[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8027-H8029]
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 Massachusetts [Mr. Tierney] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand today to address the same issue 
many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have addressed to date, 
and that is simply campaign finance reform, and once again reiterate 
that all of the procedural steps that have been seen over the past 
several weeks are, in fact, the only way that the minority can try to 
shed some light and focus the attention on this particular issue.
  It has been made clear to us and to the American people that there is 
no current intention of the leadership on the majority side of this 
House to bring that issue forward for deliberation, for debate and for 
a vote. And while we are talking about this issue, I want to broaden 
the discussion a little bit, because once again I feel that the House

[[Page H8028]]

of Representatives is going to be behind the States in taking action 
and way behind the American people as individuals.
  When people talk about reforming the current system, they talk about 
something bold, they talk about actual reform. I do not believe there 
is a great deal of interest of people looking at incremental changes or 
marginal changes around the edges of what we have, rather we are 
talking about doing something fundamental because we need to have the 
confidence back in our system.
  We need, in fact, to know that every piece of legislation we put out 
of this body has credibility so that the American people understand 
that it is their business being done and not the business of a special 
few who can give not just hundreds of thousands of dollars but the 
$1,000, the $2,000. The small percentage of people in this country that 
actually contribute to campaigns should be no less certain that the 
$1,000 and $2,000 contributions of individuals get some sort of access 
than they are about the hundreds of thousands or $200,000 contributions 
that are made in so-called soft money, which a friend of mine likens to 
money put into a blender. It is run through the blender so when it 
comes out nobody is sure where it came from. We have a right to know 
where the money comes from. We have a right to have control over our 
system.
  Sometime ago, months ago, I put on the floor of this House a bill, 
H.R. 2199, entitled ``Clean Money, Clean Election Campaign Finance 
Reform.'' It is modeled after what happened in Maine when the people in 
Maine took a referendum and decided they wanted to own their system; 
they wanted to have control over their electoral process and they would 
publicly fund the campaigns in that State.
  They understood that if they were going to have people come down and 
do their business, they wanted to make sure that they knew who they 
were and that they had decided, just like big corporations invest in 
the selection of people that run their corporations, as voters they had 
to invest in knowing who was coming here. We have to make sure it is 
not the people that are funded by tobacco companies or other huge 
corporations, or individuals that are so well off or so vested in the 
process that they are putting forth the money in thousand dollar 
increments.
  The States know it. The State of Maine went out in a referendum and 
put in a system. The legislature in Vermont went out and put in place a 
similar system. In a dozen polls across this country, in States that 
are considered to be liberal or progressive, in States considered 
conservative, the people have spoken out that they think public 
financing of campaigns is the way to proceed.
  USA Today acclaims the States are leading the way in cleaning up 
campaigns. They talk about the fact that in Maine they have an even 
better idea than just putting limits in there, they are going to fund 
the campaigns so that they know that they own their own process.
  The Boston Globe several weeks ago supported the concept. In 
Wisconsin, the Daily Tribune Wisconsin Rapids says public financing 
will give true reform. In St. Louis, the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in 
its editorial, says public financing is the answer.
  The American people want their system back. This House fails to take 
a bold step on either side of the aisle. I think we have to understand 
that if the people are going to have confidence in this body they have 
to have confidence that we will do something, not just work around the 
margins and not proceed forward.
  People want limited campaign seasons, not endless campaigns. They 
want to know their elected officials do not spend their life at 
fundraisers and on the phone asking for money. They want to know that 
the free air time is available to candidates because the spectrum that 
broadcasters get for free belongs to the American people. They want to 
make sure that there is an even and level playing field so that 
candidates, no matter what their personal wealth or no matter what 
their ability to get the attraction of large corporations or other big 
investors involved in their campaign, will have the ability, through 
good organization, through leadership abilities to go out and address 
the people and get elected.

  A fair campaign that would attract candidates, that would get people 
involved in a process that we would know we as voters control is where 
this thing should be moving. The American people are there, certainly 
it is now finally being reflected in editorials, the AFL-CIO is willing 
to give the Beck decision or whatever else they want if we go to that 
system, and in fact the large donors and huge corporations the other 
day agreed and said they too are tired of giving money and they would 
go to that system.
  Simply speaking, what we need to do is have a system like that that 
does not unilaterally disarm any party. That is what we need, is 
something everybody can coalesce behind.


