[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 41 (Wednesday, April 9, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H1378-H1383]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] is recognized for the remainder of the
hour.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield at this time to the
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding.
Our Founding Fathers, the authors of our Constitution, created
something that the world had never seen, a representative government
based on the popular election of the legislative and executive
branches. It was a powerful idea whose time had indeed come.
Based on the study of the most advanced ideas of that date, it has
taken us now more than 200 years to extend those basic ideas to include
all of the people in this country, black, white, Hispanic, Asian,
Native American, men and women; and I would like to add rich and poor
to the list.
But, unfortunately, our democratic system has been attacked by a
virus of virulence that our Founding Fathers could never have imagined,
money. By some estimates, our last national elections cost $2 billion.
And according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics, 9 out
of 10 U.S. House races were won by candidates who outspent their
opponents in the election, and in nearly 40 percent of the House races
the winner outspent the loser by a factor of 10 to 1 or more.
In competitive races, House candidates are spending 50 percent more
in real terms on TV and radio advertising than they did 20 years ago at
the time of Buckley versus Valeo. Thirty years ago, the average sound
bite on the TV news was 42 seconds. By 1992, that bite was trimmed to
less than 10 seconds. Literally, money talks, and because money talks,
and when it talks it drowns out almost all other political discourse,
money has distorted, corrupted, and perverted our political system.
It is time to get back to the basic democracy of Benjamin Franklin,
Elizabeth Stanton, Frederick Douglass, Susan Anthony, and Martin Luther
King. We are past the time for halfway and halfhearted patches on the
system. Belief that this closure alone will remedy the problem is akin
to belief in the tooth fairy. Solving the problem by just regulating
soft money is about as likely as expecting pigs to fly.
I believe that the basic principles of campaign reform, at a very
minimum, should be these:
First, take money out of the equation; finance all Federal campaigns
through voluntary full public funding; amend the Constitution to
prohibit Federal candidates from using private funds; provide voters
with enough unfiltered information to make informed choices; open up
television, radio, and other media for a discussion of the issues by
the candidates; shorten the election cycle; create a truly independent
regulatory agency to monitor and make public the spending of public
campaign moneys; require paid lobbyists to publicly report who and when
they lobby; create universal voter registration; encourage
experimentation with mail and electronic ballots and multiple day
elections; require full disclosure of all independent expenditures.
The fact that most Americans indicate that they have lost confidence
in the functioning of our democratic elections and that most do not
vote should be both a warning and a summons to action. The time to act
is now, before
[[Page H1379]]
the American public continues to erode its faith in our democratic
process.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I reclaim my time. I want to thank my
colleague from Illinois and state, as a member of the Committee on
Reform and Oversight, I would much rather be joining my colleagues
debating and deliberating the issues you address than going down the
avenue we are taking or seemingly going to take tomorrow.
At this time, Mr. Speaker, I yield to my colleague from New York,
Congresswoman Maloney.
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight will soon vote on whether to hold a serious
campaign finance investigation or to hold a narrowly focused, partisan,
wasteful charade. The chairman of that committee has begun a blatantly
partisan investigation of the White House to embarrass the President.
He proposes, he has an unprecedented proposal, and that is to limit the
scope very narrowly only to the actions of the executive branch
officials and only to the Presidential election. Doing so, limiting it
only to the 1996 Presidential campaign and the executive branch, means
it will focus only on the Clinton campaign and executive branch
officials, means it will be only democratic violations that will be
looked at.
At the very least, if the chairman was serious about studying
campaign finance violations, they would look at both campaigns; they
would look at both the Democratic and the Republican campaigns. There
have been published abuses in the Dole campaign and the Clinton
campaign. We should study both campaigns if we are serious about
finding solutions.
Likewise, it should be expanded to cover the Congress, both branches,
in the Senate campaigns and the House campaigns, if you are really
looking at finding what is wrong with the system and trying to change
it and make it better.
The chairman plans to use $15 million for his investigation. That is
three times more money investigating the President than the Senate is
spending to investigate both the President and the Congress. That makes
absolutely no sense, and it is wasteful.
Mr. Speaker, the chairman has significantly broadened his own powers.
He has issued more than 100 subpoenas without the committee's approval.
Furthermore, the chairman is seeking unilateral authority to release
the documents that he obtains by subpoena. The Senate, on the other
hand, the Republican Senate, on the other hand, has voted unanimously
and endorsed a bipartisan investigation of both Presidential and
congressional campaigns regardless of party. They are looking at
issues, not at politics.
