[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 97 (Friday, July 22, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: July 22, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I hope that Common Cause, the New York Times, 
the Washington Post, were paying attention recently. They should have 
been listening when Speaker Foley admitted the truth about the 
Democratic majority campaign finance bill, a bill which Common Cause, 
the New York Times, and the Washington Post, had endorsed.
  The Speaker said that the House Democrats ``can't agree with the 
Senate position, which is to eliminate all PAC's, political action 
committees, or to substantially reduce them.''
  Let me repeat that, the Speaker opposes campaign finance reform that 
would substantially reduce political action committees, also known as 
PAC's.
  I recall that during the debate on lobbying reform many Members of 
Congress cited the public cynicism toward Congress. I now ask those 
members of Congress who supported the gift ban because of influence: If 
a $20 lunch might buy influence, what does a $5,000 campaign 
contribution buy?
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the Speaker for a question.
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman used my name personally, so I 
think in courtesy the Member ought to yield.
  I would ask that the gentleman be informed that his statement needs 
clarification. What I have said publicly is that it would be difficult 
for us to agree with the Senate position to abolish, abolish all 
political action committees, and that I did not feel that we could 
agree with the Senate position to reduce the maximum contribution 
level, the maximum contribution level of political action committees.
  In the bill adopted by the House we have supported the reduction in 
percentage terms of those receiving political action committees from 
their total spending limits. It is limited to one-third of the Members' 
total campaign level. That is a significant reduction over Members' 
receipts of political action committees, and I think the Record should 
correct the gentleman's statement.
  Mr. HORN. Will the gentleman yield for a question?
  Mr. FOLEY. Yes.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I would simply ask, as you know, we had the 
Synar-Livingston bill prepared, a bipartisan effort, five Democrats, 
including a member of the Rules Committee, five Republicans that would 
cut PAC money from $5,000 to $1,000, individual contributions from the 
present $1,000 to $500. We were not permitted a vote on that.
  Would the gentleman be willing to instruct the Rules Committee and 
his colleagues there to permit a vote?
  Mr. FOLEY. The House, if the gentleman will yield further, the House 
has acted on the legislation. The question is now the conference 
committee's action. At this juncture we have already undertaken to 
decide this question on the floor and the House has spoken.
  Mr. HORN. The House never had an opportunity to act on the Synar-
Livingston bill. We were prohibited.
  Mr. FOLEY. No; that is true. But my point to the gentleman is we 
have, in the action taken by the House, significantly reduced the role 
of political action committees in campaigns. If this legislation is 
enacted, legislation vetoed by President Bush, which was widely hailed 
by a number of outside groups, now somewhat critical, as very 
substantial campaign reform, this will significantly reduce the role of 
political action committees in the total spending of campaign 
expenditures by Members.

  I do not personally feel that political action committees are a bad 
way for Americans to have an opportunity, particularly in small 
contributions, to participate in the political process. But that is 
another issue I do not propose to debate with the gentleman today. What 
I just want the gentleman to do is recognize that I have never said, 
and indeed would not agree with the statement that the legislation 
passed by the House does not reduce the role of political action 
committees, or we are not in fact willing to have them reduced in terms 
of overall spending of many Members. That in fact is what the 
legislation does. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. HORN. Am I correct that the Speaker's statement is that if the 
legislation approved by the House were approved, the proportion of PAC 
money in political campaigns would be less than it is now, the total 
amount?
  Mr. FOLEY. Yes.
  Mr. HORN. The PAC money? That is the argument. I would simply say, 
with all respect to the Speaker, that the loopholes in that bill permit 
us to have increased spending on campaigns in this country, which are 
already a national scandal, and would go up to easily $1 million once 
one asserts all of the loopholes.
  Mr. FOLEY. I do not propose, if the gentleman will yield, to 
interrupt his statement any longer. It would not be my purpose to do 
that normally, but since he was using my name and quoting me as someone 
who said we were not in favor of reducing in any way the political 
action role in campaigns, that is not technically correct, that is not 
what the legislation did, that is not my position, and I thank the 
gentleman for allowing the clarification.

                              {time}  1440

  Mr. HORN. I thank you for entering into the dialog.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HORN. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. WALKER. I just thought it was fascinating.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Moran). The gentleman's time has 
expired, and under the order, the Chair is not allowed to recognize for 
requests to extend the time. However, the Chair would advise if both 
the gentleman from California and the gentleman from Georgia are 
accorded 60 minutes each----
  Mr. DREIER. I ask unanimous consent that my friend, the gentleman 
from California, be given an additional 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted 
to address the House for 5 minutes on a special order.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the regular order, the Chair would 
complete reading of the list of those Members who have requested 5 
minutes. Then the gentleman could be recognized. The Chair advised the 
gentlemen, both the gentleman from California and the gentleman from 
Georgia, under a previous order would be recognized for 60 minutes 
each, but the Chair will now continue reading the list of those who 
have been given 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. If I might, Mr. Speaker, since I was about a third of the 
way through my remarks, if I might have the remainder to finish the 
statement, I would appreciate it, and I ask unanimous consent that the 
3 minutes or so----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania can be recognized for 5 minutes at this point, and then 
the gentleman could yield to the gentleman from California if he chose 
to.

                          ____________________