[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 47 (Tuesday, April 26, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 26, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
February 11, 1994, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston] is 
recognized during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. LIVINGSTON. Madam Speaker, the House and Senate Democrats are 
currently meeting behind closed doors to craft a partisan campaign 
finance bill that they claim will bring ``reform'' to the election 
process.
  However, press reports indicate that this bill will actually deliver 
permanent incumbent protection along with public financing of 
campaigns.
  Not only will they impose sham ``limits'' on campaigns that could run 
in excess of $1 million per campaign, but the Democrats are actually 
going to vote to give themselves and all other candidates running for 
the House and Senate up to more than $300,000 in taxpayer funds, to use 
in their campaigns.
  Those taxpayer's funds are often known as welfare for the 
politicians. Any advocate of true campaign finance reform believes that 
we must reform the rules governing special interest Political Action 
Committee contributions. Current law allows $5,000 PAC contributions, 
which go overwhelmingly to incumbents. PAC's gave $94 million to House 
incumbents and only $12 million to House challengers in the 1991-92 
election cycle. It is no wonder then that the so-called reform bill 
under consideration by the Democrats would maintain $5,000 PAC 
contributions, which favor incumbents and protect the Democrat majority 
in the Congress.
  Reports indicate that the Senate Democrats understand that PAC reform 
is necessary for any real campaign reform bill, and they may include a 
PAC ban or a $1,000 PAC limit. It is too bad that the House Democrats 
cannot join the House Republicans, and the Republicans and Democrats in 
the Senate who support real PAC reform.
  Any genuine reform bill must also address bundling which allows 
special interests to ``bundle'' many individual checks together to 
evade PAC contribution limits and gain disproportionate influence. 
House Republicans would ban bundling. House Democrats claim to ban 
bundling, but they create a giant loophole for nonconnected PAC's such 
as Emily's List which, coincidentally support Democrat candidates. This 
is not reform, it is incumbent protection.
  The House Democrats also seem intent on crafting a loophole for 
leadership PAC's which allow congressional leaders to form two campaign 
committees and take twice as many contributions as would be allowed 
with only one campaign committee. This is another step back from true 
reform. House Republicans would ban leadership PAC's.
  The so-called good government groups are conspiring with the 
Democrats to pass this incumbent-protection scheme in order to 
implement Common Causes's dream of public financing. The Democrats are 
committed to providing themselves with taxpayer funds to pay for their 
campaign expenses. What's worse is that the Democrats will not admit 
where the money will come from to pay for the ``welfare for 
politicians.''
  Democrats do not like to admit that when they provide money from the 
U.S. Treasury for their own campaigns, they are taking money from the 
taxpayers. However, the taxpayers will understand, and they will vote.
  I implore the Democrats to end their closed-door meetings and to 
negotiate with Republicans to craft a true campaign finance reform 
bill. In fact, Minority Leader Michel, Minority Whip Gingrich, House 
Administration Ranking Member Thomas, and myself sent a letter to 
Speaker Foley asking for bipartisan input on this issue.
  I include for the Record this letter from Mr. Michel to Mr. Thomas 
Foley, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
                                  Office of the Republican Leader,


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 13, 1994.
     Hon. Thomas Foley,
     Speaker, 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 committees, Leadership PACs, 
     bundling, and political party soft money. We are committed to 
     working with you to achieve these goals.
     Robert H. Michel.

                          ____________________