Led by Senator Fred Thompson and the Republican leadership, the
Senate is charged with an investigation of both illegal and improper
campaign finance practices during the past election. The scope is well
defined and entirely appropriate to serve the public interest and to
understand the full range of abuse. However, the House investigation
which the chairman is proposing is not. The chairman's blanket
authority to unilaterally issue subpoenas and release documents is
without precedent.
I want to state, Mr. Speaker, that this is the view that has been
taken by all the good government groups. They are all criticizing the
proposals that the Republican chairman has before the committee
tomorrow: Public Citizen, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause,
NYPIRG; they have all come out in opposition to this.
{time} 1545
The Perot party has come out in opposition to this. This is not
partisan opposition; this is good government, commonsense opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from Common Cause: ``This issuance
of a formal subpoena is a serious matter subject to great potential
abuse.''
They go on, and I quote, ``It is inappropriate for a committee
chairman to have the unchecked authority to unilaterally issue a
subpoena which could be intended to harass, to embarrass, or oppress
the other party.''
Deans of this House on both sides, and the gentleman from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Clinger, I served with him, a Republican who was the
chairman of this committee, he would never, never do anything like
this. I heard both Mr. Clinger and the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell] on our side of the aisle say that the best legislation is
legislation that is bipartisan, that is thoughtful, that is intended to
help public policy.
The proposal that the Republican chairman is putting forth before the
committee, according to Common Cause, Public Citizen, the League of
Women Voters is unprecedented, wrong, anti-Republican, anti-Democrat,
anti-good government, anti-common sense, wasteful, and should not be
done.
I would like to caution all Members of this body on both sides of the
aisle that everyone should think very carefully before they would vote
for a proposal that absolutely the entire country seems to be opposed
to except the chairman of this particular committee. I hope everyone
will read the documents he is putting forward and read the statements
of the groups that have come forward in opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I am entering into the Record the statements of Common
Cause, Public Citizen, NYPIRG, the League of Women Voters, and other
government groups that have uniformly and with great force come out in
opposition to the proposal that the chairman, Republican chairman, is
putting forth.
Statement by Tom Andrews, National Program Director, Citizen Action--
News Conference, April 7, 1997
When it comes to the way political campaigns are financed
in this country, Americans have two fundamental beliefs: 1)
they are disgusted with the way things are and 2) they are
highly cynical about the prospects of politicians cleaning it
up.
Incredibly, it is possible that the House Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight may exclude from its
investigation into campaign fundraising practices illegal or
improper campaign fundraising by members of Congress.
Apparently Chairman Burton would like to restrict the scope
of his Committee's work to only one party by probing only
into the White House and the Democratic National Committee.
Apparently we are to believe that there is nothing to worry
about when it comes to any other politician's fundraising
practices--certainly not the U.S. Congress.
In light of how disgusted Americans are with politics as
usual, Chairman Burton's move needs to be entered into
Ripley's Believe it Or Not. It is unbelievable that a House
Committee would actually vote to begin an investigation of
the campaign fundraising practices of politicians by
systematically excluding the U.S. Congress. I know how out of
touch some politicians can become from real people but you
would have had to have traveled to Mars for the Congressional
recess not to know how angry people are with big money in
politics and how disgusted they will be with any
investigation that attempts to sweep the truth under the rug
before it even begins.
The issue here is clear. The Senate voted unanimously to
open up their investigation to the entire campaign
fundraising problem as it relates to all Washington
politicians. To do anything else on the House side will
render their investigation at best incomplete and, at worse,
a partisan hatchet job that exhibits what Americans have come
to hate most about politics.
The vote on this issue will become a marker for members of
the Committee. Those who vote against a complete and fair
investigation that includes Congress as well as the White
House, will clearly identify themselves as a major part of
the problem. Because every politician has learned to talk a
good game on this issue, this vote will be very useful for
citizens to know which side their member of Congress is
really on when it comes to cleaning up our political system.
Every member of the committee needs to know that you can
run but you cannot hide on this issue. Your vote will be
counted and you will be held accountable. There is no excuse
for anything less than a full and fair investigation of the
mess and the scandal of the role of big money in our
political system. Any member who votes against such a full
investigation can expect to be asked by their constituents at
home: ``What do you have to hide?''
People are tired of the excuses, the inaction and the
partisan manipulation. They want and deserve to have a
democracy taken back from the monied special interests that
bankroll candidates and returned it to it's rightful owners--
the American people.
