[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 109 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H5989-H5990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, first I would like to join in my colleagues 
in the previous speaker's comments about the accolades and plaudits of 
my colleagues on this bipartisan freshman task force, the gentleman 
from Maine [Mr. Allen], of course, and the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Hutchinson] and the fine work and leadership that they demonstrated in 
this process.
  In fact I was very honored to be a part of what I think is a very 
historic freshman task force in an effort to reform campaign finances 
in our country. Yes, the subject was controversial. As a freshman for 
the first time, we all have recent and very personal encounters with 
the campaign finance laws of this Nation. To augment our experience, we 
had several hearings with groups and individuals with a variety of 
expertise in this area. It was very constructive for myself personally 
and for the rest of the Members. It became an environment in which we 
got to know not just the other Members of the other party and Members 
in our own class, but we got to know the subject matter a great deal 
and a lot better than we had before we entered.
  Almost all of us agreed to one conclusion after this, that the system 
is broken. Those disagreements that we may have had, and they developed 
around some of the parts and the existing parts, but we all agreed that 
the system and how it is broken has a high priority in our 
consideration for solutions.
  We want equitable solutions and we want solutions to States which 
have varying sizes and varying populations, varying mixes in the media 
and the media markets. Several facets of this issue that bore close 
scrutiny included soft money, as we have already heard, campaign 
finance disclosure, campaign spending limits, limits on individual and 
political action committees and their contributions. Also we considered 
free or reduced-cost TV rates for candidates.
  It was interesting to watch our legislation evolve from a broad-
based, cure all, almost certain to fail, too narrow specific language 
that contained no poison pills. We think our product, the Bipartisan 
Campaign Integrity Act of 1997, contains something for everyone. It is 
not so broad based that it will die of its own weight. I think that our 
bill, although it does not solve all of the problems nor solve all of 
the campaign finance ills, at least makes an honest attempt and a start 
at it, to correct what is wrong.
  The fact that some of our leaders in each party have expressed 
problems with it means, and this means to me that this legislation is 
truly bipartisan. There are some elements that, yes, I would probably 
want to polish around the edges of the margins, but I am satisfied this 
bill as a whole is a good one. It satisfies several fundamental 
problems and it does deserve passage.
  I am personally in favor of totally eliminating soft money. Of course 
this means making other sources of funding available such as increasing 
Federal contribution limits and/or removing coordinated limits between 
parties and candidates. I also think that most of the money in a 
campaign ought to come from the district in which the person is 
elected. This would mean that the people who have a vested interest, 
for example, in Nevada's Second District would have a greater influence 
in its politics rather than some outsider. With the population in 
Nevada so spread out, it can be costly to run a campaign, either as an 
incumbent or as a challenger. There have been much smaller districts 
with elections pending, over $6 million for each candidate. That is far 
too much money to be elected to the House of Representatives.
  The amount of money any one individual or PAC can contribute ought to 
be limited. Too frequently, large donors are allowed greater access to 
influence than is ordinarily afforded most regular constituents.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GIBBONS. I yield to the gentleman from Maine.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that the gentleman 
from Nevada [Mr. Gibbons] has been an outstanding member of this task 
force. It has been a pleasure working with him. I agree with him. As he 
described the process that we went through, he made a very important 
point. He talked about all the different, some of the different ideas 
that are out there and he recognized what we did, which was essentially 
agree on what we could agree on, and not try to do the big

[[Page H5990]]

comprehensive reforms that may be good in some people's eyes but cannot 
generate the support to pass this Congress this year. I really think 
that is a critical point.
  As I say, it has been a pleasure working with the gentleman. We still 
have more work to do before we are done but I want to thank the 
gentleman for his dedication to this subject.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his remarks. They 
are very appropriate to this occasion. I agree totally that there is a 
lot more things we could have done, a lot of things a lot of us would 
have liked to have done. But we came together as a body of both 
Democrats and Republicans, and I think we came out with what could be 
the most important bill of this Congress. I would like to thank the 
gentleman again, the gentleman from Maine, Mr. Allen, for his 
dedication on this.

                          ____________________