[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 18 (Monday, January 30, 1995)]
[House]
[Pages H850-H851]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


      GOPAC AND ITS ROLE IN THE CAMPAIGN TO END THE FOOD AND DRUG 
                             ADMINISTRATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chair for recognizing me for 1 
hour under the special order of business of the House of 
Representatives.
  Mr. Speaker, in 1984 our Speaker published a book entitled ``Window 
of Opportunity.'' I would like to quote from Speaker Gingrich's book in 
reference to political action committees, as follows:

       As a citizen you need to keep track of your elected 
     officials' promises and their actual behavior. I strongly 
     favor PAC's because they tie candidates' promises to their 
     performances by keeping records more effectively than do 
     individuals. By linking their contributions to performance in 
     areas of interest to the contributors, the PAC system 
     encourages more people to be involved because it makes their 
     contributions and their endorsement more effective.

  Let me quote again from Speaker Gingrich's book of 1984: ``This 
proliferation of open publicly registered and publicly monitored 
support is in the best tradition of participatory democracy.''
  That observation is especially timely in light of two publications 
this weekend. On Sunday, in the Denver Post, there was a question 
raised about the Speaker's personal PAC, GOPAC, and links with the 
cable television industry.
  Today in the Los Angeles Times is another article raising a question 
about the same PAC, GOPAC, which is Speaker Gingrich's PAC, and why 
they have refused, those who are running the PAC and the Speaker, to 
make a full disclosure of all the contributors to the PAC. Some of the 
contributors to the $7 million political action committee have been 
disclosed. For example, one Wisconsin couple, Terry and Mary Kohler, of 
Sheboygan, WI, have been disclosed as having contributed $715,000 to 
Speaker Gingrich's political action committee between 1985 and 1993. 
That is nearly twice the amount that they could have legally donated 
directly to all Federal candidates.
  This $7 million political action committee which the Speaker has not 
disclosed in detail also includes executives and lobbyists for seven 
companies regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. These 
executives, the seven that are named in the Los Angeles Times article, 
are among, in their words, ``GOPAC's heavy hitters.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, we have an unusual situation here where the Speaker 
of the House in 1984 had called for public monitoring and public 
registration of those who were involved in political action committees 
and then, beginning a year later, with the creation of GOPAC, the GOP 
Action Committee, there has been a refusal of that same Speaker to make 
this information known to the public.
  Those who are listening might ask a very basic question. So what? 
What difference does it make? Why should the Speaker have to disclose 
the names of his contributors to this $7 million political action 
committee and the expenses and disbursements that were made by that 
political action committee?
  I think it gets back to a point the Speaker made in his book. This is 
a way to make sure that there is accountability and, in his words, ``in 
the best tradition of participatory democracy.''
  Those who have been following the news lately know that the Speaker 
has not been unsparing in his criticism of the Food and Drug 
Administration. I have some familiarity with this agency. It is one 
which is funded by the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations 
which I chaired over the last 2 years. By Federal standards it is a 
pretty small agency. We appropriate about $1 billion a year to the Food 
and Drug Administration and give them an awesome responsibility. We say 
to this small agency, ``Make sure as best as humanly possible that 
every drug, every medical device, and many of the foods that come into 
the households of American families are not only safe to be used but in 
fact can be used for their stated purpose effectively.''
  That is a big task, and when you consider the giants of American 
industry that watch closely over this small agency, it is no wonder 
that from time to time they come under criticism. In fact, in years 
gone by much of that criticism has been warranted. The agency fell 
behind in drug approvals, in medical-device approvals, and in other 
areas of responsibility. I am happy to report, though, that over the 
last several years, under the leadership of Dr. Kessler, who is the 
only holdover from the Bush administration serving under President 
Clinton as the head of the Food and Drug Administration as well,
 remarkable progress has been made in the Food and Drug Administration. 
In fact, they have come up with a much more expedited schedule for the 
approval of drugs and medical devices, something which every American 
and every American family wants to see.