____
Statement by Becky Cain, President, League of Women Voters of the
U.S.--April 8, 1997
Calling on the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight to
Broaden the Scope of its Campaign Finance Investigation
Good afternoon, I'm Becky Cain, President of the League of
Women Voters.
We are here today to call upon the House Government Reform
and Oversight Committee to conduct a fair and comprehensive
investigation into campaign finance practices. We are deeply
concerned that the committee is poised to head in the wrong
direction, to
[[Page H1380]]
conduct an investigation that will not have the confidence of
the American people.
Last month the Senate voted to expand the scope of its
probe into campaign finance to include presidential and
congressional fundraising practices, both illegal and
improper. That vote was unanimous. Senators understood that
if their investigation was to have any credibility, it had to
include congressional as well as presidential fundraising
practices. They understood that the investigation had to be
conducted with fair procedures.
Here on the House side, however, we face a very different
situation. The chairman of the House Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight has insisted on excluding Congress from
the House investigation. This simply is unacceptable.
On Thursday, the full committee will vote on a ``protocol''
to guide the House investigation. We call upon the committee
to vote for an investigation that explicitly includes
Congress in its scope. We call upon the committee to vote for
procedures that ensure fairness.
Simply leaving the scope undefined is not an acceptable
option. The chairman has made abundantly clear his desire to
strictly limit the scope, so the committee must make
explicitly clear that the Congress is included.
If the House investigation is to have a dime's worth of
credibility, members must send the chairman a simply message:
expand the probe to include Congress, and adopt fair
procedures. The Senate investigation provides a good model.
Under the chairman's proposal, members of the committee
will be voting to exempt their own fundraising practices from
investigation. Members of the committee who do not demand and
vote for an expanded inquiry will be putting themselves
beyond the reach of the probe. Congress must not exempt
itself from investigation. Congress isn't supposed to be
above the law. How can members of Congress exempt their own
campaign fundraising from investigation? The American people
won't buy it.
Anyone who believes that campaign finance abuses are
limited to one branch of government simply isn't reading the
papers these days. The system is a mess and needs to be
examined from top to bottom.
An investigation focusing solely on presidential
fundraising activities will be seen for what it is, just one
more political game. Instead, Congress must be included in
the House investigation.
Members who think that this vote will slide under the
radar, think again. The New York Times reported today that
nearly nine out of ten Americans said that hearings should
investigate the fundraising activities of both parties. In
voting to exclude Congress, the committee acts in defiance of
the public's clear desire for a fair, bi-partisan
investigation
The decision lies in the hands of Republican moderates on
this committee. Their votes will decide whether the House
will conduct an investigation that is credible and fair.
Their votes will decide whether the investigation goes after
wrongdoing wherever it can be found. By voting for the
chairman's proposal, these moderates would guarantee a
continuation of the partisan games that have characterized
the debate on campaign finance for too long.
We are relying on moderates like Chris Shays, Connie
Morella, Steve Horn and Tom Davis to do the right thing.
Local Leagues are taking action and calling on their
members who serve on this committee to stand up for a fair
investigation.
The Senate faced this same question and voted for a
comprehensive investigation that looks into illegal or
improper activities in connection with 1996 federal election
campaigns, congressional as well as presidential. There is no
good reason for the House not to do the same. We believe that
members of this committee understand the importance of voting
to broaden the scope of the House investigation. We trust
they have the will to vote with their convictions.
Thank you.
____
Statement of Ann McBride, President of Common Cause, Regarding the
Upcoming Committee Vote on the House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee's Investigation Into Campaign Finance Abuses in the 1996
Elections
On Thursday, members of the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee are scheduled to decide whether they will
spend the almost $4 million in taxpayer funds the Committee
has been allocated to conduct a partisan sideshow or a
thorough, complete investigation of the campaign finance mess
in Washington. The campaign finance abuses and violations in
the 1996 elections represent far too serious a crisis of
American democracy for this Committee's investigation to be
used for partisan game playing.
The American public simply will not trust an investigation
that gives one party a free ride. A New York Times/CBS poll
published today found that 9 out of 10 Americans want these
hearings to investigate the fund-raising activities of both
parties.
Any congressional investigation of campaign finance
practices to be conducted by the House Government Reform and
Oversight Committee must be comprehensive, fair and
bipartisan. Only an investigation which is comprehensive,
fair and bipartisan will have public credibility.
