Vic Snyder

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, that is interesting what the gentleman said about the League of Women Voters. This morning I was reading through some of the articles and statements. The League of Women Voters calls it a ``travesty,'' this Republican leadership bill. Common Cause calls it a ``hoax.'' The Washington Post calls it a ``mockery,'' and the New York Times calls it a ``charade.'' Now, those ought to be some warning signs to Members of this body. It ought to be some warning signs to the American people when we have that kind of criticism, very dramatic criticism of a bill and an issue that these groups feel very strongly about on the need to do something about our campaign finance law. But I know for myself, I am not going to vote for this bill and I do not want to be a part of a travesty, a hoax, mockery and a charade. I want to be part of a bill like the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) offered, our freshman bill, offered along with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), or there are other options out there. But this one is the worst of the bills that we have seen.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting, the irony of having spent so much money on these investigations, and then to choose to deliberately put up a bill that is meant to fail. I guess that brings out our cynicism. But that is what is going on. It is all right to talk about all of this stuff about campaign finance laws, but we do not really want to do anything, is the message we are hearing from the Republican leadership. Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to the two of my colleagues discuss in I thought great clarity and in good detail some of the various nuances of the campaign finance reform bills, I am sure that we have some folks that are saying, wait a minute; why are these folks not talking about these issues when the House is in session? Why are we having to do it at this time of night when most of the Members have gone home? I want to take a moment and point out the Rules of the House. We talk about the Committee on Rules, and it is not legal for us to bring up amendments on the floor of the House any time we want. It is not legal for us to bring up any bill we want, the Allen-Hutchinson bill any time we want. Any bill, before it comes out on the floor of this House, has to go before the House Committee on Rules and they make the decision can a bill come out, and they also make the decision what amendments can come out. They make a decision about how much time is allotted. And if they make a decision that no other bill can be considered or other amendment be considered, that is the ruling of that committee and that sets the tone for the debate, and we will not get to discuss other options. As happens in legislative bodies, that committee is set up; it has overwhelming Republican members and they take their cues from the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) and the Republican leadership. That is as it should be. The Committee on Rules is dominated by the party in power. But that is why we are left with having to discuss this late at night when most Members have gone home, discuss it with ourselves and with the American people, to let them know that this is a travesty that is going on. This should be the kind of discussion that happens at 1:00 in the afternoon and 2:00 in the afternoon and 3:00 in the afternoon with 435 Members either in this room or back in their offices watching the debate on C-SPAN in their offices, hearing from their constituents about what they want. But it is because the leadership directive told the House Committee on Rules that they do not want anything to come out on the floor of this House other than a bad bill that will go down to defeat. I think that is an embarrassment and a travesty, given the amount of investigation that has gone on and the amount of money that has been spent and committed. The American people want to do something different about how we elect people. So I really appreciate my colleagues being such leaders in this effort.

Mr. SNYDER. I have to wonder what our Speaker is afraid of. I mean, what is the fear of having an open debate on the floor of this House about this very important issue, which is how America elects its leaders? Maybe he has counted votes. Maybe he knows that there is a majority of people in this body that would definitely vote for other alternatives, and the only way he can prevent that from happening is not to let them come to the floor of the House. But I think, unfortunately, his actions and the actions of the other Republican leaders contribute to the cynicism of the American people. They want to know, ``What is this? Why do we not get to see a vote on a clean bill,'' those people back home. So, once again, I appreciate the efforts of my colleague.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SNYDER. I wanted to add my voice of support for what my colleagues are talking about tonight. In Arkansas, I kind of divide our State into areas of rapid growth, the suburban areas; and then we also have the areas in which we have had lots of growth. And in all those areas there is a need for help with funding for school construction. Our rapid-growth areas, I talk with superintendents, and each year they talk about how can we keep up with the growth of the next year, another elementary class? The problem we have with the folks that lose population is how do they keep up with the old school buildings? I go, as I am sure all of my colleagues do, into the school buildings and take tours and meet the kids; and I went into one classroom and there was a huge hole in the wall. And every year they would patch it, but it is a structural problem and it leaks. And so those kids go in there every day to see the area where plaster is falling off the wall, yet we consider this as one of our very premier high schools in Arkansas, and I think it is a real problem. It is too easy for us sitting here in Washington to say, that is a local problem, it is a State problem, it is not anything we should worry about. And yet we expect our kids to be competitive around the world in jobs. We expect our kids to go into military and provide national defense. We expect our kids to be top, premier scientists to compete with the rest of the world. And yet we are going to turn our back on these school building problems, which I think is a real big part of what makes our kids do well in math and science with reading skills that we all expect. So I do not know what the answer is in terms of the bill. But I know the first part of it is to call attention to the problem, and I commend my colleagues for doing it. In fact, I was back at my apartment watching C-SPAN and I thought, by gosh, I want to get in my two cents' worth on this issue. Because it is a big issue for Arkansas, and I appreciate my colleagues doing the work on it.