  But despite this, some of the critics of the Food and Drug 
Administration are running advertisements now suggesting that we should 
turn out the lights and close the door on the Food and Drug 
Administration. They have suggested that it has too much power. In the 
words of one of their critics, they have been characterized as 
``thugs.''
  Stepping aside from this type of lurid rhetoric and looking at the 
fact, I think that it is critically important that the Food and Drug 
Administration maintain its independence, not only for its credibility 
within its own industry but for its credibility in helping American 
industry. Let me give two specific examples of what I am talking about.
  Most Americans can recall that not too long ago we had a scare when 
people discovered hypodermic syringes in the cans of Diet Pepsi. That 
was a little over a year ago. As a result of that scare, a couple of 
these syringes popped up across the United States and people were 
genuinely concerned about this product and its safety. As a result of 
that scare, Pepsi Cola stock plummeted in value because of the concern 
as to whether this scare might have some impact on their sales. In 
step, the Food and Drug Administration conducted a quick and thorough 
investigation, reported to the American people that it was a hoax that 
was being copycatted by others around the country, and within a very 
short period of time this scare was gone. Pepsi Cola stock started to 
rebound. People were buying the product without concern for its safety. 
Why? Because of the credibility of this independent Federal agency, an 
agency which is not beholden to anyone in industry but is only beholden 
to taxpayers and consumers.
  Let me give a second example. In my part of the world, in the 
Midwestern United States, there is a distributor of frozen-food 
products known as Schwan Foods. This is an unusual operation to most 
other parts of the country because they usually drive refrigerated 
trucks around the Midwest and sell frozen foods door to door to their 
loyal subscribers. They sell everything from ice cream to frozen meats 
and all sorts of other frozen foods for homemakers in my part of the 
world.
  A few months ago there was a scare over some of the ice cream which 
they sold which appeared contaminated. It hit all the newspapers. There 
was a genuine fear that Schwan's as a company would not be able to 
survive because of this disclosure. In came the Food and Drug 
Administration. They conducted an investigation of their operation. 
They found what they considered to be the cause of the problem and 
suggested to the Schwan food company what they could do to ameliorate 
the situation and to allay any fears of consumers. Their trucks are 
still on the road today. Schwan's is still doing business. It appears 
now the Food and Drug Administration has come in and added credibility 
to the situation and helped this company get back on its feet.
  Despite these examples, we still have people calling for an end to 
the Food and Drug Administration. Some of them will be companies, 
which, quite frankly, do not like to see this type of Government 
regulation, a regulation which requires that their advertising of their 
products be truthful, that what they say the products will do they can 
[[Page H851]] actually do, that they do not overstate their case, and 
that in fact doctors can prescribe a drug knowing that it is safe.
  The Speaker has led the criticism, along with some very conservative 
groups, of the Food and Drug Administration and suggested at one point 
that we should even privatize the Food and Drug Administration. I think 
this is a valid policy debate which should take place. I for one oppose 
the idea of privatization of the Food and Drug Administration. I think 
as an independent Government agency they are doing a good job. They can 
certainly improve on it. All of us can improve on our performance. But 
I would hate to see an agency as important as the Food and Drug 
Administration go by the wayside.
  The relevance of the FDA issue to the GOPAC issue is brought in clear 
focus by this Los Angeles Times piece. Why would the executives or 
lobbyists for seven companies regulated by FDA be major donors to the 
Speaker's political action committee and then the Speaker take the 
position that the Food and Drug Administration should be disbanded?
                              {time}  1430

  This is a legitimate inquiry. It could be the Speaker has good 
reason, and he can make that case known to the American people in 
detail. But at least now there is a suggestion that there may be a link 
between this political action committee and the political position 
taken by the Speaker.
  I started in politics working for a fellow by the name of Paul 
Douglas, who was a Senator from Illinois who served between 1948 and 
1966. He was my mentor and inspiration when it came to the question of 
ethics. I may serve in this body the remainder of this term and maybe 
longer. I will certainly never reach his level of ethical standards. He 
set one that very few people will ever be able to reach. But he was 
very, very mindful of the need to make full disclosure.
  He used to say, ``Sunshine is the best antiseptic. Put it all on the 
table.'' My friend, Senator Paul Simon from Illinois and I took him to 
heart. We make public disclosure each year far beyond the requirements 
of the Federal law. It does not guarantee that a public servant will be 
honest, but at least it shows we are prepared to open our books.
  I think that is the best thing now for the Speaker to consider when 
it comes to GOPAC. Open the books. Let us see what is in there. Let us 
get it behind us. Let us make full disclosure, so any future debate 
over the Food and Drug Administration or any other agency is not 
tainted by the question of whether contributions to the $7 million 
political action committee had anything to do with the Republican 
agenda.
  This is part of what I consider openness in Government. We have heard 
a lot said over the last 3 weeks about a new standard of openness 
coming from the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. 
Let me say at the outset, and probably to the surprise of the Speaker 
and others, that I salute the Republicans for many of the changes they 
have made in this Institution. On the opening day of the session I 
voted for most of them, and I feel they were steps in the right 
direction, ending proxy voting, making committee hearings open to the 
public, something I had done in my own subcommittee for the last 2 
years. I think that instills new confidence in what we are about here.
  This House of Representatives, this Institution, needs to have more 
approval from the voters across America. Certainly openness in 
disclosure is a good step in that process. I think the same is true for 
political action committees. I think the same is certainly true for the 
Speaker's GOP action committee, GOPAC. Full disclosure will help to 
restore confidence not only in the Speaker's activities, but in this 
institution. What the Los Angeles Times said in its article today, what 
the Denver Post raised in its article yesterday, certainly leave a lot 
of people questioning what the agenda is from the Republican side and 
how it has been influenced.
  We have a long way to go. I think disclosure as the Speaker called 
for in his 1984 book is a step in the right direction.


                          ____________________