To be comprehensive and bipartisan, the Committee must look
at fundraising improprieties and possible violations of law
by both the presidential and congressional campaigns as well
as by executive branch officials. Excluding congressional
campaign finance practices, as Chairman Burton proposes,
means the Committee will see only a partial picture of the
abuses with the existing campaign finance system. Among the
activities missed will be the growing soft money fundraising
and spending practices of the party congressional campaign
committees, the influence and access provided to special
interests and their lobbyists for campaign money, the use of
non-profits for partisan political activities and the misuse
of so-called independent expenditures by party committees in
congressional campaigns. Any credible campaign finance
investigation must include these and similar very serious
practices.
Further, should the Committee narrow its scope to
wrongdoing by only executive branch officials, and not by
both 1996 presidential campaigns, it will fail to consider
possible serious violations by the Dole campaign. Common
Cause laid out last October in a letter to the Justice
Department how both the Clinton and Dole campaigns also
violated the applicable spending limit and misused soft
money. In order to be bipartisan, the investigation must
examine both campaigns.
The Committee hearings also must be scrupulously fair.
Fairness will be insured only if the Committee follows
congressional precedents for investigative procedures, and
gives minority members a voice in the investigation. Chairman
Burton has proposed giving himself apparently extraordinary
powers including unilateral authority to issue subpoenas and
make public disclosures of investigative documents without
prior consent of, or even notification to, the ranking
minority member.
The issuance of a formal subpoena is a serious matter,
subject to great potential abuse. While a ranking minority
member should not be allowed to block a subpoena in order to
obstruct an investigation of abuses by his party, it is also
dead wrong for a committee chairman to have unchecked
authority to unilaterally issue a subpoena.
If the Committee does not conduct its investigation in a
manner that is--and that appears to be--comprehensive, fair
and bipartisan, then not only will the House have squandered
an important opportunity to understand the nature of this
crisis in order to correct it, but the House majority will be
seen by the American people as attempting to gain short term
partisan profit at the expense of acting responsibly to
address and solve these very serious problems.
The American people will be watching what happens in the
Government Reform Committee on Thursday. Each member who
serves on the Committee bears personal responsibility to
stand up and be counted: To vote to ensure that both
presidential campaigns as well as congressional campaigns are
covered, and that the Committee's procedures are bipartisan
and fair.
____
U.S. PIRG Urges House Committee To Broaden Campaign Investigation
The U.S. Public Interest Research Group (PIRG) today joined
other reform organizations in calling on the House Government
Reform and Oversight Committee to broaden the scope of its
investigation into campaign finance reform practices. PIRG
urged the Committee to include both Congressional and
Executive Branch fundraising, as well as both improper and
illegal activities, in its investigation. The Committee,
chaired by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN), has to date not decided to
hold a broad investigation that includes congressional
fundraising practices, in sharp contrast to the investigation
of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, chaired by Sen.
Fred Thompson (R-TN). The House committee will vote on the
protocol for its investigation this Thursday, April 10th.
``Limiting this investigation is like wearing dark glasses
to look in the shadowy corners of a dark house. Unless they
turn on the lights, the committee will miss a huge part of
the problem: fundraising practices in Congress itself,'' said
Bill Wood, democracy advocate with U.S. PIRG. ``We urge the
House Committee to, at a minimum, rise to the level of the
Senate investigation, and use their authority to illuminate
all kinds of problems in our current political fundraising
system,'' he continued.
____
Repudiate Representative Burton's One-Sided Investigation Into Campaign
Financing Consumer Group Asks House Members
Washington.--Citizen Action, the nation's largest
independent consumer watchdog organization, today called on
the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee to vote
for a full investigation of all illegal and improper campaign
fundraising activities by both political parties, by the
White House and Congress.
Citizen Action blasted the effort by Rep. Dan Burton (R-IN)
to conduct a narrow investigation that only includes the
White House and Democratic National Committee, but excludes
fundraising activities by Members of Congress.
Joining with the League of Women Voters and other
organizations supporting campaign finance reform at a press
conference this afternoon, former Congressman Tom
[[Page H1381]]
Andrews, Citizen Action National Program Director, declared,
``In light of how disgusted Americans are with politics as
usual, Chairman Burton's move needs to be entered into
`Ripley's Believe it Or Not'. It is unbelievable that a House
Committee would actually vote to begin an investigation of
the campaign fundraising practices of politicians by
systematically excluding the U.S. Congress,'' continued
Andrews.
``It seems that Chairman Burton would like to restrict the
scope of his Committee's work to only one party by probing
only into the White House and the Democratic National
Committee. Apparently we are to believe that there is nothing
to worry about when it comes to any other politician's
fundraising practices--certainly not the U.S. Congress.
