this Government program is 

an utter embarrassment: the Federal 

Election Commission can’t even finish 

its audits of candidates until they’re 

ready to run again. Every candidate except one has been cited for inadvertent 

violations. Accountants and lawyers 

are blowing open new loopholes every 

election that hold the entire system up 

to ridicule. 

And what is the money being spent 

on? Convenient balloons. Negative ads. 

Consultants. Opposition research. Just 

the things that American taxpayers 

are telling us they want more of. 

Will Congress step up to the plate 

and put at least one wasteful Government program out of business? Will 

Congress let the taxpayers off the 

hook—just once? Will Congress get rid 

of this exclusive perk for politicians? 

Inquiring taxpayers want to know. 

It’s time to pull the plug on the taxpayer-financed Presidential system. It 

should surprise no one that this Republican Congress, in pursuant of a balanced budget, should seek to abolish a 

proven failure like the Presidential 

Election Campaign Fund. This is one 

entitlement program on which the sun 

should have set—a long time ago. 

SECOND-DEGREE—SEXUAL HARASSMENT

However, if the Senator from Massachusetts prevails in his quest to continue taxpayer-financing of Presidential campaigns, then at the least we 

should take some steps to reassure taxpayers that their money is used for legitimate campaign purposes. The Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

should not be used to quash scandals 

such as allegations of sexual harassment. Such abuse of taxpayer funds 

itself impairs public confidence in Government. 

The second-degree amendment that I 

am putting forth simply states: 

It is the sense of the Senate that the assumptions underlying function 800 include 

the following: that payments to presidential 

campaigns from the Presidential Election 

Campaign Fund, as authorized by the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974, should 

not be used to pay for or augment damage 

awards or settlements arising from a civil or 

criminal action, or the threat thereof, related to sexual harassment. 

Mr. President, this is not a hypothetical. It came to light—21⁄2 years 

after the fact—that President Clinton’s 

1992 taxpayer-funded Presidential campaign used $37,500 to settle a sexual 

harassment suit against one of the 

then-candidate’s top aides. 

This expense item was discovered 

during the course of an audit of the 

Clinton campaign which resulted in a 

recommendation that the campaign 

repay to the Treasury a record $4 million. The Commission ultimately 

scaled back the repayment. Along with 

items including $180,000 in questionable 

petty cash disbursements, $70,000 for 

lost rental cars, computers and other 

equipment, was the $37,500 to settle 

what the campaign termed an ‘‘employment dispute.’’

The Clinton campaign had listed the 

expense as consulting fees. How much 

of it was in fact for consulting and how 

much was for keeping quiet, is unclear. 

The Washington Post reported on February 15 of this year that ‘‘. . . given 

the dearth of information the campaign provided, the FEC has ordered it 

to repay $9,675 in Federal funds that 

were used in the payment.’’

Mr. President, the confidentiality 

clause in the agreement between the 

claimant and the Clinton campaign impeded the audit and with repayment of 

part of the money the Federal Election 

Commission has reportedly closed the 

investigation. Considering that taxpayer funds intended for Presidential 

campaigning are involved, perhaps the 

matter should be revisited. In any 

event, the Senate should make clear 

that taxpayer funds drawn from the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund 

should not be used to coverup charges 

of sexual harassment. 

Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, Senator MCCONNELL’s second-degree 

amendment is a sense of the Senate 

that Presidential campaign fund moneys should not go toward settling sexual harassment suits. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. I ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I simply 

would like to say to the manager, we 

are prepared to accept this. We can 

save the Senate time and proceed to 

the underlying amendment. 

Mr. MCCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

would like to have a vote on this. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I ask for the yeas 

and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment No. 1154 offered by the Senator 

from Kentucky [Mr. MCCONNELL]. The 

yeas and nays have been ordered. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The bill clerk called the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 100, 

nays 0, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 193 Leg.] 

YEAS—100 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1154) was 

agreed to. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. At this 

time, we will proceed to the vote on 

the adoption of amendment No. 1153, as 

amended. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, is the 

pending amendment the Glenn amendment? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. No, it is 

the Exon for Kerry amendment No. 

1153. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I do not need to say 

anything. I am going to sit down. 

VOTE ON AMENDMENT NO. 1153, AS AMENDED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to amendment 

No. 1153, as amended. 

Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 

ask for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 56, 

nays 44, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 194 Leg.] 

YEAS—56 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lugar 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thompson 

Wellstone 

NAYS—44 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Coats 

Cochran 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

S7350 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE May 24, 1995 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Thomas 

Thurmond 

Warner 

So the amendment (No. 1153), as 

amended, was agreed to. 

Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I move to 

lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1155

(Purpose: To restore the IRS compliance 

initiative) 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk 

will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mr. GLENN and Mr. SIMON, proposes an 

amendment numbered 1155. 

