[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 38 (Monday, March 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H1703-H1704]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




            CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM PROCESS HAS BEEN RIGGED

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minute.
  Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, let the record show that we have 
three former Peace Corps volunteers on the floor today, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I appreciate his remarks, the Speaker pro 
tempore, and myself.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss probably the issue of today, 
which is campaign finance reform. What is happening today is that the 
process has been rigged. We have a suspension of democracy, not a 
suspension of consent items before the House.
  We are scheduled to vote this evening on campaign finance reform, on 
four bills, as the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) pointed out, 
all Republican bills without any Democrat input, although the Democrat 
bill that I authored has 106 cosponsors, the most that any campaign 
finance reform bill has ever had in the history of this House.
  I would like to speak a little bit about that history, because we 
have, in the past, passed campaign finance reform. In fact, if Members 
will go back to probably times when some of the Members here were 
serving, the 100th Congress, in 1987 and 1988, the House bill was 
introduced by a House Member from California, Mr. Coelho. It had 96 
cosponsors in all.
  Then the Senate bill, which was S. 2, was introduced by a Democrat 
from Oklahoma, Senator Boren. That bill was filibustered by the 
Republicans for a record of seven cloture votes, and it was defeated by 
the Republican filibuster.
  In the 101st Congress, 1991 to 1992, again Mr. Swift, a Democrat from 
Washington, introduced the House bill here, which had several 
cosponsors, and it passed the House. It passed on a bipartisan vote, 
255 to 155, including 15 Republicans that voted for the bill.
  Then what happened is that the conferees, because the Senate blocked 
the conferees, were never appointed. So, again, the second time that a 
bill had gotten blocked by Republican efforts.
  In the 102nd Congress, which is 1991 to 1992, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) sponsored the bill. It had 82 cosponsors in 
all. It passed the House on November 25, 1991, by a vote of 273 to 156. 
The Senate had a similar measure.
  The House agreed to the Senate measure and it passed the Senate, it 
was again by Senator Boren, by a vote of 56 to 42. It went to 
conference. The conference report was voted on by this House 259 to 165 
on April 9, 1992. Guess what happened in 1992? On May 5, President Bush 
vetoed the bill.
  That is similar to the bill that I have up today, H.R. 600. There is 
not much difference. It became, I think, the bill, most of which is in 
the Shays-Meehan bill. Again, an effort by the Republicans to block 
campaign finance reform.
  Then in the 103rd Congress, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Gejdenson) again introduced this bill, H.R. 3. It passed the House on 
November 22, 1993, by a vote of 255 to 175. The Senate

[[Page H1704]]

bill passed again, introduced by Senator Boren, a Democrat from 
Oklahoma, passed the Senate on June 7, 1993, by a vote of 60 to 38. The 
cloture failed on the motion to go to conference on September 23; and 
due to a filibuster by Senator Gramm, a Republican from Texas, the 
cloture failed on September 27.
  Again, in the 104th Congress I took over the work of the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson), I guess because both of us are Sams, 
and I guess the Sam Caucus sticks together. I introduced the H.R. 3505. 
It had numerous cosponsors. It was a substitute to the Republican 
campaign finance reform bill, and it failed on this floor by 177 to 
243. It received bipartisan support. And the act goes on.
  Now we are in the 105th Congress. I have introduced H.R. 600. It had 
a 106 cosponsors. It cannot get out of committee. It cannot even be 
offered as a substitute. So history has shown that when the Democrats 
were in power, we were able to get bills off this floor. We were able 
to get more substantive bills than are being addressed today.
  I think what is happening today a real sham. It is a sham on 
democracy. It is shameful what we are doing.
  There is a funeral going on right now in New Mexico. Most of our 
Members are there. They cannot even participate in this discussion.
  The vote is on the suspense calendar, which requires a two-thirds 
vote, an extraordinary vote. The suspense calendar is for things that 
are automatic, that people have no debate on. They are not 
controversial issues. Yet, this day was the day chosen to hear this.
  Let me tell the Members what has been going on in this House. We 
ought to all be outraged because, since the beginning of this year, 
this session, the oversight committee chaired by our colleague, the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton), and by Senator Fred Thompson have 
subpoenaed in the House 587 people, put 114 depositions, had 13 days of 
public hearings, had 33 witnesses and spent $6.8 million, and nothing 
coming out for campaign finance reform. This is outrageous.

                          ____________________