                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Meehan] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I would first like to yield to my colleague 
from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, let me thank my friend for 
yielding to me.
  As the gentleman knows, the days and years roll by and more money 
continues to flow into Washington, hundreds, thousands, millions of 
dollars into campaigns, into political parties, and the Speaker of the 
House, the Speaker of the House, of the people's House, continues to 
say that it is not that it is too much money, it is not enough. He 
wants more money, unlimited amounts, to come into the House, into 
campaigns and to political parties.
  Our present system is polluting the political process. It stinks. 
This is not the way to conduct the people's business, with hundreds, 
thousands and millions of dollars coming in. And the Speaker refuses to 
do anything; refuses to allow us to have a vote, a debate on campaign 
finance reform.
  It is time, I think, my colleagues, that we say to the Speaker, ``How 
long will you wait?'' This is not in keeping with the democratic 
process. Let us have a vote. Let us have a clean debate on campaign 
finance reform. That must take place if we are going to restore a sense 
of faith and trust and confidence in the democratic process in America.
  Mr. MEEHAN. I thank my colleague from Georgia, and let me just say 
that I woke up this morning and reads the headlines of the newspapers, 
and I think everyone in America has looked and seen that the Democrats 
have been trying to delay and procrastinate in the procedures and shut 
this place down, if need be, in order to get a vote on campaign finance 
reform.
  Now, all of us have looked at the newspapers and on television over 
the last months and there has been a lot of attention on the problems 
with our campaign finance system; the fact that there is too much money 
involved in American politics; the fact that here we are at a critical 
time and trying to protect America's children from tobacco, and we find 
the tobacco companies gave millions of dollars in the last election 
cycle; and the only way we will do anything about this is by forcing a 
debate on campaign finance reform.
  Now, it is interesting that at the same time the other body is taking 
up campaign finance reform and taking up a bill that is sponsored by 
Senators McCain and Feingold, that has the support of nearly every 
newspaper in America, nearly every public interest group that has been 
working on campaign finance reform in America, that we find that the 
Speaker of the House, at the same time this bill is being debated, has 
a headline in the New York Times which reads ``Gingrich Asserts 
Campaign Bill Is Dead in the House.''
  Well, I am joining with a Republican Member, the gentleman from 
Connecticut [Mr. Chris Shays], and a number of Members of the House, at 
one o'clock, and we are going to have a press conference to announce 
that campaign finance reform is not dead in the House. As a matter of 
fact, we are going to introduce early next week a revised reform bill 
based on a scaled-back McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan bill.
  Now, what does it do? No. 1, it bans soft money. The fund-raising 
controversies that we have heard about by and large have been soft 
money, the ability of someone to go into the Speaker's office or go 
into the White

[[Page H8029]]

House or anyplace else with a check for $50,000 or $100,000. That 
should be illegal.
  We ought to have a vote on the floor of the House and let Members 
vote whether they think it should be illegal or not. Certainly 80 to 90 
percent of the American public think it should be illegal. The Speaker 
thinks it ought to be legal. He thinks there is not enough money being 
spent on campaigns in America, and that is the opposite of the truth.
  The evidence is overwhelming that the time has come for campaign 
finance reform. The Speaker says that we need more money involved in 
this process. The truth is money is corrupting American politics and 
everyone knows it. We are going to file a bill that will ban soft 
money, that will give better disclosure requirements, greater 
disclosure and better enforcement from the Federal Election Commission.
  All of us here today believe that the Speaker's desire to vastly 
increase the amount of money in the current system would be a disaster 
for democracy. I am confident that the Members of this House are going 
to stand up to the Speaker and, if we need to do it, we will file a 
discharge petition and require that there be a vote on the floor of 
this House to ban soft money.
  One person cannot stand in the way of campaign finance reform, and I 
believe that the membership of this House is ready to take on Speaker 
Gingrich and require that there be a vote on campaign finance reform 
and a vote to abolish soft money.

                          ____________________