J. Kerrey

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. First let me congratulate the Senator from Alabama for doing an exceptional job of chairing this subcommittee and working through the various amendments and problems that he has faced, along with Chairman Lightfoot on the House side, in making certain we can deliver a bill to the President. Privilege of the Floor

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Libonati, legislative fellow with the Appropriations Committee, be granted the privilege of the floor throughout the consideration of the conference report.

Mr. KERREY. I appreciate the words from my colleagues from California and I also want to express my congratulations for the agreement the court and GSA was able to work out with the city of Fresno. The Senator can be assured that I will do my part to see that this project receives serious consideration in subcommittee deliberations next year.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Will the Senator yield for a follow-on to that?

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the most important question for the Senators to answer as they prepare to vote for the amendment offered, the substitute offered by the Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Idaho: Is this body going to get held up every time we do a CR? We have three people in the House of Representatives saying, ``We are willing to shut the Government of the United States of America down-- whatever the consequences are, we do not care--because we want this provision attached to the continuing resolution.'' To be clear, they did not even have a majority in the appropriations subcommittee, Treasury-Postal, and I am a ranking member. They did not have a majority on that committee to pass the Istook language. Even the Senator from Wyoming, the Senator from Idaho, acknowledge that the Istook language would be rejected by the Senate. So what we are trying to do is compromise with a minority in the House of Representatives which is basically saying, ``We will hold our breath until we get our way. We do not care if our face turns blue. We do not care if the Government shuts down. We are mad at a few organizations that campaigned against us, and we will pay them back.'' Mr. President, the net is big. The Senator from Wyoming talked about his amendment earlier on Treasury-Postal. I would have supported that. It would have affected approximately 409 501(c)(4)'s. Even by raising-- we voted at that time on a $10 million threshold. This drops it down to $3 million. You will jack it up to some 700 additional 501(c)(4)'s. Far more troubling, Mr. President, is the language. This is not a change to the earlier proposal of the Senator from Wyoming. This is an attempt to compromise with a group of people in the House who are saying, ``We will shut the Government down--not for a balanced budget, not to do something to strengthen the U.S. economy, not for the future. None of that. We think a couple 501(c) (3)'s or (4)'s were negative in our campaigns, and we want to get them.'' That is what is driving this whole thing. This is revenge, the motive of a handful of people who are now saying, ``We will shut the Government of the United States of America down if we do not get revenge.'' I believe this body needs to say to those folks ``No, that is not how we are going to operate a CR.'' Last week, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming--and I supported him strongly--made a motion to put back into committee an amendment that the distinguished Senator from Arizona offered that would have raised the earnings test on people who get Social Security. We sent that to committee, this body did. We sent that issue to committee. We said to one of our colleagues, a Member of this body, ``No, this needs to go to committee. We need to evaluate this a little bit.'' Now, I have folks--and one was on the floor earlier; I thought he would grab a microphone and try to get recognized--they are saying to us, ``Unless we get our way on welfare, we will shut the Government down.'' We need to say to them, ``No.'' We need to say to that little small group of people, ``No.'' It is not in the Contract With America. It has not been heard. We have not had an opportunity to evaluate this. Colleagues say I will go along with Senator Simpson--normally I go along with Senator Simpson, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming. This is 17 pages of changes, Mr. President, that Members ought to understand could have a heck of an impact. It might be fine for Mr. Istook or Mr. McIntosh, but all of us understand we will be held accountable for this vote. I think the most important, perhaps the only question, rather than getting into the details of what this will do: Will it make life better? Will it make life worse? This does not belong on a continuing resolution. This body ought to stand unified against a relatively small group of people who say this year it is going after 501(c)(4)'s and trying to get some reform for the purpose of getting revenge. What will it be next year, Mr. President? What will it be next time we try to get a continuing resolution so we can do the work of the Appropriations Committee? Who knows what it will be? This is an act essentially of political terrorism where they are saying, ``We will hold you hostage unless you give us what we want.'' They will hold us hostage. Give us what we want. Give us an airplane, give us this, give us that, and we will go along. We ought to say, ``No, don't negotiate with terrorists, Mr. President. Do not negotiate with a relatively small handful of people that are involved in this process.'' It is difficult enough to get a continuing resolution with all the problems in the budget and all the disagreements and the various problems that we have in the budget, to be held up here on this continuing resolution, get held up and require us to come down on the floor and argue a piece of legislation. I understand the Senator from Wyoming has made a good-faith effort to try to reach agreement. We ought to say no to a person, to these folks, and say, ``You do not have a majority even in the Treasury-Postal Subcommittee in Appropriations. You lost the battle. We are not going to allow you to hold us, we will not allow you to hold the people of the United States of America hostage to your desire for revenge.''

