[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 119 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H7184]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  BOTH PARTIES SHOULD WORK TOGETHER TO MOVE AHEAD ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
                           REFORM LEGISLATION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Hutchinson] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to recognize my friend, the 
gentleman from Montana [Mr. Hill], for his leadership on this very 
important issue. He has worked very diligently and hard on the campaign 
finance reform task force that has produced the bipartisan Campaign 
Integrity Act of 1997, and I want to congratulate him and thank him for 
his comments and associate myself with those comments on this key area 
of reform.
  I also want to compliment my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle who have joined together in a bipartisan fashion to formulate 
this very important step forward in an incremental fashion to 
accomplishing significant campaign finance reform legislation. I hope 
that as a result of all of our efforts we can do something good for the 
American people.
  As I sit here in Congress now and think about some of the objections 
that are raised and also some of the urgings to bring this legislation 
to the floor, I cannot help but think that as we fight this battle 
together, there are supporters and detractors of campaign finance 
reform legislation on both sides of the aisle. We have got good friends 
on the other side that support this, we have opponents on the other 
side; and the same thing on the Republican side of the aisle.
  We have to forget pointing fingers at each other and move toward 
working together to accomplish this. I think that we can do that.
  There are other people who say, well, let us just have campaign 
finance reform legislation, but let us do not ban soft money. I do not 
believe that we can have legitimate campaign finance reform legislation 
that will be accepted by the American public unless there is a ban on 
soft money.
  Now, there are certain objections that are raised, people who say, 
well, in our system, and I hear this particularly from our side of the 
aisle, that if we close the loophole in this area, the money will 
continue to flow in campaigns. And I will acknowledge that whenever we 
have campaigns and we have politics that center around power we will 
have money flow to those centers of power. That is the nature of it.
  But there are two ways we can address campaigns in America. We can 
take all the limits off. We can take all the rules off and just let the 
money flow. I personally believe that that is a step in the wrong 
direction. We should have campaign limits, spending, contribution 
limits. I think that is appropriate as long as it is within the first 
amendment. So we have to have some rules.
  And any time we have a system of rules, from time to time, we will 
have to adjust those rules. We are in that phase right now.
  The last time we had significant reform was after Watergate. The 
freshmen rose up and accomplished reform during that time. I believe 
the freshmen can do that same thing today and move this bill forward 
and accomplish this, and it has to start with banning soft money.
  Yes; there will be other loopholes down the road, but we have to 
address the most significant problem now, and that is soft money and we 
can do that.

                              {time}  1830

  There are some people who raise an objection to banning soft money by 
saying, ``Well, you're going to give an advantage to the other side.'' 
I believe that that is incorrect. We look at the statistics and this 
comes from the Center for Responsive Politics, based on the Federal 
Election Commission reports. It found in the 1996 election cycle that 
the Democrats raised $122 million in soft money, the Republicans raised 
$141 million. Yes, the Republican side is a little bit more, but we 
were in the majority at that point. So it is roughly equivalent what 
each party raised in soft money, whether it is labor money or corporate 
money.
  So if you ban soft money, you keep the playing field level. As a 
former State party chairman, I think that is the first criteria of 
election reform, of campaign finance reform, that you keep a level 
playing field so everyone can compete fairly and honestly within the 
system. The Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act of 1997 does this. It 
meets those objectives. It restores confidence in the system. It 
increases disclosure, increases information to the American voter. It 
empowers them by making their contributions once again more meaningful.
  That is why this is good legislation. I have urged my Republican 
leaders to move this legislation forward. I congratulate the gentleman 
from California [Mr. Thomas], the chairman, who has taken a strong 
position. He is going to conduct a hearing on this legislation. I hope 
it will come this fall. I think the time is right right now for this 
legislation to move forward in the U.S. Congress.

                          ____________________