``I know how out of touch some politicians can become from
real people but you would have had to have traveled to Mars
for the Congressional recess not to know how angry people are
with big money in politics and how disgusted they will be
with any investigation that attempts to sweep the truth under
the rug before it even begins.
``The issue here is clear. The Senate voted unanimously to
open up their investigation to the entire campaign
fundraising problem as it relates to all Washington
politicians. To do anything else on the House side will
render their investigation at best incomplete and, at worst,
a partisan hatchet job that exhibits what Americans have come
to hate most about politics.
``The vote on this issue will become a marker for Members
of the Committee. Those who vote against a complete and fair
investigation that includes Congress as well as the White
House, will clearly identify themselves as a major part of
the problem. Because every politician has learned to talk a
good game on this issue, this vote will be very useful for
citizens to know which side their member of Congress is
really on when it comes to cleaning up our political system.
``Every member of the Committee needs to know that you can
run but you cannot hide on this issue. Your vote will be
counted and you will be held accountable. There is no excuse
for anything less than a full and fair investigation of the
scandal that is the role of big money in our political
system. Any Member who votes against such a full
investigation can expect to be asked by their constituents at
home: What do you have to hide? And there will be no excuse
for anything less than action that will take our political
system away from the monied special interests and returning
it to its rightful owners--the American people,'' concluded
Andrews.
____
Reform Party Defends Public's Right to Know--Joins Coalition Urging
Broad Brush in Campaign Finance Investigation
``Citizens will not look kindly on an investigation that is
artificially restricted to prevent political damage,'' states
a letter mailed today to members of Congress. The letter
represents the interests of millions of Americans in getting
to the bottom of campaign finance abuses, once for all.
The Reform Party has joined five citizen action
organizations, urging the Government Reform and Oversight
Committee of the U.S. House of Representatives to approve a
protocol for their investigation of campaign finance abuses
that is fair and bi-partisan in its scope. The other
organizations include the League of Women Voters, U.S. Public
Interest Research Group, United We Stand America, Public
Campaign and Public Citizen.
Addressing the members of the Government Reform and
Oversight Committee of the Congress, the letter urges them,
as they vote on the protocol establishing the scope and
procedures for their investigation, to ``. . .broaden the
scope of the investigation to include the fundraising
practices of both parties' presidential and congressional
campaigns.'' The Senate has set a precedent for such a move
by voting to broaden the scope of their own investigation to
look at presidential and congressional fundraising, both
improper and illegal.
``The notion that the Committee's investigation should
exclude congressional fundraising practices smacks of a self-
serving disregard for the public's right to know,'' the
letter states. ``In addition, it is imperative that the
investigation be conducted in a fair and non-partisan manner.
Procedural rules that put one party or the other at a
distinct disadvantage will cast doubt on the integrity of the
investigation. Scope and procedures that are anything less
than comprehensive and fair will completely undermine the
credibility of the House investigation from the outset.''
Reform Party Chairman Russell Verney says, ``Every day, the
public trust is further eroded by more news of possible
improprieties and even illegal acts in both presidential and
congressional fundraising, from the selling of access in
exchange for big campaign contributions to the use of federal
property for fundraising. We're looking to the Congress to do
the people's business and conduct the fair, nonpartisan
investigation the situation demands one that digs deep and
lays out the truth, no matter what it is or who it touches.
The people will settle for nothing less.''
For more information on campaign finance reform or about
the Reform Party, call the national Reform Party office at
(972) 450-8800, or contact your state Reform Party
headquarters.
____
Statement of Joan Claybrook, President, Public Citizen, House
Investigation of Campaign Fundraising Abuses
Public trust in our system of government is dangerously
low. Political gamesmanship and partisan sniping are
destroying voters' confidence in their lawmakers. So is the
corrupting spiral of legalized bribery better known as
special interest money.
Attempts to limit the scope of the House investigation are
a transparent attempt to cover up the misuse of special
interest money swamping Congressional races and the methods
used to raise such sums.
Congressional candidates poured $743 million into their
1996 campaigns. The disease of special interest corruption is
not confined to the executive branch of our government, so
why should the Government Reform and Oversight Committee's
investigation be confined only to the executive branch?
The voters are demanding to know the full story behind the
litany of fundraising abuses in both the Administration and
Congress and by Democrats and Republicans alike.