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, the headline on this says, ``Consumer Groups Attack Bill Curbing Political Advocacy by Nonprofit Groups.'' It points to a rather interesting confrontation with beer wholesalers and an organization called Mothers Against Drunk Driving. I know MADD well. I know this group called Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They are tough. They come to the local level, the State level and they want these laws changed. They will bring a victim in, somebody who is disabled, someone who was injured permanently as a consequence of a drunk driver, and they will say to you, ``Senator, I understand you just attended a fundraiser with the beer wholesalers, liquor distributors,'' so forth, ``and they are telling you, ``Let the market take care of it.' I tell you, Senator, the market is not taking care of it.'' We have changed our liquor laws in the State of Nebraska as a consequence of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They can be plenty irritating, let me tell you. They come with evidence and they come with a proposed change, and it is darn hard to say no to them. Sometimes it can have an impact upon your retail sales. It can change the behavior of people, as a consequence of the law being changed. But our streets are safer as a result, and our people are healthier as a consequence. It has produced a constructive change. So let there be no mistake about it. One of the things motivating this proposed change in the law--particularly the feverish urgency that is attached, threatening to hold up the continuing resolution, threatening to hold up an appropriations bill, and anything that is out there. This was not in the Contract With America. If you want to do lobby reform, I say to the House, then pass it; pass lobbying reform. I quite agree that the people are sick and tired of watching lobbyists unnecessarily and unfairly influence the process around here. But if you want to change that, Mr. President, pass lobbying reform, pass campaign finance reform. Senator McCain, Senator Thompson, and Senator Simpson, I believe, have a piece of legislation to change campaign finance laws. Let us enact it and reduce the amount of money that can be spent in a campaign. Let us provide an opportunity for more people to come to [[Page S 16861]] the U.S. Congress. Let us get after the special interests so that citizens can have confidence, in fact, that they will have some influence over this Government. One of the most alarming polls I have seen recently is a poll that showed that, by a 3-to-1 margin, people in the United States believe that special interests have more power than either the President or the Congress. So there is a need to change, to empower Americans so that they feel more a part of the process. There is a need to change our lobbying laws and to change our campaign finance laws. We have to address those issues, Mr. President. This body has dealt with lobbying reform. This body is trying to develop a bipartisan movement to change our campaign finance laws. There is an urgency attached to it for the sake of representative democracy and people's confidence that they can have some influence over this. But not on a continuing resolution, Mr. President, and certainly not in this form. This does not give citizens more power; it gives them less power. This does not tilt the balance of power in favor of the people, who are out there scratching around trying to organize these sorts of efforts. It tilts it away from them. I do not know why--frankly, I have been on 501(c)(3) boards, and I do not know why anybody, given the hurdles they have, are out there raising money all the time and holding raffles and auctions and trying to generate enthusiasm--it is darned hard work, and you sometimes scratch your head and wonder why citizens are willing to do it, and then you thank God they are. All of us have seen these organizations perform miracles and do wonderful things out there with families and young people in their communities. For the life of me, I do not understand the vitriol attached to this legislation, to the point to saying we are willing to shut down the Government, which is what some have said--as if we do not care if Social Security checks are issued or if anything passes this body again. We do not care if it was in the contract. We want to make this change. We believe it is the most important change that can be made. So, as I said, I was happy to accommodate the change that the distinguished Senator from Wyoming proposed on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. I said earlier, Mr. President--the Senator from Wyoming was not on the floor at the time. He asked that we give this proposed substitute of his some reasonable consideration. I do not know that I gave it reasonable consideration. I gave it consideration. I would be pleased to accept the precise language that the distinguished Senator from Wyoming had attached to the Treasury-Postal bill some 30 days or so ago when that appropriations bill was taken up. But I support the motion to strike made by the Senator from Colorado. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I earlier was presented substitute language by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming and the distinguished Senator from Idaho. I would be willing to accept the original language that was on the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. This substitute language is not the same. Though it appears that it might be relatively close, it is simply not the same. I continue to argue, for those who are wrestling with this issue and it can be a difficult issue, I believe a sufficient reason to vote to strike this should just be this does not belong on a continuing resolution. It does not belong on a continuing resolution. If I, as I indicated earlier, wanted to try to put all kinds of things on this continuing resolution, I could do so. As I said, I have interests in impact aid; I have interest in agriculture; I have interest in a variety of things that are unlikely to be addressed this year. This amendment belongs on lobbying reform. But guess what, Mr. President? There is no vehicle in the House for lobbying reform, because they have not passed lobbying reform. They have not taken up that issue. We took up that issue. It is a very contentious issue, a very difficult issue. We passed lobbying reform that restricts lobbyists' access to Members of Congress. It passed this body. It was a long and healthy debate, but the House has not taken it up. So all their conversation about ``we are going to clean up the lobbying activity'' begs the question. If that is the case, where is your bill? The answer is, they do not have one. So they are putting lobbying reform on a continuing resolution because they have not taken the issue up on the other side. I think it is very important for Members of this side, regardless of how you feel on this issue--you might support this language, you might feel this language is good language and ought to be enacted into law, but not on a continuing resolution, Mr. President, particularly in an environment where the House has not even taken up lobbying reform and this body has. That is where it belongs. It is highly inappropriate for it to be taken up here. Next, the proponents of this amendment refer to grants given to 501(c)(3)'s as welfare for lobbyists. Let us be clear on this, the law says that lobbying activities are currently prohibited with the use of taxpayer-funded grants. That is the law. That is the current law. And if somebody has an instance where they think a 501(c)(3)--a church or veterans group, YMCA, the Red Cross--if they think they are in violation of the law, then they should bring a case against them. They should come and say, ``This organization is using taxpayer money in violation of the law.'' I say it for emphasis, citizens who say, ``You know, those House guys are right, we ought to change the law to make lobbying illegal with public funds,'' as I say, the law already prohibits that activity. That is not what this amendment does, propose changes in the law. It says that private money cannot be used. That is what it does. Let