[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]

 
                  CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LONG OVERDUE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn], is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Madam Speaker, Republicans, like the public and Congress, 
do not support taxpayer dollars being used to fund political campaigns. 
Even the Democratic majority does not support such funding. That is why 
their bill contains none.
  S. 3, as amended by the House of Representatives, is not reform. So-
called $600,000 spending limits actually approach $1 million once all 
the loopholes are added up. I cannot call a bill campaign reform when 
less than one out of every four campaigns approaches the so-called 
limit on spending.
  American voters want an end to excessive campaign spending. American 
voters also want an end to political action committees. Instead of 
limiting the influence of special interests, the $5,000 limit from a 
PAC can contribute to a candidate in each election, primary and 
general, is a sacred cow for House Democrats, many of whom are in safe 
seats and can collect $10,000 from a PAC in a few months. Even Senate 
Democrats, however, agreed to a ban on political action committees.
  S. 3 is now public financing without enforcement. Democrats want to 
fill the bank with money, and then fire all the guards. Outside experts 
say enforcing these proposed regulations will require a 50 percent to 
200 percent increase in funding for the Federal Election Commission, 
the FEC. Instead of funding these new responsibilities, what has the 
Clinton administration done? It has cut the FEC funding.
  Does the President and members of his administration really care 
about campaign finance reform? Of course not. If they cared, the would 
not cut the budget of the FEC.
  As a member of the Republican campaign reform task force, I helped 
write a real reform bill. We banned political action committees. We 
required candidates to get their money from the voters who primarily 
elected them, not from the special interest lawyers in Washington DC, 
who pay $500 at a clip for a PAC-based breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and 
then just happen to want an appointment the next day in the Member's 
office.
  We need to pass a bill with real reforms. S. 3 is an absolute sham. 
In its own words, ``The Provisions of this Act (other than this 
section) shall not be effective''' until the enactment of revenue 
legislation.''
  Rumors are that the leadership wants to fund this bill with an income 
tax add-on. Recently we had to bail out the presidential campaign fund 
because only 17 percent of the taxpayers checked ``yes'' to a tax 
transfer that added nothing to their tax bill. Now the Democrats expect 
taxpayers to add $5 or $10 to their tax bill to fatten the candidate 
war chests.
  Why not let the taxpayers make up their own mind about writing a 
candidate a check? Even the President and the First Lady had not 
checked the presidential fund transfer box until he began running for 
President. If a career politician will not check the box, who will? The 
idea that ``we will find the money somewhere'' is what put this country 
$4.5 trillion in debt.
  This bill continues that thinking. The gentleman from Connecticut 
[Mr. Gejdenson], was recently quoted as saying, ``Next year we can find 
another source'' when the funding comes up short. Mr. Gejdenson, the 
American taxpayer is tired of hearing about ``next year.''
  The taxpayers are demanding that we get serious about reform and 
deficit reduction. This bill does not do either. We desperately need 
campaign finance reform. There are a number of good proposals out 
there. All of us stand ready to talk with Members of Congress 
interested in real reform, in bipartisan reform.
  Recently the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel], the gentleman from 
Georgia, [Mr. Gingrich] the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], 
and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas], sent a letter to the 
Speaker last Thursday expressing the Republican party's support for 
reform without giving taxpayer moneys to candidate war chests.
  I urge the Democratic leadership to get serious about reform. Give up 
the S. 3 charade, as amended by the House, and negotiate with 
Republicans on true reforms: A ban or limit on PACs; an end to the soft 
money, which was behind the corruption of the Keating scandal; an end 
to the leadership PACs designed to spread money among Members of the 
House, so some Members can go on prestigious committees or be elected 
to various leadership positions.

                              {time}  1100

  The estimates are that S. 3 will transfer about $93 million of 
taxpayer dollars into campaign war chests. Millions of dollars more 
will be needed by the FEC to even attempt to distribute the money and 
enforce campaign laws. The proposals discussed so far do not approach 
those levels of funding. It is time to acknowledge that the misguided 
attempt to force public funds through the House will fail. It is time 
to negotiate a bipartisan reform plan with real reforms that can pass 
this House and become the law of the land.
  The entire process that this bill has followed through the House of 
Representatives is wrong. As usual, the leadership has stifled debate 
by refusing to name a conference committee. Reporters were told on 
February 2 that conferees would be named just after the February 
Presidential birthday break. It is now mid-April. Where is the 
conference committee? Is it waiting for the Democratic leaders to 
decide what they will order the conferees to say? I think so.
  We have House rules for a reason, to presumably promote debate and to 
make sure that through national argument the laws we pass are good 
laws. The process S. 3 has followed guarantees that it will fail. It is 
the result of secret back-door negotiations. It will not reform the 
campaign mess that our fellow Americans are about to face again this 
year. I know that real reform is:
  It is the Republican task force proposals.
  It is the bipartisan Synar-Livingston bipartisan effort in which a 
number of us on both sides of the aisle joined.
  It is what an overwhelming majority of the U.S. Senate has passed.
  Madame Speaker, a number of us in both parties live by what we 
advocate:
  We take no political action committee money.
  Most of the money we raise comes from the voters who elect us.
  We ask our colleagues to join with us in cleaning up this mess, these 
scandals in the making.
  The American people have a right to expect no less.
  Madame Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to include, one, a table 
which shows the differences between the House Democratic plan and the 
Senate approved bipartisan plan and the House Republican plan; and, 
two, the letter from Messrs Michel, Gingrich, Thomas, and Livingston to 
Speaker, Thomas S. Foley, dated April 13, 1994.

                            PLAN SIMILARITIES                           
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         House      Senate       House  
                Item                  Democratic  Bipartisan  Republican
                                         plan        plan        plan   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PAC ban.............................  No........  Yes.......  Yes.      
Leadership PAC......................  No change.  Banned....  Banned.   
Soft money ban......................  Yes.......  Yes.......  Yes.      
Bundling............................  Partial...  Yes.......  Yes.      
Public funding......................  Yes.......  Very        No.       
                                                   limited.             
Majority in-district requirement for  No........  For first   Yes.      
 funds raised.                                     4 of 6               
                                                   years in             
                                                   term.                
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                  Office of the Republican Leader,


                                U.S. House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas Foley,
     Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: We understand that Democrats have been 
     meeting behind closed doors on campaign reform prior to 
     appointment of a conference committee. This signals that the 
     majority believes it alone can write a campaign reform 
     conference report that passes in both houses. We are not so 
     confident.
       We wholeheartedly agree with your strong public statements 
     that the Congress should enact meaningful campaign reform in 
     1994. House Republicans have long argued that campaign reform 
     is needed, and have presented legislation offering real 
     reform.
       Unfortunately, both bills now awaiting appointment of 
     conferees contain provisions for the public financing of 
     campaigns, and the House bill does not contain a mechanism to 
     pay for this public financing.
       We remain opposed to public financing. We are also opposed 
     to telling the American people that we have enacted 
     ``reform'' when, without a funding mechanism, such reform 
     will never occur. Rather than attempt to pass a flawed 
     conference agreement that does nothing, we stand committed to 
     achieving real reform this Congress.
       We believe that real reform must contain significant 
     reforms on political action committee, Leadership PACs, 
     bundling, and political party soft money. We are committed to 
     working with you to achieve these goals.
       Whether you work with us is your decision, but if you are 
     willing to drop your insistence on taxpayer funded campaigns, 
     significant bipartisan reform is possible.
           Sincerely,
     Bob Michel,
     Bob Livingston,
     Newt Gingrich,
     Bill Thomas.

                          ____________________