[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 REFORM

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to proceed on a 
special order for 5 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Walker] 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I was simply going to make the point to the 
gentleman that the Speaker, a moment ago, indicated that the reforms 
that he was talking about could not be brought up because the House has 
already passed the bill and so, therefore, we cannot consider anything 
the House has not passed, but as the gentleman well knows, we just 
heard from the majority leader, a few minutes ago, when we discussed 
campaign reform as a part of the schedule that there are preconference 
meetings taking place where they are designing the legislation that 
may, or may not, come out of the conference. Those preconference 
committees, of course, include no bipartisan representation, because 
the conference is not meeting. The conference is not engaged in that 
action. These things are being done all by Democrats behind closed 
doors.
  It seems to me that it is a rather outrageous way to be designing a 
campaign reform plan, and that the gentleman's point with regard to 
some of our concerns is entirely legitimate.
  I will be happy to yield to the gentleman for his reply and for him 
to complete his statement.
  Mr. HORN. I thank the gentleman.
  The key question I was on before this dialog occurred, and I am happy 
to get back to it, and I am happy to have the dialog, it is that if 
Members were concerned about the cynicism toward Congress and those of 
us who voted for the so-called $20 lunch limit of a lobbyist and think 
that buys influence, I simply ask the obvious: How do they feel and 
what do they feel a $5,000 per election political action committee can 
buy? If $20 is evil, what is $5,000?
  It seems to me what is going on behind the scenes is sort of 
nonsense. The fact is, this House would be willing to limit PAC's. The 
Republican Conference has overwhelmingly voted to abolish PAC's, 
abolish soft money from corporations, for voter registration, all the 
rest of those party-building activities, and to require that over half 
the money that is contributed to a candidate for Congress come from 
one's constituency.
  That is trying to get Congress and its Members back in touch with its 
constituency, long overdue.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time for real reform, and every Representative, 
together with the editorial writers and the good-government groups who 
have called for that reform, should demand that the Democratic 
leadership drop this empty shell of a bill and support a bipartisan 
overhaul of our campaign finance reform.
  That is exactly, if I might in just a moment finish this short 
statement, that is exactly what we had available last year headed by 
the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], a key Democrat subcommittee 
chairman in the House, the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], a 
key figure on the Republican side, and five of us Republicans, five 
Democrats, where we would have reduced PAC contributions from $5,000 to 
$1,000, individual contributions from $1,000 to $500.
  That bill was not permitted to be voted upon on this floor, because 
the Committee on Rules stopped it, and they stopped it at the direct 
order of the leadership.
  The fact is they do not want reform. They like business as usual. Let 
us face it, if the House were free to vote, I think they would support 
the Synar-Livingston reform if only the Democrat leadership would let 
the House work its will.
  But I am not surprised. It has stopped time and time again real 
reform in this Chamber, and it continues to do so, and it shows what 40 
years of rule by one party can do.
  Mr. Speaker, I am including at this point in the Record an editorial 
from the June 30, 1994, Washington Post, entitled ``Standing Firm on 
Campaign Reform'' as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, June 30, 1994]

                    Standing Firm on Campaign Reform

       It's almost at that point in the congressional session when 
     bills start crashing into each other, when leaders start 
     looking for ways out of controversy and when each party 
     begins to calculate every move for its impact on the fall 
     elections. For this reason, the behavior of Senate Majority 
     Leader George Mitchell and Sen. David Boren (D-Okla.) on the 
     campaign finance issue is worthy of note.
       Many Democrats in the House, including some in the 
     leadership, seem eager to find a way to kill campaign finance 
     reform in a way that would let them heap blame for its defeat 
     on Republicans in the Senate. The sticking point right now is 
     whether to toughen the limits on how much political action 
     committees can contribute to candidates. The House members 
     want to keep the current high limit of $10,000 per election 
     cycle. A group of reform-minded Republicans in the Senate 
     whose support is crucial to get the bill past a filibuster 
     want to ban PACs altogether. But they appear ready to settle 
     on a compromise that would cut the PAC limit, perhaps to 
     $5,000.
       Many Democrats in the House would like Sens. Mitchell and 
     Boren to cooperate by agreeing to move on a bill that would 
     do nothing about the PAC limit. Such a bill would surely 
     lose, but the House could pass it and then blame the Senate 
     Republicans for its death. This would be perfect for many in 
     the House: The current system stays as is, but the Democrats 
     would, on paper, have appeared to support reform and be able 
     to beat up on the Republicans for the lack of action.
       But to their credit, Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Boren are 
     refusing to play their assigned roles in this charade. They 
     won't move a bill that has no chance of becoming law and 
     insist that their House colleagues strike a reasonable 
     compromise. Both men are leaving the Senate this year, and 
     both have long records of support for real campaign reform. 
     They should stand firm and keep their reform credentials 
     intact.
       The fact is that even in partisan terms, Sen. Mitchell and 
     Sen. Boren have it right: It would be foolish for Democrats 
     to hand the Republicans this issue. Do Democrats really want 
     to be the party that blocked reform because they insisted on 
     defending the PACs and refused to accept even modest 
     limitations on their power? A principled stand by Senate 
     Democrats is the only hope for bringing their allies in the 
     House around to a sensible position. It's also the best way 
     to keep the Senate's reform-minded Republicans from bolting. 
     Congress should not blow the best opportunity it has had in 
     years to clean up the election process.

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his statement, and 
I thank him for helping this debate out here.
  It is too bad the gentleman did not take a 1-hour special order. I 
think he has engendered some interest on the floor.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentleman from South Dakota.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. I just want to remark briefly, speaking 
of cynicism and partisan politics and manipulation, would the gentleman 
acknowledge that in the previous Congress this House of Representatives 
passed a campaign reform bill that was not a Democratic bill, a bill 
endorsed by Common Cause and a whole range for reform organizations, 
League of Women Voters and so on, which was then, in fact, vetoed by 
President Bush and your party helped uphold that veto? So in terms of 
passage of meaningful campaign reform legislation, that has already 
transpired in this House, and because of the veto, we are back again 
having to take another run at it. We are going through the process now.
  The conference report will, in fact, involve both political parties. 
Hopefully we can find some bipartisan consensus. I do not think that 
partisan bomb-throwing and finger-pointing and blame-placing is all 
that constructive to the ongoing bill.
  Mr. WALKER. Reclaiming my time, I remember well the campaign reform 
bill that President Bush vetoed. He vetoed it because it had a public 
financing mechanism in it. It had a public financing mechanism in it 
that was not paid for.
  That is typical of what happens around here. There is a cynical ploy 
to call it campaign reform, and what you do is end up putting in public 
financing, but you find no way to pay for the public financing.
  That bill was a total phony from the word go, and the President 
should have vetoed it, and it is exactly what the American people are 
concerned about when it comes to cynical behavior.
  Mr. JOHNSON of South Dakota. If the gentleman will yield, it was 
amazing it had such a broad base of support from such a wide range of 
reform organizations, nonpartisan reform organizations in this country.
  Mr. WALKER. The gentleman says they are reform organizations. A lot 
of the so-called reformer organizations are actually liberal Democrat 
organizations that were trying to parade forth credentials that many of 
us do not believe they have.
  The fact is the one person who stood up for the American people to 
stop the American people from having to pay for the reelections of 
Members of Congress through their tax dollars was President Bush. I 
think he should be congratulated for what he did.
  Mr. HORN. If the gentleman will yield further, I think your question 
is a good one, and it deserves comment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
[Mr. Walker] has expired
  Mr. HORN. I want 20 seconds or so.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no further time. Under the rule, it 
is not in order to extend a Member's time.

                          ____________________