The Government Reform and Oversight Committee investigation
must not close its eyes to suspect activities like the
Republican donor access programs, where those who gave
$50,000 were guaranteed at least three private meetings with
GOP senators.
The Committee must not close its eyes to the Republican
fundraising letter of 1995 promising that corporate
contributions of $25,000 or more would go ``directly to fund
House races''--an activity that would have been illegal.
And it cannot close its eyes to public demands for action.
Today's poll in the New York Times shows almost nine of ten
people wanting fundamental changes or even a complete
overhaul of the political fundraising system, and nearly nine
of ten people wanting the Congressional investigations to
cover fundraising abuses by both parties.
Chairman Burton must not be allowed to turn this
investigation into a partisan vendetta against the White
House that sweeps Congressional fundraising abuses under the
carpet. Giving him the power to control this investigation is
like appointing Pete Rose Commissioner of Baseball. Dan
Burton must not be allowed to seize unilateral power of
subpoena, and he must not be allowed to destroy the
credibility of the House of Representatives by confining its
investigation to one corner of a very huge problem.
The Committee as a whole, not its chair must decide what
subpoenas are issued, or the power will become a partisan
weapon. The Committee as a whole should also control what
documents are released to the public. The Committee's probe
is far too important for it to be controlled by one
individual whose own activities are being investigated by the
Justice Department for abuses but who wants to decide which
abuses will be investigated and which will be ignored.
Representatives must choose between a wide-ranging,
principled and fair investigation, or one that is conducted
for narrow partisan purposes that shields the indefensible
Congressional campaign finance system from scrutiny.
Last month, because a handful of Republican senators stood
tall, the Senate voted unanimously to expand the scope of its
probe into campaign finance practices to include Presidential
and Congressional activities, both illegal and improper.
Today, the question is whether the House--and the
Government Reform and Oversight Committee--also has the
courage to listen to the American people and investigate the
whole story.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I would like to yield
to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Blagojevich].
Mr. BLAGOJEVICH. Mr. Speaker, let me say that as a freshman this is
my maiden voyage, this is the first time that I have addressed the
House with regard to a question of an issue relating to procedure and
an issue that relates to a committee.
Let me say that as long as we are talking about investigations, I
must confess, Mr. Speaker, that I have to plead guilty. I have to plead
guilty to naivete.
When I ran for Congress this last fall, I ran with the notion that
Members of both political parties were going to try to work together to
improve our country on the issues that are important to people in our
respective communities. We were going to work to try to improve the
quality of education; we were together to try to improve and repair our
schools; we were going to try to fight crime and balance the Federal
budget.
I thought Congress was going to operate under the rule of law. I
believe then, and I still believe, that Members of both parties want to
act in good faith together to solve these problems and many other
problems that face our communities. I must confess, however, that I was
somewhat naive, and I must confess to being somewhat demoralized by the
fact that as a freshman member of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight what I have seen
[[Page H1382]]
thus far has been nothing but a political witch-hunt designed to
embarrass the President of the United States and designed to embarrass
one particular political party.
The American people, Mr. Speaker, recognize, rightfully so, that
there is something wrong with the way our financing of campaigns is
being presently operated in the United States. The American people, I
believe, rightfully so, want us to reform the campaign financing laws.
This Congress must, in my judgment, act now to address these
problems, and in doing so, we have to do it in a bipartisan manner, not
only to look at transgressions of Members of both parties; not only to
see where Members of Congress, Members who are Democrats and
Republicans, as well as candidates for the Presidency, have failed and
transgressed in laws. We have to make sure that we reform the financing
system.
So as we investigate the transgressions, I urge this Congress, and in
particular, the committee of which I am a member, the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight, to make sure that when we investigate
fundraising transgressions, we do so by addressing not only the White
House, but also Members of Congress and Members of both political
parties.
In the final analysis, Mr. Speaker, I firmly believe that Democrats
and Republicans alike, Members of Congress, Members of the U.S. Senate,
fundamentally love our country, love the democracy that we have the
opportunity to serve. The fundamental integrity of this process is
being called into question when our committee is not addressing these
investigations in a fair-minded manner and does not seek to investigate
all transgressions, and is merely looking to focus on one particular
party, and in particular, the President of the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that tomorrow when the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight meets we determine to hold a fair investigation
and a nonpartisan investigation.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my
colleague from Michigan, [Ms. Kilpatrick].
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, with nearly 100 days now into the 105th
Congress, I am puzzled and baffled that we have not yet begun to take
care of the business of the people. Quality education, good-paying
jobs, a clean environment, medical care for the people of this great
country, all have not yet been addressed.