us be clear on that. All conversations and statements that were made last night on the floor saying, ``We don't want to subsidize lobbyists,'' Mr. President, A, if you House Members are excited about lobbying reform, why do you not pass a bill? And, B, why do you not tell the American people that we cannot subsidize lobbyists, you cannot use tax dollars for lobbying activity? If you have a church in mind, I say to the proponents on the House side, if there is a veterans group out there or somebody at your community level that you think is flying back here to Washington trying to influence legislation, for gosh sakes, find somebody to file a criminal charge against them, because it is illegal now. The next thing I will say is it is odd this legislation is being proposed by people who are constantly talking [[Page S 16860]] about decreasing regulation on the private sector. This increases regulation on the private sector. Again, once that is pointed out they say, ``Oh, we have written in exemptions.'' Now we have exempted veterans organizations. We have raised the threshold so it only affects a very small number. Mr. President, every 501(c)(3) would have to prove they are in compliance. Everyone would, and they would have to keep records for 5 years to prove that they are in compliance. For Members who are wondering on the substance of the issue, if you can get over the threshold that this continuing resolution is an appropriate vehicle for lobbying reform, which I think is a pretty substantial hurdle to jump, if you can get over that hurdle and you say, ``Fine, let's do lobbying reform on a continuing resolution,'' then, first, be advised that use of public funds for lobbying is already prohibited under law and, second, be advised that this law is serious business. You are going to hear from people out there in the community that are going to come to you a year from now, 2 years from now and say, ``Senator, did you have any idea of the paperwork I was going to have to fill out? Did you have any idea what you were doing?'' We get this all the time, whether it is leaking underground storage tanks or other regulations that we pass here that sound real good-- clinical laboratory regulations--it all sounds terrific, but when the rubber meets the road out in the community, all of a sudden the citizens comes to us saying, ``I just spent 100 hours on this thing. I hope you are getting something beneficial out of it, because I am spending a lot of time.'' For a 501(c)(3) out soliciting funds and typically today struggling to get that money, I daresay that increased cost of doing business at the community level is a rather substantial burden, and we are going to hear about it. We are going to hear about it from citizens who are not going to like this change in the law. Next, Mr. President, how many of us talk about public-private partnerships? How many of us, when we are talking about how to maximize and stretch and lengthen the use of our tax dollars, get up and say, ``The Government cannot do it all''? I cannot take tax dollars and have the Government doing it all. I have to develop partnerships, not just with State government, local governments, but I have to get the private sector engaged. What better vehicle, what better opportunity than a 501(c)(3)? And, indeed, that is the case today. We are asking the Red Cross to do more with their money. We are asking them to help us with disaster programs. We are asking the YMCA and the YWCA and other 501(c)(3) organizations to get involved. Mr. President, the real problem here is that some people do not like what these 501(c)(3)'s do. That is the problem. I ask unanimous consent that a story that appeared in yesterday's Wall Street Journal be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, again, colleagues are trying to figure out how to vote on this thing. This is significant change in law. It is significantly more than what was passed, and I supported the Senator from Wyoming when he had an amendment earlier. This is 17 pages long. This is not a little modification. This is 17 pages long. It is not clear to me at all what the impact of this is going to be. I know it expands considerably from what this body voted on before. But what I object to most of all is that we are being told that a continuing resolution to allow the appropriations process to go forward is not going to pass in the House of Representatives unless the Senate agrees to this provision. That is what we are being told. Last week, the distinguished Senator from Wyoming--and I supported him--raised a point of order against an attempt to lift the earnings cap on Social Security income and reference it to a committee. That should be referenced to a committee. In this particular case, we are saying no, this is so important, we have to attach it to the continuing resolution. We are being held up, Madam President, by a small group of people, and I urge colleagues, I know there will be a lot of them coming down here and saying, ``Well, I guess I have to vote for the Simpson amendment, it probably is all right.'' It probably is not all right. There are 17 pages in there. I know there are more 501(c)(4)'s because we lowered the floor from $10 to $3 million, and the language in here looks to me to be pretty ambiguous in a couple of areas. What we are basically doing is changing the Internal Revenue Service Code. This is a change in the law as relates to the Internal Revenue Service Code, and all these organizations are going to have to ask themselves the question: How am I going to make sure I am in compliance? In order to demonstrate they are in compliance, they are going to have to do things they currently do not do. The Senator from Wyoming came down and targeted a few 501(c)(4)'s that are a problem. Using public money to lobby is illegal now, so if there is a problem, if I have a 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) that is lobbying in an illegal fashion, let us file a charge against them, for gosh sakes. That is typically the conservative approach. For gosh sakes, let us not just change the law to apply to everybody if I have a few bad apples out there. Let us target it and make sure we make those organizations that are receiving public money, if they are using the public money to lobby, let us file a criminal or civil charge against them. No, that is not what we do. We have a couple of people over in the House of Representatives who were opposed by some 501(c)(3) or 501(c)(4) and they are on a vendetta, and they say, ``I don't care if I shut the Government down.'' That is their position. They said it publicly. Mr. Istook said: I do not care if the Government shuts down. I do not care what happens to the country. I want to get my revenge. I want to get my little pound of flesh here. The next thing I want to say is this is a substantive thing. All of us are out there at the community level and trying to figure out what do I do about [[Page S 16880]] child support problems; what do I do out there with programs dealing with domestic violence; what do I do with child care, and so forth? Guess what? We hold a meeting out there and who do we meet with? We meet with 501(c)(3)'s and 501(c)(4)'s. We are asking them to take on more responsibility as we cut back and try to balance our budget. That is what we are doing. The very moment that occurs, we are passing legislation that--as I said, I do not know what the impact is going to be, but I know from the IRS evaluation that they are going to request a lot more information than they are currently requesting from hundreds--I am not going to say it is every 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4), but it is dramatically more than what this body voted on in the Treasury-Postal appropriations. Make no mistake, the reason we are taking it up here is the group that supported it over in the House could not even get a majority in the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill. They are willing to shut it down. They are willing to say, ``I know I don't have a majority. I know I don't have the votes to get this thing done. I don't care. But I'm going to threaten and I am going to use the threat, if possible, to try to get