[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 131 (Friday, September 26, 1997)]
[House]
[Page H8027]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP PREVENTS DEBATE ON CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Snyder] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the staff being around here on 
a Friday afternoon as we discuss these issues.
  Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker talked about how he would like to 
know where we Democrats stand on some of these issues on campaign 
finance reform. We Democrats would like to know how everyone in this 
House stands on campaign finance reform, but until a bill is allowed to 
come to the House, we are not going to do anything.
  The Democrats do not control the House right now, the Republican 
leadership controls that House. If they want to know how we stand on 
campaign finance reform, then let these issues come to the floor of the 
House. It is not our fault that there have not been votes on campaign 
finance reform, it is the fault of the Republican leadership that is 
now in control of this House.
  That is why, for this past week or so, we have seen a series of 
motions to adjourn and motions to rise, these kinds of procedural 
votes, trying to send a message to the Republican leadership: we have 
important work to do on campaign finance reform, and we have got to do 
a better job of bringing that issue to the floor of the House before we 
can move ahead on other matters.
  Why do we care about campaign finance reform? What do we see as the 
problem under the current law? I brought a sample check here. Members 
are obviously going to be able to tell it is not a real check because 
it is signed by my friend, Ima Big Donor.
  Ms. Big Donor decided she wanted to make a contribution to the 
political party of her choice, any old political party. She decided, 
like Mr. Ted Turner, that she had done well in the market in the last 
year, and she was going to donate extra money that she had to her 
political party. So she made out the check for $1 billion, $1 billion, 
enough to fund a thousand political House campaigns.
  We might think, well, surely under current law the $1 billion check 
would be illegal, since I as an individual can only give $1,000 to a 
candidate. But no, under our current system of law, there is unlimited 
ability to donate money to the political parties, whether you are an 
individual, whether you are a union, or whether you are a corporation.
  Why would someone like Mrs. Big Donor want to donate $1 billion? Just 
check her check: for access, for access. Is that not what Mr. Tamraz 
testified to last week before the Senate committee?

                              {time}  1245

  Why would he give $300,000? Why would he give $600,000? For access. 
He is not a fool. It got him in the doors he wanted to get in. This is 
legal under our current system and it needs to be reformed.
  I am one of those candidates that does not like to raise money. I do 
not think many candidates like to raise money. I think raising money 
makes us weird. Raising this kind of big money makes our democracy 
weird, and the American people want to change that system.
  Until the Republican leadership lets campaign finance reform bills 
come to the House for discussion, we are not only not going to know how 
everyone wants to vote on these things, but the American people are not 
going to see the kind of changes and reform that they want.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Connecticut.
  Ms. DeLAURO. I thank the gentleman for yielding to me, and I would 
just say that he is absolutely right, because the fact of the matter 
is, and what Democrats have been calling for for the last several weeks 
by asking for procedural votes, motions to adjourn, et cetera, was an 
effort to bring to the floor, because the Republican majority in this 
House, the Speaker of the House, Mr. Gingrich, will not allow us to 
bring up the issue of campaign finance reform. The only tools that are 
available to the minority party are procedural votes. So the public 
understands what is going on here.
  The fact of the matter is, on both sides of the aisle we need to have 
a thorough and a complete conversation and debate about campaign 
finance reform. They do not want to let us. And I will tell my 
colleagues why they do not want to let us. If we read Mr. Gingrich in 
the paper today, the Speaker will support a bill that let the good 
times roll; open up the floodgates; allow all kinds of money to come 
into the system.
  My colleagues, it is not the kind of reform the American people are 
looking for. What he says is that there is not enough money in 
politics; we need more money in politics. The Washington Post has said 
8 in 10 Americans believe money has too much influence on who wins 
elections, but the Speaker says we need more money.
  Our colleague on the other side of the aisle just a minute ago was 
talking about influence in the process. If we want to talk about 
influence, which the American public gets in a second, $50 billion in a 
tax break to the tobacco industry, not just a few weeks ago, and guess 
who was the single biggest contributor to the Republican campaign in 
the last election? It does not take a rocket scientist to figure it 
out. The tobacco industry.
  And, fortunately, in the Senate and in this body, we said no to that 
kind of a payoff. That is what we have to stop here, is to make sure 
that we have the opportunity to get the people in the process and get 
the specialists out of it.
  Let me just say what even his colleague, the gentleman from Arkansas, 
has said about the Doolittle bill that the Speaker would support, would 
bring us back to the dark ages. Let us get out of the dark ages. Let us 
bring campaign finance reform into the light.

                          ____________________