[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8023-H8024]
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 Texas [Mr. Doggett] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, it is really now or never. Either this 
Congress acts now to remedy at least some of the shortcomings of the 
1996 campaigns and the way that they are financed, or we can kiss good-
bye to any hope of reform in time to affect the 1998 elections.
  Many Americans have been concerned about practices and events that 
occurred in both of the political parties during the 1996 elections. 
But the time is today to decide, are we going to do anything about it, 
or just talk about it a little bit more?
  Fortunately, the determination of Democrats in the U.S. Senate is 
leading to action today. As I speak here, in the Senate a specific 
proposal to change the way campaigns operate is being debated fully, 
and I am sure it will be discussed over the next several days there. 
After considerable obstruction by Republicans and the leadership and 
probably more obstruction to come, there is at least a debate going on 
there, according to agreed terms.
  But here in the House of Representatives, where this proposal must 
also be approved, we read in this morning's paper, ``Gingrich asserts 
campaign bill, alive in Senate, is dead in house.''
  Indeed, we find ourselves in a situation where, back in 1995, that 
same Speaker Gingrich shook hands with President Clinton and said he 
wanted to achieve bipartisan campaign finance reform. That is 
essentially the last we heard of it. The smile had hardly faded before 
the interest in reforming campaigns, which could have been in place for 
the 1996 elections, was forgotten. Nothing happened until the eve of 
the elections, when a contrived proposal was brought here on a very 
short notice for 1 hour, and even many of our Republican colleagues 
rejected it, because it was not reform. Rather, it was the kind of 
proposal that was condemned by every good government group that had 
worked to reform our campaign and election laws in the past.
  I prefer the kind of comprehensive reform that Mr. McCain, a 
Republican, and Mr. Feingold, a Democrat, are urging over in the 
Senate. But whatever the approach that we might take

[[Page H8024]]

to reform this system, and there may be many good ideas, there have 
been many proposals advanced, the question is, Will we have a firm day 
now in terms of debate that provide for full and fair discussion of the 
proposals?
  I must say that this same story from this morning's paper is not very 
encouraging in that regard. It does point out, as for the House, 
Republican leaders have been publicly silent, until this week, on the 
idea of bringing up the campaign finance bill, even as Democrats 
agitated daily for a vote on this issue.
  We have had to file motions to adjourn, to approve the Journal, to 
count the votes, to do these various things, because under our rules, 
we have no other mechanism to adjourn the special interests that want 
to dominate this House and that have influenced legislation with the 
$50 billion tax break for tobacco companies and so many other ways this 
year.
  You give the most soft money in the first 6 months, and in the 
seventh month you get a $50 billion tax break that all the rest of us 
have to pay for. That is wrong. But it is not just a matter of talking 
about it up here and talking about it in the Senate. We have got to do 
something about it. And the ``something'' is comprehensive reform that 
is scheduled now.
  But if we read on in this morning's paper, what we learn is that the 
kind of reform that the Speaker says might come up sometime this fall, 
and fall has already begun, is not reform, but it would allow unlimited 
personal contributions.

                              {time}  1215

  He wants to solve the problem of big money influence on this body 
that is crippling the operation of our Congress; he wants to solve the 
big money problem by making it bigger. Let the big boys give what they 
are giving now, and let them give any amount they want to do to 
influence the priorities of this Congress. That is not reform, it is 
repealing the only reforms that we have been able to get on the books 
thus far.
  We need a real reform, not a repeal of the existing law, little as it 
is, to try to control the way the system has operated, and that real 
reform could come as early as next week.
  I am pleased that this same story reports that our leader, the 
gentleman from Missouri, [Mr. Gephardt], has written to Speaker 
Gingrich and he has said, ``Until we receive your commitment to follow 
through on rhetorical offerings,'' and that is all we have had, ``we 
shall not treat these overtures as serious,'' and certainly they should 
not be, ``and we will continue our efforts to force action to daily 
floor proceedings.''
  That is precisely what will occur on this floor on next Monday, and 
it is precisely what will occur in the future. Until we get fair play 
in this House, until the American people have a chance to see specific 
proposals out here, we will have other procedural votes to get the 
American people the reform that they deserve.

                          ____________________