The amendment is as follows: 

On page 79, strike lines 1 through 3. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this 

amendment would restore the budget 

structure of the IRS compliance initiative which now is established in last 

year’s budget resolution with bipartisan support. The initiative was established off budget because of its return 

of $5 for every $1 spent. This budget 

resolution would change that structure, placing the IRS initiative under 

the spending caps. 

The amendment strikes that language to ensure that the compliance 

initiative will be fully funded at $9.2 

billion over 5 years and delinquent 

taxes brought to the Treasury. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I do 

not object to the statement, but frankly I hope we will exchange statements 

in the future. That statement is a little 

more editorialized comment than I 

thought we would have, but nonetheless it has been done. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1156

(Purpose: To retain the budget resolution’s 

prohibition against off-budget funding for 

the IRS and add a Sense of the Senate that 

the Senate should pass the ‘‘Taxpayers Bill 

of Rights 2’’) 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I send 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute on behalf of myself and Senator 

GRASSLEY to the desk and ask for its 

immediate consideration. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk 

will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from New Mexico [Mr. DOMENICI], for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY, proposes 

an amendment numbered 1156. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In lieu of the language proposed to be 

stricken insert the following: 

SEC. 209. REPEAL OF IRS ALLOWANCE. 

(a) Section 25 of House Concurrent Resolution 218 (103d Congress, 2d Session) is repealed. 

(b) It is the sense of the Senate that the 

revenue levels contained in the budget resolution should assume passage of the ‘‘Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2’’ and that the Senate 

should pass the Taxpayers Bill of Rights 2 

this Congress. 

(c) It is the sense of the Senate that funding for tax compliance efforts should be a top 

priority and that the assumptions underlying the functional totals in this resolution 

include the administration’s full request for 

the Internal Revenue Service. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, this 

amendment repeals the special offbudget treatment of the IRS compliance initiative. The budget resolution 

already provides full funding of the initiative within the discretionary caps. 

I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Several Senators addressed the 

Chair. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from Ohio. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1157 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1156

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I send an 

amendment to the desk in the second 

degree and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk 

will report. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

The Senator from Ohio [Mr. GLENN] proposes an amendment numbered 1157 to 

amendment No. 1156. 

Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the pending amendment, strike lines 1–

3. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The majority 

leader is recognized. 

UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have had 

discussion with the distinguished 

Democratic leader. I would like to 

enter into a unanimous-consent agreement. I understand the amendments 

have climbed to 50, so there will be 50 

votes. We started at 31, got down to 20, 

and now it has gotten up to 50. 

So I ask unanimous consent that the 

only first-degree amendments in order 

to the budget resolution be those submitted by 5:15 this evening. 

Is there objection to that? 

Mr. FORD. What about second degree? 

Mr. DOLE. This only applies to first 

degree. 

Mr. DASCHLE. We have been discussing this agreement. This would not 

preclude second-degree amendments. 

The sponsors of the amendments would 

have to turn them in to the managers 

prior to 5:15. I think it is a good suggestion and I hope we can accommodate 

it. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. STEVENS. Which one are we voting on now? 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from Nebraska. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the seconddegree amendment strikes language in 

the Grassley-Domenici amendment 

which would restructure the IRS compliance initiative placing it within the 

budget caps. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from New Mexico. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the 

second-degree amendment returns the 

situation to where it was before I offered my amendment, which means 

that if this amendment is adopted, the 

IRS will continue to have special offbudget treatment of their budget instead of it being included in the budget 

like others. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question 

is on the second-degree amendment. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO TABLE AMENDMENT NO. 1157

TO AMENDMENT NO. 1156

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to table the 

second-degree amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk 

will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 58, 

nays 42, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 195 Leg.] 

YEAS—58 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Bingaman 

Brown 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Frist 

Gorton 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Packwood 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—42 

Akaka 

Biden 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Byrd 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Graham 

Harkin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Pell 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1157) was 

agreed to. 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS

May 24, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE S7351 

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I move 

to reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion 

on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1156

The VICE PRESIDENT. The question 

recurs on amendment No. 1156 offered 

by the Senator from New Mexico. 

The question is on agreeing to the 

amendment. 

The amendment (No. 1156) was agreed 

to. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The adoption 

of the Domenici amendment renders 

the underlying amendment moot. 

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair. 

The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senator 

from Washington. 

Mr. GORTON. I am authorized to 

make an announcement by the majority leader that there will be no further 

votes until 5 p.m. 

f 

RECESS 

The VICE PRESIDENT. Under the 

previous order, the Senate will stand in 

recess until 5 p.m. 

Whereupon, at 4:19 p.m., the Senate 

recessed until 5 p.m.; whereupon, the 

Senate reassembled when called to 

order by the Presiding Officer (Mr. JEFFORDS). 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority manager of the bill is recognized. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1158

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, on behalf 

of Senators BOXER, MURRAY, LAUTENBERG, and FEINSTEIN, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Nebraska [Mr. EXON], for 

Mrs. BOXER, for herself, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, and Mrs. FEINSTEIN, proposes 

an amendment numbered 1158. 