this thing done,'' even though, as I said, most of us have not even had the chance to evaluate what this is going to do. I supported the effort of the Senator from Wyoming to put restrictions on 501(c)(4)'s, a $10 million limitation. This drops that down to $3 million. It has some language in there. I am not saying every 501(c)(3) is going to be affected, but it certainly appears to me that a number of them, if not a large number of them, are. The IRS is going to at least have to ask the question, if that is the case. I believe that we should vote no on this amendment. The Senator from Wyoming and the Senator from Idaho have made a good-faith effort to try to produce something that would be a compromise with this minority in the House, 70 of whom have written a letter saying, ``We're not going to vote for a continuing resolution unless we get this done.'' One more thing. The American people want us to reform our lobbying laws and campaign finance reform laws. Madam President, this is very significant. I know some disagree. Some on my side said this really is not lobbying reform. I see it as at least tangentially lobbying reform. The House has not passed lobbying reform. These very Members that are offering this language, why do they not force their leadership to pass lobbying reform? This body passed lobbying reform. This body passed legislation. I ask them, you are out there talking about lobbyists interfering with the process, you are out there talking about the special interests doing this or that and the other thing, why do you not enact the Senate legislation, let us conference that and change the law having to do with lobbying? Let us do the same thing with campaign finance reform. I endorsed the proposal of Senator McCain, Senator Thompson, and Senator Simpson last week. We have to change the law so people feel more power and greater opportunity to participate in democracy. Far too many people believe that the special interests control the process around here, but very few of us honestly would say, we understand special interests around here, but who are the dominant special interests? Come to mind the dominant special interests, the YMCA? Come to mind, when you are trying to think of the dominant special interest hanging out in the rotunda out here that have the greatest money influence, the Red Cross? Did they spend a lot of money on the telecom bill? I do not think so. I do not see any full-page ads from the Red Cross saying, ``Support disaster relief appropriations.'' They have a relatively small amount of impact. If you really want to clean this process up, pass lobbying reform along the lines of what the Senate did. Pass campaign finance reform in a bipartisan way. It is long overdue that this body does it. For far too long, we have acted as if we are more concerned about covering our rear ends and keeping our jobs than we are in seeing that democracy functions in a fashion and the taxpaying citizens feels they have an opportunity to influence what we do. This amendment should be rejected and we should, furthermore, as we reject it say to the House of Representatives, ``When it is time to do a continuing resolution, we are going to do a continuing resolution. We are going to keep the Government going, and we are not going to kowtow to a relatively small number of people who want to change our laws.'' Moreover, for those who look at the detail of the legislation, once you get beyond that, we have to say this just goes too far. It goes too far. It goes too far. Where have I heard that before? I hear it almost every time I go home. This is not in the Contract With America. This was not asked for when the so-called mandate was given last November. I hope that my colleagues, for a whole range of reasons, will reject this amendment. Mr. DORGAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. Parliamentary inquiry. Did the Senator from Wyoming yield for a question?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Absolutely. Mr. President, I came to the floor with no idea precisely when it was that the distinguished chairman and ranking member would be coming down here to take the bill up. It was my intention to talk just briefly about this particular provision and, whenever they got here, to yield. At this point, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, there is a provision in this continuing resolution--indeed, there are many provisions in it. But there is one in particular that deals with lobbying. Just on the face of it--I know other Senators are concerned about it; I know the Senator from Colorado was prepared to move to strike this provision--I believe it should be stricken. Let me make, first and foremost, this point about the appropriateness of having lobbying reform on the continuing resolution. I just think it is totally inappropriate. This Congress cannot function with 70 Members of the House basically writing a letter threatening that they are not going to support the continuing resolution if it does not contain this provision. I have an interest in impact aid. I have an interest in things relating to agriculture--things that are not likely to pass this year. I suspect that I could probably round up 15 or 20 people or so who would say, send a letter to Leader Dole and Leader Daschle saying that, if this is not included, we are not going to vote for it. I know these new Members of the Congress get quite enthusiastic about saying they have a mandate to do everything that comes to mind. But this lobbying reform provision was not in the Contract With America. It is not in any contract that I have seen. I appreciate their enthusiasm for change. But this provision--a lobbying provision changing our lobbying laws--does not belong on this bill. Indeed, I find it rather odd that the House has not taken up the lobbying reform legislation that this body has addressed already. We debated it as a freestanding bill. Those who are enthusiastic about lobbying reform did not just write a letter insisting that lobbying reform provisions be included in the continuing resolution. I see with regret that the Speaker, the majority leader, and the President are now at loggerheads saying maybe the Government is going to be shut down on Tuesday because we cannot get a continuing resolution passed. It is tough to pass a continuing resolution, even one that is clean, even one that has some provisions that connect to the budget. I can stretch and understand that. But when we have provisions relating to lobbying, I just think we have to take a stand on this side and say to the House that we passed lobbying reform on this side. We brought it up on the calendar. We had a lengthy debate about it. We changed the law. We propose to change the law relating to lobbying. The House should take it up over there; take up lobbying reform. If you want to add this amendment to lobbying reform legislation, do so. I think it is a bad change. I would like to have the opportunity--if they pass that over there, go to conference on the bill and it comes back over in that fashion, I would argue against it. But I think that Republicans and Democrats here, if this body is going to function, are going to have to take a stand against 60 are 70 Members of the House who are constantly saying, ``Do it our way or we are going to shut the place down.'' Mr. President, we all understand, for example, the rules of the Senate allow us to come down and expel large volumes of air and tie things up with repeated debate. With all kinds of conversation, we could slow this thing down, shut it down, and get nothing done, if that is what we choose to do. I think the Senate, in this particular case, needs to take a stand. I know the Senator from Wyoming, in fact, feels strongly about this. When we took up the Treasury-Postal appropriations bill, I joined with him and allowed an amendment to be accepted. But in the Treasury-Postal conference, again we find ourselves faced with a threat. We find ourselves faced with a single individual who says in the conference committee, ``I do not care what happens to Treasury-Postal. I do not mind shutting the Government down. I insist that I get this provision accepted and changed into law.'' Mr. President, again, I do not mind sitting down here and fighting the battle over something important. But nobody is calling me from home proposing this thing. This does not come from the grassroots. This came from a couple of people who had an idea that somehow we are increasingly calling upon 50l(c)(3) organizations to help us. But I suspect every Member of this body has gotten up and talked about the kind of partnerships that we need [[Page S 16856]] to make our Government more efficient and effective, and we have called upon nongovernment organizations to participate in the process. What are we doing here with this language? We are saying essentially that we are going to regulate you? After we have asked you to help, after we have said to the Red Cross, ``We would like to have you help us with disaster programs,'' after we say to the YMCA and the YWCA, ``We would like to have you help us with our violence against families efforts at the local level with the State taxpayer money,'' then we say, ``Oh, by the way, do you make any effort to influence Congress? If you do, we are going to restrict you.'' That is what Mr. Istook and Mr. McIntosh are saying. They are unwilling to pass lobbying reform over in the House and restrict the real lobbyists that hang out here all day long. They will go after the 501(c)(3)'s because in some cases they do not like the agenda. If push comes to shove in the House, they will make an exception. We will exempt out veterans organizations. As I understand it, there may be an attempt over here to say let us take care of the Catholic Church and exempt them as well. I say to Mr. Istook and Mr. McIntosh that, if your principle is sound, if you really believe your own words, that we are subsidizing lobbyists, we are not. And, by the way, this legislation addresses private money, not public money. This legislation put in place extensive regulation. 501(c)(3)'s would have to prove they are in compliance. Speaker after speaker last night went down and said there are lots of organizations that are not affected. We exempted them all. Take care what you vote for around here because you may find yourself creating a problem that you did not realize you were going to create, and that is precisely what would happen with the House language. With the House language, you may say you are exempting these organizations, but they have to prove they are in compliance. They have to show the Federal Government that they are doing the right thing. We are now saying to these organizations that we have asked to help that now you have to prove you are in compliance, and you have to keep your records for 5 years. Again, this particular amendment is offered by individuals who repeatedly go to the floor and talk about excessive regulation and the need to reduce the cost of bureaucracy, to reduce the cost of paperwork. We asked in conference, What about the paperwork? What about the bureaucracy? There was stony silence. ``We do not think it is going to be that big of a problem.'' We hear that a lot when somebody is proposing a new regulation. ``It is not going to be that big of a problem.'' The answer is they have not really thought it through. They are trying to restrict the activities of organizations that have come to Washington and are asking that the budget be shaped a certain way, that the appropriations be shaped. They do not like these requests.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask the Chair, are we now on the continuing resolution?

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I appreciate that comment. I would like to ask the Senator from Connecticut, he is the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and when we earlier this week endorsed what is genuinely a bipartisan bill where at the moment there are at least more Republicans on it than Democrats--what we are trying to do is get Chairman Barbour and Chairman D'Amato, not necessarily because they like every detail. I do not like every detail in the bill, nor does the distinguished Senator from Connecticut like it. But to say we know--I think Chairman Barbour knows and Chairman D'Amato knows. They are out there a lot with the people making contact with citizens, and citizens are saying loud and clear to us, ``Change this electoral system. Change it so that we feel like we have more power, more control, and more opportunity to participate.'' One of the things that I hope comes out of this is, rather than this just being a couple of Democrats coming down to the floor of the Senate, I am not trying to seek partisan advantage as a consequence of what Speaker Gingrich says. I am not going after Chairman Barbour or any Republicans down here at all. Indeed, quite the opposite. I am praising Republican leadership in recognizing, as Senator McCain has, and Senator Thompson and Senator Simpson have, that this process has to change. I am hopeful that leadership of our parties can say to the American people, ``OK, we are going to put our swords down. We are going to stop cranking the fax machine for a while, and we are going to let the legislative process work.'' The Members of the Senate and the House go home over the weekends. They know what is going on. You ask at the townhall meeting for a show of hands for how many favor limiting campaign spending and for reform of the process. If it is an audience of 100, you will get 100 hands. If you ask the audience how many think we do not spend enough in political campaigns, not a single hand will go up, unless somebody owns a television station and wants to spend more money or something like that. I really believe that we know. I doubt that there is a single Member of this body who would say that the campaign laws ought to stay the same as they are. My guess is 100 out of 100 know this thing ought to change. I hopeful, at least on this issue, that we can stop being partisan for a moment and be Americans instead and pass legislation that the American people are saying is a top priority for them.

Mr. KERREY. You make them an honorary Member. I would say it is more than just ironic that the Speaker, on the one hand, is willing to make Rush Limbaugh an honorary Member of Congress because he believes that he and talk radio have been enormously helpful, but the Atlanta- Constitution is an enemy. The Senator from Connecticut is lucky; he has Bob Shrepf in that State so he does not have that problem. There have been many views expressed by media highly critical of the Senator from Nebraska. I think they have been wrong, almost never justified. Always some outrage boils up inside of me, and I have said, ``This is not fair.'' Well, that is free speech. It is fair. That is the press. I walked into the arena, and I should not look for somebody to blame for the problems I have. It seems to me the American people have said overwhelmingly--I do not know about Connecticut but in Nebraska over and over they say to me, ``We're sick of all that money.'' I had trouble in 1994 getting people excited about my campaign because very often they would say to me, ``We give too darned much money. We are sick of it. We are tired of seeing these 30-second ads over and over. We get sick of your face. We would like to have a race that is a bit more on the issues, a bit more opportunity for people to become competitive.'' I can think of 100 reasons why not to vote for campaign finance reform. I have a lot of reasons why I would not want to vote for it, and they are all good. I do not like public finance. I do not like this. I do not like limits. There are all kinds of reasons why I would not want to support it. But it seems to me one of the dominant things that occurs is, gee, is this going to hurt the Democratic Party or is this going to hurt the Republican Party or is this going to hurt me as an incumbent? I think we are hurting democracy the longer we wait to change this political system so the American people feel they do have more power, more control, and more opportunity to participate.