I want to give you an example of what can happen when a legislature
works together in a bipartisan way. In 1993, President Clinton
initiated and passed the Empowerment Zone Act. Since that time, there
have been established 15 empowerment zones across America and 25
enterprise communities where jobs are created, where people are
trained, where the displaced worker is put back to work.
I contend that this 105th Congress must get back on track. One
hundred days and still no real issues, no real opportunity for
children, for people. We have got to get back on track.
I am happy to report that Detroit, the city that I represent, among
six other cities, was the No. 1 application put in and won that
rightful first place empowerment zone designation. We have 2 billion
dollar's worth of private investment; we have over 100,000 jobs
committed and we are in the process of rejuvenating that.
I am happy to report that beginning next Monday, Tuesday, and
Wednesday, the White House will sponsor and hold in Detroit the first
annual meeting of the empowerment zones and the enterprising
communities. This will be the first time that the enterprising
communities and the empowerment zones will come together to see what is
working, how many they have employed, how many they have retrained,
what has happened in terms of assistance to schools and education.
I am happy that Detroit is being selected, I am happy that President
Clinton had the foresight to establish the empowerment zones, and what
I want to see this 105th Congress do is to expand that opportunity. Let
us put Americans back to work. Let us provide educational opportunities
for our children. Let us have pensions and security for seniors who
have worked so hard for this country.
We are now almost 100 days into the 105th Congress. How long will it
be before we get back to work? I am asking our Republican leadership,
let us deal with the issues of America. Let us put Americans back to
work. Let us provide security for our children so that they too can
have wonderful, exciting lives that we have all been blessed by.
One hundred days. Is it not time that this Congress, the 105th
Congress under Republican leadership deal with the real issues?
Enterprise zones, working Americans, sending children to school,
providing health care, securing pensions, that is what the American
people want to talk about.
I would hope that we begin the work of the people of this great
Nation, that as we move to a new millennium we talk about those real
issues, and let us get to work, Congress. We are 435 of the most
powerful people in the world. People sent us to this Congress to do
their work. Let us get started on it.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Kucinich].
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address an issue in which the
credibility of Congress is at stake and the credibility of a
congressional committee is at stake.
Our Government was set up, the Government of the United States was
set up to provide for a separation of powers, and that separation of
powers was to prevent the abuse of power, a system of checks and
balances to prevent the abuse of power, a House and a Senate to prevent
the abuse of legislative power, a district, appellate, and Supreme
Court to prevent the abuse of judicial power.
Democracy is the greatest form of government known to the world, and
it works, as long as we do not abuse power. The American people are
very aware of this. That is why they favor a system which distributes
the power throughout the Government.
We have a situation on our committee, the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight, which lends itself to the great concern of the
American people as to whether or not power is being abused, because we
have a condition set up which permits the chairman of that committee to
be a policeman, a prosecutor, a judge, and a jury over matters relating
to the investigation of campaign finance.
The American people have a right to know what is going on with
respect to campaign finance, but they also have a right to make sure
that it is done in an even-handed way, where power is not abused, so
that there is credibility to any investigation.
Mr. Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, we need to
go very slowly on our efforts to investigate campaign finance if it is
not being done in a bipartisan manner and if it refuses to recognize
the demand and the requirements which the American people have for
checks and balances and for the prevention of the abuse of power.
I implore the chairman of the committee to consider our requests so
that we will have the committee make the decisions as a whole for the
calling of witnesses, for the subpoena of documents, and for any other
matters which come before our committee. I would ask the gentleman from
Indiana [Mr. Burton] as a gentleman and as a Member of this House to
consider the grave responsibility he has to protect this democratic
process in this moment of great concern of the people.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield to my
distinguished colleague from Connecticut [Ms. DeLauro].
{time} 1600
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for yielding
to me. Also, I want to commend my colleagues for coming down this
afternoon to talk about the issue of this investigation.
I wanted to be here as well to join in the commentary in order to
support the efforts of my colleagues in calling for an open and a fair
investigation of campaign finance issues, campaign finance reform, and
of what our administration practice is. But I also believe that we
ought to take a look at the Congress as well and what has happened, and
look at what may be potentially there to have an open and fair
investigation.
However, I would just say to my colleagues that I think that there
are
[[Page H1383]]
clear motives on the part of the Republican majority to have a one-
sided investigation, and the reason is what they do not want to do is
to look into the practice that they were heavily engaged in in the last
session of this Congress and during the election, of lobbyists writing
the legislation in this body in exchange for campaign contributions.
