Washington, D.C. - Today Senator John McCain delivered the following statement on the floor of the United States Senate: Mr. President, the amendment before the Senate is very simple. It restricts the use of campaign funds for inherently personal purposes. The amendment would restrict individuals from using campaign funds for such things as home mortgage payments, clothing purchases, non-campaign automobile expenses, country club memberships, and vacations or other trips that are non-campaign in nature. Campaign funds, either donated from the public, or taxpayers funds given to candidates as mandated by the bill before us, should not be used to pay for Member's personal needs. This amendment in no way restricts a candidate's ability to use campaign funds for legitimate campaign needs. Mr. President, Senators and Members of the House currently earn $139,000 per year. This means that Senators and Representatives are in the top 1% of wage earners in the country. Let there be no mistake, Congressmen and women earn a good wage -- a wage that does not leave them poor. Additionally, Members are allowed to use their official office accounts for a variety of purposes. Members may fly back and forth to their district or state at the taxpayers expense. Members are able to use subsidized gyms, at taxpayer expense. Members are able to use the services of the Attending Physician, at taxpayer's expense. Members are able to decorate their offices, all at taxpayer's expense. It is worth contrasting a Member's salary and prerequisites with that of a typical American family. According to the United States Census for 1990, the median family income in America was $30,056. With that $30,056 dollars, the average American family was expected to put a roof over their head, feed their children, and send them to school. Mr. President, we are no different. We should live be able to survive well at a salary level of $139,000 per year. Families in Arizona have no choice but to live within their budgets. They pay their mortgages on their own, they do not have the luxury of a separate slush fund. When they need to buy clothing, they budget for it. They do not possess the ability of just ordering "the campaign to pay." Mr. President, the use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons betrays the trust of the public. Sara Fritz, a reporter for the Los Angeles Times, in her book Handbook of Campaign Spending, calls campaign funds that are used for personal reasons nothing more than a "personal slush fund." Sara Fritz writes: “In the spring of 1990, [a Member of Congress], and his wife enjoyed a leisurely, eight day stay at South Seas Plantation in Captiva, Florida. Their accommodations during the first three days of the visit were courtesy of the Electronics Industry Association; the next five days were paid for by [the Member's] campaign. “Under House and Senate ethics rules, members of Congress must use campaign funds for political -- not personal -- purposes. Yet the commonly accepted definition of a political expenditure has grown so broad and enforcement of the rules has been so lax that congressional campaigns now routinely make purchases that on their face appear to be personal, such as resort vacations, luxury automobiles, expensive meals, apartments, country club memberships, tuxedos, home improvements, baby sitting, and car phones.” Mr. President, I do not believe the general public is aware of how their campaign contributions are being used. I think it would be fair to they that if they did, they would be outraged. Further, as Ms. Fritz later concisely points out: “In many cases, in fact, [the use of campaign funds for personal purposes] has transformed middle-class - politicians into member of the country-club set, isolating them from their constituency.” Mr. President, one major reason the public does not approve of the Congress is that they believe we are isolated and unresponsive. The last thing we need is to maintain a policy that encourages the Congress to be even more separated and disconnected from the people. If we in Congress learned one thing from President Clinton's $200 haircut last week, it should be that the public does not approve of its elected officials being treated as royalty. We should be no different. The solution to this problem is simple, restrict the use of campaign funds solely to campaign purposes. Mr. President, my amendment outlines certain types of spending of campaign funds that would be forbidden. It also mandates that the Federal Election Commission, the experts on this subject, look into the matter and issue regulations if needed. Further, Mr. President, in light of the bill before the Senate, should this amendment not be adopted, taxpayer money could be used directly by Members of Congress to support lifestyles of luxury. According to Ms. Fritz, campaign funds have been used to buy such items as a jumbo illuminated globe from Hammacher Schlemmer, for trips to exotic locals such as Thailand, Taiwan, and Italy, and for tuxedos and a an unexplainable $299 for bow ties. I cannot imagine being able to justify to the public what will soon be the use of tax dollars in this fashion. Mr. President, the benefits of office are great. At the same time, I clearly understand the pressures and strains of maintaining two households, sending children to school, and in general making ends meet. But the President has asked us all to sacrifice. I believe we should heed his words. Further, people seeking public office know of these needs when they choose to run, and no where in America do I believe there exists a scarcity of candidates for federal office. Simply, those who do not believe the benefits of office are sufficient should choose employment elsewhere. Mr. President, this amendment is not extreme and does not ask any Member of Congress to give up anything they may be entitled to. Simply, the amendment asks Members of Congress to do what every other family in America does, live within its means. # # #