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, yesterday's long-awaited testimony by Speaker Newt Gingrich on the subject of campaign finance reform was, to say the least, disappointing for me. I hope it does not represent a roadblock in the path of needed legislation to reform our campaign finance system in a fashion that does give citizens the sense that they have more power or control over the political process then they currently do. It seems to me, the top of the list of items I would put on an agenda of things needed to be done in order to restore people's confidence in democracy would be to change our laws that govern campaigns for election either to the U.S. Senate or to the U.S. House of Representatives. We had legislation. I actually did not support the legislation last year because I thought it created a new, publicly funded entitlement, and I did not like that. We had legislation last year that came close. The now-majority leader has indicated he believes it is a top priority. A lot of us talk about campaign finance reform. We always get right to the end and we say, ``Yes, I am for campaign finance reform, but there is something about this proposal I do not like,'' and there is always a good excuse not to do it. The decision I made earlier this week was, in part, a response to that. I am the chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, a legal organization--there is a Republican counterpart as well--that is designed to go out and find candidates and support candidates for office. It is a later subject, as to whether or not those committees themselves ought to be part of campaign finance reform. I certainly would like to see them as part of it. There is something unsavory about going out and campaigning against people you are working with all the time. But, as I said, I will leave that for a later discussion. I, this week, endorsed and became a cosponsor of a piece of legislation that has been developed by Senator McCain of Arizona and Senator Feingold of Wisconsin, as well as Senator Thompson of Tennessee, Senator Simpson of Wyoming, and a number of others. It has a bipartisan group of people in the House of Representatives who are supporting it as well. Not just to say I support this legislation. There are changes I want to make in the legislation, particularly as it relates to smaller States such as mine, that I think might not be positively affected by this. What it represents is an effort to say to Republicans: Look, on this issue we have to, at some level, set down our political party concerns and embrace legislative change that will, perhaps, increase the risk to us as incumbents. It seems to me at the end of the day that becomes one of the most important risks that personally one factors in, when thinking about whether or not to support a particular piece of legislation. I feel strongly we cannot continue to give the American people an excuse as to why we cannot do it. It seems to me that is what we always do. We say, ``I am for campaign finance reform, but * * *.'' That is what I did last year. I do not want to do it this year. I want to be able to stand here as a Democrat with Senator McCain, a Republican, Senator Thompson, a Republican, Senator Simpson, a Republican, and vote for final passage of legislation that has an opportunity of being conferenced with the House bill, if not in this calendar year certainly in this session of this Congress. I find, in the Speaker's recommendation, some things I simply cannot support. He is recommending a 16-member commission on power and political reform in the information age. It goes on. There is an article here I am holding that says, in typical expansive, characteristically expansive fashion, he urges all of us, if we really want to understand campaign finance reform and get to the heart of the matter, he urges all of us ``to study ancient Greece and Rome, pre-Civil War United States and the words of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Henry Cabot Lodge.'' Mr. President, I have read most of those. I have been educated far more on these matters listening to the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, I must point out, than almost any other speaker on this floor. We have, it seems to me, not a shortage of historical information. What we have is a shortage of will to vote for something that might put our own political careers at risk. I would object personally to being told that what I have to do is what the Speaker is recommending--that we are going to have a 16-member commission. They are going to decide. If two-thirds of them vote for a specific proposal, then we have to vote for it up or down. That is a recipe, it seems to me, that on the one hand we are saying we are not going to get involved--Senator McCain, Senator Feingold, Senator Thompson, Senator Simpson, myself, and Senator Dodd, and many others of us are saying it is time for us to enact legislation that we can reach agreement on. I reject that premise on the one hand. On the other hand, what it calls for is another delay. This commission is supposed to make its report on the 1st of May of next year. That will, in my judgment, likely cause us to not be able to enact legislation. Second, I must say with respect to the Speaker's proposal that he has broadened this thing to a point where it is almost a self-defeating mission. By broadening it, I mean he wants to include not just campaign finance reform but the power of private sector individuals in the information age. Specifically, he references in here and compares in here, a multi-millionaire broadcaster on ABC News being given tremendous access to the American people. That individual does not represent political power; whereas, the thousand-dollar contribution being written by the broadcaster's spouse does. Then he says--and I must say, in his typically characteristic way, only the Speaker seems to be able to come up with these sorts of phrases--``This is simply a nonsensical, socialist analysis based on hatred of the free enterprise system.'' [[Page S 16650]] Anybody that does not see it the way the Speaker sees it hates the free enterprise system and is a socialist. Interesting argument. I will leave it to somebody else to figure that one out. Mr. President, the Speaker knows quite well that there are many free enterprise organizations that give you--for example, Rupert Murdoch put $10 million into a magazine called American Standard. He has a political orientation there. We do not restrict that activity. I hope the Speaker is not suggesting that we get into that kind of activity because it is a self-defeating mission, if that is what we are going to do. He may not like the views of somebody on television, or somebody writing an editorial page, or something like that. But, for gosh sakes, that is not the issue. The issue is people who decide to run for office. Once we get to office, we have power that a challenger does not have. Specifically, in my own case in the last Senate reelection campaign, I started off the campaign with nearly 100 percent name recognition. Anybody who wants to challenge me will have to spend $1 million, let us say, on the TV just to get their name up as a credible candidate. That really is a hurdle that an individual has to be able to get over if they are going to be competitive against an incumbent. So the legislation that Senator McCain and Senator Feingold have put together--the reason, it seems to me, that it has merit--deals with this problem of financing head on. The Speaker, on the other hand, says--it is a remarkable headline. I cannot remember exactly. I cannot see the print. I did not bring my glasses. But he said something to the effect that there is a great myth going on in the country today that we spend too much on campaigns. That is a myth? I think he is maybe the only person in America who has discovered that is a myth, that we spend too much. That we do not spend too much is the Speaker's view. He says it is not that we spend too much, but that we do not spend enough. What we need, instead of $4 million Senate races in Nebraska, are $8 million Senate races.