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 

amendment be dispensed with. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

The amendment is as follows: 

At the appropriate place add the following: 

‘‘It is the sense of Congress that no Member 

of Congress may use campaign funds to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits.’’

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, this a 

sense of the Congress that no Member 

of Congress may use campaign funds to 

defend against sexual harassment lawsuits. 

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I ask 

unanimous consent that the order for 

the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Are we prepared to 

vote? 

Mr. EXON. We are prepared for the 

vote. I asked for the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas 

and nays have been ordered. 

Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I 

move to lay the amendment on the 

table. 

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and 

nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is a sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

VOTE ON MOTION TO LAY ON THE TABLE

AMENDMENT NO. 1158

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the motion 

to lay on the table amendment No. 

1158. 

The clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk called the roll. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there 

any other Senators in the Chamber 

who desire to vote? 

The result was announced—yeas 1, 

nays 99, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 196 Leg.] 

YEAS—1 

Packwood 

NAYS—99 

Abraham 

Akaka 

Ashcroft 

Baucus 

Bennett 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Bond 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Brown 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Conrad 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

Daschle 

DeWine 

Dodd 

Dole 

Domenici 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Faircloth 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Frist 

Glenn 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Harkin 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Heflin 

Helms 

Hollings 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Inouye 

Jeffords 

Johnston 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Kyl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murkowski 

Murray 

Nickles 

Nunn 

Pell 

Pressler 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Roth 

Santorum 

Sarbanes 

Shelby 

Simon 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

Wellstone 

So the motion to lay on the table the 

amendment (No. 1158) was rejected. 

AMENDMENT NO. 1159 TO AMENDMENT NO. 1158

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. I send a second-degree 

amendment to the desk. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will report. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 

as follows: 

The Senator from Kansas [Mr. DOLE] proposes an amendment numbered 1159 to 

amendment No. 1158. 

The amendment is as follows: 

In the pending amendment strike all after 

the words ‘‘It is the sense-of-the-Congress’’

and insert the following: ‘‘That no member 

of Congress or the executive branch may use 

campaign funds or privately donated funds 

to defend against sexual harassment lawsuits.’’

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

question is on agreeing to the amendment. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for 

the yeas and nays. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a 

sufficient second? 

There is sufficient second. 

The yeas and nays were ordered. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 

clerk will call the roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk called 

the roll. 

The result was announced—yeas 55, 

nays 45, as follows: 

[Rollcall Vote No. 197 Leg.] 

YEAS—55 

Abraham 

Ashcroft 

Bennett 

Bond 

Brown 

Burns 

Byrd 

Campbell 

Chafee 

Coats 

Cochran 

Cohen 

Coverdell 

Craig 

D’Amato 

DeWine 

Dole 

Domenici 

Faircloth 

Frist 

Gorton 

Graham 

Gramm 

Grams 

Grassley 

Gregg 

Hatch 

Hatfield 

Helms 

Hutchison 

Inhofe 

Jeffords 

Kassebaum 

Kempthorne 

Kyl 

Lott 

Lugar 

Mack 

McCain 

McConnell 

Murkowski 

Nickles 

Pressler 

Roth 

Santorum 

Shelby 

Simpson 

Smith 

Snowe 

Specter 

Stevens 

Thomas 

Thompson 

Thurmond 

Warner 

NAYS—45 

Akaka 

Baucus 

Biden 

Bingaman 

Boxer 

Bradley 

Breaux 

Bryan 

Bumpers 

Conrad 

Daschle 

Dodd 

Dorgan 

Exon 

Feingold 

Feinstein 

Ford 

Glenn 

Harkin 

Heflin 

Hollings 

Inouye 

Johnston 

Kennedy 

Kerrey 

Kerry 

Kohl 

Lautenberg 

Leahy 

Levin 

Lieberman 

Mikulski 

Moseley-Braun 

Moynihan 

Murray 

Nunn 

Packwood 

Pell 

Pryor 

Reid 

Robb 

Rockefeller 

Sarbanes 

Simon 

Wellstone 

So the amendment (No. 1159) was 

agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 

reconsider the vote by which the 

amendment was agreed to. 

Mr. DOMENICI. I move to lay that 

motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 

agreed to. 

Mr. BROWN. Parliamentary inquiry, 

Mr. President. Is it true that the unanimous consent agreement that we are 

operating under required any further 

amendments to be considered by this 

body—first-degree amendments—to be 

considered by this body to be presented 

to the managers of the bill by 5:15? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. 

Mr. BROWN. Is it then true that because none of those amendments have 

mmaher on MIKETEMP with SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS