[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 51 (Tuesday, May 3, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: May 3, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
              A CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM NONPROGRESS REPORT

  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. Mr. Speaker, I want to talk briefly about the progress of 
campaign finance reform through the House of Representatives. I was 
encouraged when the President, during his 1992 campaign, expressed his 
support for limiting the influence of special interests and reducing 
from $5,000 to $1,000 the amount political action committees are 
allowed to contribute to a candidate in both the primary and the 
general election.
  Later, President Clinton again expressed support for such reform in 
his first State of the Union address and, indeed, many of us on our 
side rose to give him a standing ovation. He said to Congress, ``let us 
reduce the power of special interests and increase the participation of 
the people.'' Who could disagree with that?
  Then something happened. House Democrats, who have controlled this 
Chamber for almost 40 years, refused to limit PAC's, and the President 
caved in to their wishes. The President's $1,000 limit on contributions 
by political action committees vanished, and with it the hope for a 
true reform proposal from the House Democratic leadership.
  On June 17, 1993, the Senate passed its version of campaign reform. 
That bill contains many disturbing provisions, but it passed with the 
votes of both Republicans and Democrats. It was a bipartisan proposal. 
And while it was flawed in a few places, it took one key step toward 
reform. It banned political action committees.

                              {time}  1050

  From June until September, the House of Representatives stalled. 
Finally, on September 9, House Democratic leaders promised that ``We 
are going to do campaign reform, and we are going to do it in 
October.''
  On September 9, 1993, the New York Times, rarely an ally of 
Republicans, noted that the Democrats ``Stalled through the spring and 
summer, hoping that public demand for clean politics would subside 
along with President Clinton's memory for his inaugural pledge to clean 
up Washington.'' The Times called the bill the Democrats were 
considering ``lame'' and ``a sham.''
  But October came and went, and there was no reform.
  Many Republicans and Democrats agreed that the Democratic leadership 
proposal was not reform. Under the leadership of Democrat Mike Synar 
and Bob Livingston, the chairman of the Republican Task Force on 
Campaign Finance Reform, a group of us worked together to arrive at a 
compromise. Our proposal was not perfect, but it contained significant 
reforms. Like the President, our bipartisan group supported a $1,000 
maximum donation from political action committees even though a number 
of us favor banning PAC's completely, as does the Republican 
conference. Unlike the President, we did not cave in to the House 
Democratic leadership.
  On October 13, 1993, we were promised that the final week of October 
would be ``Reform Week.'' But that week came and went, and there was no 
reform. In fact, Roll Call, the Hill's distinguished newspaper, 
reported that on October 26, ``Speaker Tom Foley abandoned any 
individual deadlines for reform legislation.''
  There were legitimate reform proposals ready for a vote. But again 
and again and again the House Democrats refused to allow any cut in the 
$5,000 maximum donation by a political action committee.
  On November 10, 1993, by a strict party-line vote, the House 
Committee on Administration rejected every Republican amendment and 
reported the bill Democratic leaders call reform.
  Truly reform-minded Members of Congress still held out. We knew the 
Republican proposal was unlikely to pass--the reality is that there are 
too many Democrats in the House and not enough Republicans to truly 
reform campaign finance through a Republican-sponsored bill.
  But the bipartisan compromise proposal was gathering steam. Many 
prominent members of both parties signed on in support of it.
  On November 21, 1993, the House Democratic leaders, however, moved to 
crush reform. They forced passage of a rule that did not allow even a 
vote on our bipartisan proposal--despite the leadership of Mr. Synar, a 
respected subcommittee chairman, and Mr. Beilenson, a respected member 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. Speaker, the President has told the House ``Let us reduce the 
power of special interests and increase the participation of the 
people.'' Mr. Speaker, the refusal to allow a vote on significant 
reform proposals proves that the power of special interests is still 
strong among the Democratic leadership.
  We continue to wait--both Democrats and Republicans who want reform. 
House and Senate conferees must meet before the House and Senate bills 
can be reconciled and sent to the President, who says he will sign what 
is sent to him, but again, the Democrats have stalled. We were promised 
that conferees would be named soon after the Presidents' Day recess in 
February, but Presidents' Day came and went, and no conferees were 
named.
  We were promised that conferees would be named by the end of March.
  But March came and went, and still no conferees were named.
  In April, we heard that conferees might be named before the end of 
the month.
  But the end of the month came and went, and again no conferees were 
named.
  What is going on? Reform is supposed to open up the political 
process, not to allow the House Democratic leaders to meet in darkened 
rooms where the light of reform rarely shines. All we hear are broken 
promises. All we see are closed doors with Democratic leaders 
attempting to rig the results of a conference committee before the 
committee is even named.
  Refusing to allow votes on legitimate bipartisan proposals. Forcing a 
bill through the House. Refusing to negotiate with Republicans. Mr. 
Speaker, those are not the actions of reformers.
  David Broder, a Pulitzer-winner columnist for the Washington Post, 
said of the House Democratic leadership's bill that, ``Some funny 
things happened on the way to the House of Representatives' passing its 
1993 version of campaign finance legislation. They made the bill a 
joke.'' As Mr. Broder wrote, ``This is reform? Give me a break.''
  The American people are asking for just that, Mr. Speaker. Give us a 
break. Give up the series of promises and broken promises. Give up the 
false hope provided by H.R. 3 and its new version, S. 3. Admit the need 
for a bipartisan approach to reform. We almost did it last year, and 
Republicans continue to pledge our support for real reform--reform 
without unnecessary taxpayer financing of politicians' campaigns, 
reform which eliminates PAC's, reform which substantially reduces the 
amount these political action committees can give in each election, 
reform which requires candidates to raise a majority of their money 
from voters in the district--not from Washington special interests.
  Is it too much to ask for a level playing field where the voters can 
choose who will represent them rather than the Washington-based special 
interests?
  Of course not.
  Let us open the doors and give the House leadership bill a burial and 
have the reformers in both parties free to write a real reform bill. Is 
it to much to ask the Committee on Rules to let this House work its 
will as a free institution should? Let the majority work its will on 
substance. Let us not continue the charade where the Democrats fearful 
of the end of 40 years of power prevents the reform-minded majority 
from working its will.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a shameless record of those that are trying to 
bury every proposal for reform in deep, darkened rooms. It is time for 
a change.

                          ____________________