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, one last comment and I will yield the floor. I see the Senator from Pennsylvania is here. He and I just had a couple of minutes of conversation on this subject. Polls are very popular methods of trying to determine the attitudes and views of the American people or some segment of the American people, and sometimes those polls are encouraging and sometimes those polls are discouraging. One of the most, if not the most, discouraging polls that I have ever read was a poll that asked the American people who has the most power in Washington, DC, the President of the United States, the Congress, the special interests? I understand that the special interests can mean one thing to one person and another to another. I can be a good special interest and a bad special interest. But by a margin of 3 to 1 the American people believe that the special interests have more power than a Member of Congress does or than even the President of the United States. [[Page S 16652]] That is a very disturbing fact. We all know that perception becomes reality. If that is the belief of the American people, that means they would say we do not have any opportunity. If we want to change a law, if there is something that we would like to influence in Washington, DC, we would like to bring in an idea and have it become incorporated into a piece of legislation, we just do not think we have a fighting chance. We have to change that perception. I believe, among other things, campaign finance reform can be a means to that end. There may be other things that people have on the list, but I would put that very high--indeed, I would put that at the top of my list in the ways to change the law so we can begin to change that perception, so the American citizens out there can say, as, for example, Sarah Brady did, we can change the law. It may not be a popular change, maybe it will produce a lot of heartache where people will have to take a position on legislation we want to change, but we want to fight to change the law. We have to change the perception that people have that there is no opportunity for them to come to Washington, DC, and change the law of the land. If we are able to do that, not only will we get increased participation at the day of the election, we will get increased participation all year long from citizens who feel this really is a government of, by, and for the people. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERREY. If the Senator will yield on that one point, I find it rather ironic; Speaker Newt Gingrich at the start of the session made Rush [[Page S 16651]] Limbaugh an honorary Member of Congress, so apparently if the views line up with your views----

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERREY

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I would like to talk a bit about this bill. I know the Senator from Arizona has worked on this for, I guess, 7 or 8 years now. And I know for at least the time I have been in the Senate this has been an active interest of his, and he has played a very constructive role in raising this earnings test in the past. Unfortunately, I was not here when he made his opening statement. This is a very--fortunately for all of us who have trouble reading some of these bills--a very short piece of legislation, and I do not want to make any comments on it that are inaccurate. But, as I understand it, what we basically have in the law right now says that for a period of 5 years, from age 65 to 70, there is an earnings test. After 70 there is no earnings test. During that period of 65 to 70 years of age, beneficiaries of Social Security payments are penalized. They have actual reduction in their benefits as they receive income. I think the test is at $11,200 today. What this piece of legislation would do is, over time, take that 5- year window, that penalty, up to $30,000 over a 5-year---- McCAIN. Seven.

Mr. KERREY. Madam President, the point I am trying to make here is we have a tremendous problem with Social Security. The longer we wait to address it, the more difficult it is to address, and the problem is a demographic problem. The problem is also one of perception. Many citizens are of the view that Social Security is a fund that is held for them and it is available to them when they retire. That is not what it is. We pay into it, but it is an intergenerational commitment made by people who are in the work force today to allow a fixed percent of their wages to go to people who are out of the work force. It is a contract. It is a contractual arrangement, and everybody out there in America, whether they are currently eligible or will be eligible in the future, understands that contract is there for them. There are really 260 million Social Security beneficiaries. It is just that 30-some million are currently eligible. All the rest will be eligible. All Social Security beneficiaries up to about the year about 2006 or so are currently alive. What you have to do is look and ask, ``Not only can I write the checks today, but how am I going to do in the future?'' In 1983 when we changed the law, what we did for the first time was break the pay-as-you-go system and create, in effect, a system where the reserve is going to build up to a very large amount. Unfortunately, we have been borrowing it and using it to pay budget bills since 1983. But that number drives up to a very large amount and then drives down starting at about the year 2013 until the fund is completely expended in 2029. When I say 2029, people say, ``Fine, let's just wait until 2029.'' Madam [[Page S 16583]] President, the longer you wait, the bigger the adjustment is. We may be able to jog and we may be able to quit smoking or drink in moderation, whatever you want to do to hopefully extend your life, but you do not get those years back. When you are trying to take advantage of compounding interest rates in a savings, a collective savings, time is not on your side. Every year you wait, you do not get that year back. The people who will pay the price for it are not the current retirees, but it will either be future retirees or my children who are going to be scratching their heads trying to figure out, ``Do I cut dad's Social Security payment substantially or do I have my taxes go up in a rather substantial fashion?'' We are going to see a decline in the number of workers per retirees starting in the year 2008 that is without precedent. There is no precedent for it, and there is no possibility we are going to see gains in productivity that are sufficient to be able to allow less than three workers per retiree to be able to produce what five workers per retiree are producing today. Madam President, there is a need for us to change this trend line of Social Security payments so that we can say to all beneficiaries--those who are eligible today and those who are eligible in the future--that we are going to be able to write your checks. Today, you cannot say that. Today, if you look at somebody under 40, you have to say to them, ``The current law will not allow me to write a check to you. I am going to have to make an adjustment.'' The longer I wait, the bigger the adjustment; the longer I wait, the higher the taxes have to be or the larger the cuts have to be in current beneficiaries. That is problem No. 1. Problem No. 2 with Social Security is that it is a very rigid system. The legislation of the Senator from Arizona addresses one part of that rigidity. That is, we have a rule, a Federal rule--a law, actually-- that the Senator is trying to change that says for a 5-year period of time, from age 65, which is normal eligibility age. It is not normal retirement. You can wait to retire or you can retire early or retire any time you want, but you are eligible for a payment from the Federal Government, full payment at 65 and an early smaller payment at age 62. The rules say I have to wait until I am 65 to get a payment, and for 5 years, if my income exceeds $11,200 a year, you are going to reduce the payment that I get. It is a very rigid system. I believe what needs to occur and what Senator Simpson and I have done with our legislation is said, let us change the law so that 2 percent--we start with 2--so that 2 percent of the 12-percent payroll tax goes into a personal investment plan for individuals when they start working that has three big advantages: First, a much higher rate of return. Let it be known to all citizens that one of the problems