Today on the floor of this House, the majority whip gave us his own
revisionist history lesson on campaign finance reform. The majority
whip, the gentleman from Texas, was widely criticized during the last
Congress for allowing lobbyists to write legislation in his office.
Article after article documented meetings where GOP donors were invited
to draft bills on issues of concern to their special interests.
One such article from the Washington Post on March 12, 1995, and
these are the words of the article and I am not making this up, this is
documentation, documents an organization called ``Project Relief'' that
included 350 industry members and lobbyists. Instead of just proposing
legislation, the majority whip let them draft the laws directly. In
other words, he would let paid lobbyists do what House Members, Members
who are duly elected by the 500,000 or 600,000 people they represent in
their districts to come here to carry the interests of those folks to
this body, to craft that legislation in terms of good and meaningful
public policy in the lives of American taxpayers, he would let the
lobbyists do what House Members are elected to do.
The gentleman even admitted the practice, saying that the lobbyists
have, and this is a quote, ``They have the expertise.'' Today the
gentleman from Texas claimed it never happened. Once again Republicans
do not want an open investigation.
I will tell the Members the other items they do not want to look
into. The tobacco industry gave the [RNC] Republican National
Committee, $7.4 million. They passed a product liability that would
have saved the tobacco company millions of dollars. The NRA gave $2
million. The GOP worked to try to kill the assault weapons ban in the
last session of the Congress.
The GOP Congress let big business help write a workplace safety bill.
In January of 1995 big business lobbyists wrote up a 30-item wish list
for limiting certain workplace safety regulations. When the bill was
finished in early June, virtually every single item on that wish list
had been incorporated into the final version of the bill. Business
lobbyists even worked closely in drafting the legislation.
There were other areas in terms of other non-legislative outrages. I
am just going to hold up this book. This is the National Republican
Campaign Committee, this is the tactical PAC project, PAC being
Political Action Committees. These were folks who were given a friendly
or unfriendly notation by their name. This was circulated to the GOP
representatives based on how much money these folks gave to Republicans
or Democrats.
The majority whip, who was nicknamed ``the Hammer,'' and is very
proud of this appellation here, for his fund raising techniques, has
been known to greet lobbyists with this book, thumbing through it, and
saying, see, you are in the book, one way or the other.
The long and short of it, I think what we ought to do is to continue
with a lot of this information, to get it out. The public ought to know
this. We ought to try to get it out, so that the public has both sides.
This needs to be a fair and open investigation.
No one is saying that we should not investigate. We should, because
wrongdoing, wherever it occurs, ought to be stopped. Let us do the
right thing by the American people. Let us open this investigation and
make sure that both sides are heard. I thank my colleague for having
this special order today and for allowing me some time to speak.
Mr. TIERNEY. I thank my colleague for taking the time to point out in
the remaining 2 minutes that I have, Mr. Speaker, just to continue to
point out some of the issues that the gentlewoman brought to light, and
being that what we are really discussing here is the fact that this is
a proposal by a committee and a committee chairperson to run a totally
extraordinary and unusual type of campaign investigation that focuses
only on one party, one office, instead of doing what the other body,
the Senate, did in terms of broadening it out.
The fact of the matter is, as our minority leader, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman], pointed out, the fact of the matter is that we
can do better. We need not have two separate investigations,
particularly when one of them is really compromised the way the one in
the House pretends to be.
We ought to do what they have done over in the Senate side, or let
them do it if we cannot work jointly with them, save the American
taxpayer some $14 million, and deal with both parties, all offices, and
have a credible investigation, and not one where we have one individual
unilaterally, without any constraints, issuing subpoenas.
In every other investigation that has been done by these bodies of
any notoriety, the gentlewoman will note that there was never a case of
the unilateral issuance of subpoenas by the chairperson, whether it be
Watergate, Iran-Contra, the House Ethics Committee, or the proposed
Senate investigation, nor have there been unilateral releases of
privileged and confidential documents in any of those.
Yet our chairperson in the House purports to do both of them, but he
purports to do it by silently not stating specifically the context of
his investigation and the protocol, so those Members of his committees
who profess to be moderate or profess that they would be embarrassed by
such a venture can hide behind that lack of specificity.
I want to thank all of my colleagues who came to the floor today to
highlight this matter, and urge, Mr. Speaker, that we see some
leadership on the other side of the aisle here, that we do something
that will have credibility, that we move forward so the American people
will know that this Congress is working for them.
____________________