[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 28 (Monday, February 13, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H1616]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                   REAL REFORM IS SAY ``NO'' TO PAC'S

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 1995, the gentleman from California [Mr. Horn] is recognized 
during morning business for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago America listened during the 
State of the Union Address as President Clinton stated his support for 
campaign finance reform. He said to Congress that ``We have a lot more 
to do before people really trust the way things work around here. * * * 
I ask you to just stop taking the lobbyist perks. Just stop.'' He also 
added that ``we should also curb the role of big money in elections by 
capping the costs of campaigns and limiting the influence of the 
PAC's.''
  The President's speech reminded me of a speech I heard 2 years ago. 
In his 1993 State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, ``I'm 
asking Congress to enact real campaign finance reform. Let's reduce the 
power of special interests and increase the participation of the 
people.''
  I remember who the first two Republicans were to give him a standing 
ovation on those remarks, the then-whip, current Speaker, and myself.
  Regrettably, the President let America down over the last 2 years. 
While Americans demanded reform, and while a bipartisan group in 
Congress worked to enact real reform, the President did nothing. Oh, 
yes, he said, ``Let's cut it for the President, let's cut it for the 
Senate, but, by the way, leave it alone in the case of the House, 
$5,000 in the primary, $5,000 in the general from PAC's. For a total of 
$10,000.''
  Reformers in the last Congress, from both parties, advocated reform 
that would limit, and even ban, political action committees. While we 
worked, the President stood silently on the sidelines and allowed his 
party's congressional leaders to block the bipartisan campaign finance 
reform bill. The so-called Synar-Livingston bill would not eliminate 
PAC's, but it would have reduced the amount they could give from $5,000 
in an election to $1,000, the same limit as the maximum for an 
individual contributor.
  Some of those congressional leaders are gone now, sent home or 
relegated to the minority by the voters last November. With this change 
in Congress, I hope we are also getting a change in the President's 
views. With the President's support, we can enact legislation that will 
carry out his goals, and the goals of many of us in both parties.
  Let me repeat his goals: ``Reduce the power of special interests and 
increase the participation of the people.''
  I ask my fellow Representatives, what better way is there to reduce 
the power of special interests than to get rid of political action 
committees, commonly known as PAC's? And what better way is there to 
increase the participation of the people than to require that a 
majority of a candidate's money comes from the people who live in the 
district that the candidate seeks to represent?
  Those are the changes that I support. Those are the changes that many 
in this Chamber support. I hope the President's words will be followed 
up with action, action that indicates that he supports these goals too.
  Campaign finance reform is a serious
   issue, and a vital one. but recently there has been far too much 
noise around what I consider a side note. The President attacked 
Congress for accepting gifts from lobbyists. He focused his criticism 
on the $10 lunch, and on the $50 golf outing. I do not play golf, so I 
do not know much about that. But I ask my fellow Representatives, what 
difference does rejecting a $10 lunch make if you still accept the 
$10,000 campaign check from the same special interest? I tell you that 
$10 lunches are not the reason special interest groups have so much 
influence in Washington these days; $10,000 campaign checks are the 
reason.

  In the days following the President's address, there have been a 
number of statements from Members of Congress supporting the 
President's ``Just say no to lobbyists'' idea. I want to take a moment 
to look at those claims of support.
  By my count, 32 Members have now taken the ``say no to lobbyists'' 
pledge. I heartily salute six of them, three Republicans and three 
Democrats, for truly saying ``no.'' These six reject not only the $10 
lunch and the $50 golf game. They also reject the most lucrative gift 
of all: The $10,000 campaign check. As in my case, they do not accept 
PAC money. So, to my six friends, I salute you.
  But my reason for standing before you today is not only to salute 
that bipartisan group of six. The American people deserve to know that 
a Member who pledges to say ``no'' to lobbyists is truly saying ``no.'' 
In an effort to let the voters know which members truly say ``no,'' I 
want to point out one fact: The 26 other Members who claim to say 
``no'' to lobbyists are in fact still saying ``yes'' to the biggest 
gift of all. According to the Federal Election Commission's December 
22, 1994, report, these 26 Members accepted an average of $275,000--and 
a median of $224,000--from PAC's. How much of a difference does a 
declined $10 lunch make, relative to a quarter of a million dollars 
from special interest PAC's?
  Again, I am not up here to make a partisan statement. Of the 26 
members that I refer to, 6 are Republicans.
  I am up here, Mr. Speaker, to try to shed a little light on the 
serious issue of reform. Banning $10 lunches, whatever symbolic value 
such a change may have, is not reform--it is not reform because the 
same lobbyist who cannot buy you lunch can still hand you a $10,000 
campaign check. I say we all must truly reject lobbyists' influence by 
rejecting all PAC money. The influence of PAC's is a national scandal. 
The elimination of PAC's will be a long overdue reform.


                          ____________________