we have with Social Security is they are invested in non-negotiable Treasuries, the lowest possible rate of return that you can have out there. The lowest possible rate of return that we have--less than 2 percent and closer to 1 percent--does not even double twice during the course of a 45-year working life. It doubles once, that is all. A higher rate of return. In the FERS account, it is not unusual for our employees to say they expect to get 8 to 10 percent when compounding it. That means they are going to get a doubling, over a 45-year period, of six times-- a substantial increase as a consequence of taking advantage of a higher rate of interest. Secondly, Madam President, the advantage is that it is more flexible. Some people have attacked the proposal that I have made, saying that we are going to adjust the eligibility age from 65 to 70, which we do. It does not affect anybody, by the way, over the age of 50, that is not in the baby-boom generation, that is already retired, or will retire during the next 10, 15 years. We do increase the eligibility age. But by establishing this personal investment plan, we give something to the individual that they own and can take at age 59\1/2\ under the current individual retirement account law. So the second thing is that it is more flexible. You can tailor it to your own needs, rather than being dependent upon Congress changing the law to satisfy whatever your individual requirements are. Third, Madam President, we do change it so that you own it. Unlike the current system, if you happen to, unfortunately, not make it to age 65--let us say at age 64 you die--all those moneys that you paid in go to somebody else. You do not get anything out of it. It is a collective pool. Under our proposal, the individual owns it. They have an asset. Done correctly, it can be a way for us to help Americans of all incomes acquire wealth--$1,200 a year, dedicated into an average savings account over a 45-year period, will convert that individual into a millionaire. Well, Madam President, that is exactly what 12 percent payroll tax is on $10,000 worth of wages. So there are other changes that I believe are more important than the earnings test if we are going to be able to say to all beneficiaries, whether you retire today or in the future, that the promise we have on the table we are going to be able to make and we are going to be able to keep; secondly, to convert that system into one that brings a higher return and that individual owns it. It seems like the system we set up 60 years ago needs to be adjusted in more ways than just raising the earnings test. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERREY. 7-year period of time. Mr. President, in general, I have supported and on a number of occasions have actually voted for raising this earnings test. I must say I have very strong mixed feelings about it. I would like to just talk, and I am not going to offer any amendment at this point in time. When I am through, I will put the Senate back in a quorum call. I have had the opportunity to examine and spend a great deal of time looking at Social Security as a program. Senator Simpson and I, in fact, have developed a piece of legislation, S. 825, that we have introduced in this body to reform the Social Security Program, that has a different purpose than what the Senator from Arizona is attempting to do, and I find myself increasingly sort of obsessed with this issue and talking sometimes when no one particularly cares to hear about it. But I would like the take this opportunity, for a moment, to talk a bit about what I think needs to occur with the Social Security program to improve it for different objectives. First of all, it must be understood that Social Security is an intergenerational commitment; it is a very strong and powerful commitment. It is not a retirement fund. There is not an account held for individuals that they own. We have a calculation that you can get. If you send in to the Social Security Administration and ask them, they will tell you how much you have paid in and they will tell you approximately, based upon your current earnings at least, what you are going to be paid when you retire. It is not a defined contribution system. It is a defined benefit system. We are told what our benefits are, and it is a very progressive system, though the contribution is flat and, as a consequence, I think fairly you can say the contribution system is a regressive system of taxation, which is, interestingly, one of the reasons that a recent poll, that was very controversial, the New York Times did asking a number of questions about the budget reconciliation agreement. The lower the income, the higher the enthusiasm for a tax cut. The lower the income of Americans who are in the work force, the more enthusiastic they were about their tax cut. I argue that is because the payroll tax and the other taxes that lower income people pay who are in the work force tends to actually force them to make painful and difficult choices. That is probably why that is the case. Nonetheless, it is a regressive tax, but it is a very progressive payment system. That is to say, there are bend points in the calculation which will actually decrease my income from Social Security in order to make sure that people with lower incomes will, over their working life, get a higher payment. We have designed it in that fashion. So I want to take this opportunity to, again, make it clear to citizens who sometimes write me and say, ``I've got an account there; I paid in it all my life; I am getting out what I paid in,'' that is not true. We are not paid what we pay in. We usually get back more. The system is designed to provide us with a supplemental source of income. Unfortunately, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which are tax law changes and pension law changes that make it more difficult for people to provide private sector pensions, increasingly people see Social Security as a primary source of income. The percentages are increasing of those who have as their only source of retirement income the Social Security System. Accurately described, Social Security is a very strong and, I think, correct intergenerational commitment. It is an intergenerational commitment. Every time I give a speech like this, people call and say, ``Kerrey wants to get rid of Social Security.'' I do not. It is a very strong commitment that is made on behalf of people who are retired by people who are not retired to allow a fixed percentage of their wages to be taxed and distributed to those who are retired. That is basically what it is. When it began, the first payment that was made in 1935 took 1 percent of our wages, and the reason it took 1 percent of our wages is the promise to pay was to begin 6 years after normal life expectancy. Normal life expectancy was approximately 59; 65 was the normal eligibility age for Social Security in 1935. Today, it is still 65. The good news is we are living longer. That is very good news. I do not want anybody to think that I think we should be dying earlier. I am glad, through medicine, through research, through changes in lifestyles, and so forth, that people are living longer. That is good news. That is my intent, anyway. But now the promise continues 11 years after the age of 65. Normal life expectancy is now 11 years beyond this normal eligibility age, which is age 65. There is an early eligibility age of 62 and there is a normal eligibility age of 65 written into law, both of them begin considerably before normal life expectancy ends. It would be bad enough if we were dealing with sort of constant numbers in terms of the number of people retiring, but we are not. My generation did not have as many children as our parents thought we were going to have. So, when the baby boomers start to retire in 2008--60 million of us, by the way--if anybody doubts this problem is caused by Ronald Reagan, George Bush, or Bill Clinton, it is a demographic problem not caused by any political leader; it was caused by a generation. (Ms. SNOWE assumed the chair.)

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. KERREY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.