[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 43 (Tuesday, April 19, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 19, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
MORE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND THE FED'S RAISING OF INTEREST RATES

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Danner). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. 
Gejdenson] is recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Madam Speaker, I think that the record does need to be 
set straight here. There is a general disagreement. The other party 
does not believe in limiting wealthy people's power in the political 
process. They would like to go back to a system that had individuals 
with large resources be able to control the political process. And what 
we are trying to do on this side is put together a bill, and it is 
primarily the votes on this side which will pass reform, as it was in 
1974, when real campaign finance reform was passed but damaged somewhat 
by the court decision in Buckley versus Valeo, that we will have a bill 
that limits spending, that limits political action committees and does 
not use taxpayer dollars, but uses fees on political action committees 
and will use not just fees on political action committees but voluntary 
contributions from citizens to fund the system.
  I think that is the right way to go. Whether the match is a dollar 
for a dollar or 50 cents on a dollar, I think is less relevant than 
whether or not we can get 100 percent of a limit on spending, that 
there is not an unlimited race for dollars, that we have a limit on 
spending, we have a limit on political action committees. And the bill 
that we are working on does those things.
  It has passed the House before. It was vetoed by President Bush. We 
are going to pass a very similar bill again, hopefully improved, that 
will be signed by President Clinton.
  The difference is, we have this time a President who supports limits 
on spending, limits on wealthy contributors, and limits on political 
action committees.
  While the other side oftentimes tries to create issues that are 
unreal in that whether or not we have a dollar for dollar match or a 70 
cents per dollar match from voluntary funds, to try to bury this 
somehow in taxpayer funds or to attack the proposal on whether or not 
you do a one for one match or a 90 cents to a dollar match, I think, is 
frankly irrelevant. The real goal has to be to limit spending, to limit 
political action committees, and to more on with it.
  My main purpose for coming today, I diverted somewhat to answer some 
of what my colleague had raised as issues, is frankly to raise concerns 
about the Fed action. I know that the administration is in a difficult 
position, because they do not want to create a situation where the 
debate with the Fed ends up damaging the economy. I know that the 
administration is frustrated by this continued increase in interest 
rates, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence of inflation 
returning.
  I think that the Fed action is the most damaging thing that could be 
done to the economy today. It will make it more difficult to sell new 
houses and old houses. It will make it more difficult for industry, 
businesses to refinance debt as they come out of the recession of the 
1980's.
  It is clear to me that we have to use all of our pressure that we can 
bring to bear from this institution, Democrats and Republicans alike 
who believe that this economy is finally headed in the right direction, 
that the danger to the economy is not inflation, the danger is that 
these increases in interest rates by the Fed will somehow trip up this 
recovery. The danger of inflation has, frankly, been mitigated by a 
worldwide economy where working people's, in this country, incomes have 
not grown as a result of worldwide competition. It has made it more 
difficult to, frankly, keep the standard of living, to have it keep 
pace as we always had in the past in this country. So I think the Fed 
is looking at the wrong problem.
  The Fed is going to damage this economy, if it continues to raise 
interest rates. And, frankly, I believe the Fed should reverse itself 
as quickly as possible in this most recent increase.
  American industry and American workers are ready to rebuild America. 
The Clinton economic plan, the budget that has passed this House, will 
help move this economy forward. It is outrageous to see the Fed taking 
actions that will damage our ability to rebuild the economy. I think 
that the administration and many Members of Congress share this 
frustration with the American people, and I am hopeful to see that the 
Fed hears this message and more of my colleagues join me in sending a 
message to the Fed to stop raising interest rates.
  We need to grow this economy. From Connecticut to California, this 
recession that started in the 1980's is not over. We need to get our 
jobs back. We need to put our people back to work. The challenge here 
is not inflation. The challenge is getting more jobs to people who want 
to work in building this economy up again.

                          ____________________