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, it is with great honor and pride that I am here today with my colleagues to honor the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson) and the other prisoners of war from the Vietnam war. As a former Marine and a Vietnam veteran, I think our hearts go out to everyone who served in that war and particularly to the 591 folks that came home as former POWs. I particularly like the way the wording of this resolution read. We could talk about the thousands of prisoners of war, we could talk about the 591 that came home, but when we read one man's story, it means a whole lot more to the American public and to those folks that really did not follow the events of that period, or perhaps are too young to remember the events of that period. The old story about one person is a story and 1,000 is a statistic, and we know that Sam Johnson is not a statistic, but is a very honored man in his home country and in his State. So we are proud of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sam Johnson), we are proud of all of the men and women that have served in Vietnam, and I am proud to add my name to this resolution today.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, this morning on a local radio station a little girl called in with the joke of the day and the joke was, ``What do you call a boomerang if it doesn't come back? A stick.'' We are confronting here the issue of campaign finance reform, and the fear of many people in America and the fear of many people in this House, is that we will have a bill presented before this body that will be called campaign finance reform but will, in fact, be just an empty stick with none of the clout of a true campaign finance reform fill. I am one of the cosponsors of the freshman campaign finance reform bill, and, at a minimum, it must be one that bans soft money and severely restricts these huge, unlimited donations to the parties. In addition to that, our campaign finance reform bill must have no poison pills, and by that I mean to have provisions in the bill that would mean large numbers of this body would have to vote against it. There are options out there with bipartisan support that this House and the American people would support without such poison pills and I encourage the Members of this body to support them.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, February has for some time now been recognized as Black History Month, during which time we recognize the contributions of African Americans throughout the United States and throughout the world. As a member of the Committee on National Security, I want to call attention tonight to General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., one of our American heroes, one of the true contributors to the end of World War II, and the contributions of the military in the world for 20 years after that. General Davis was the first black graduate of West Point. As we now have become familiar with our military academies and the fine opportunities for education, the opportunities for men and women of all races in America to participate in the military and have long and distinguished careers, we also pay attention to the fine collegial atmosphere at the military academies. When General Davis first went to West Point, that was not the situation. Many of us are familiar with the terrible time and hazing he was given there. He literally spent four years with no other member of West Point being allowed to speak to him, not one word. But he graduated from West Point and went on to have a long and distinguished career. As a Member of Congress, we get to participate in helping to make nominations. We get to send in names of candidates to the different military academies. It is a tremendous opportunity for men and women in America to take on a very distinguished career in the military. Frankly, in my district I do not think I got enough applicants for all the slots we have. I think that perhaps there are many students, black, white, Hispanic, other races, men and women, who perhaps do not consider the opportunities which General Davis paved the way for in the military academies. So tonight, during Black History Month, I pay tribute to General Benjamin O. Davis, Jr., and I hope the youth of America will also consider the opportunities to lead such a distinguished career in the military.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, we are going to recess today probably until the end of January, and unfortunately we did nothing in this session of Congress on campaign finance reform. So I can clarify the state of the law as we are leaving it when we go home today, this check from my friend, I am a big donor, for $1 billion to the political party of her choice is still good and perfectly legal. So what does that mean to Americans out there? It means if you are a family of four making $30,000 a year, it is still legal for you to give a check for $1 billion to the political party of your choice. If you are a small business person or a farmer grossing $100,000 a year, it is still perfectly legal for you to give $1 billion in soft money donations to the political party of your choice. If you are a retiree on fixed income watching your pennies every month, it is still completely legal for you to give $1 billion to the political party of your choice. Why is it still legal? Because of inaction in this session of Congress by the Republican leadership in this House. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker. It needs to change. We need to do something about campaign finance reform next session.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, in June of 1995 in a very famous handshake, the President and the Speaker of this House shook hands and committed themselves to campaign finance reform. I can speak since then on the commitment of our President to campaign finance reform. I know he would support that bill because in Arkansas he took it to the streets to get signatures on campaign finance reform for Arkansas and was successful. What has happened since then? Nothing. We have had no bills come to the floor of this House for a vote. Here we are halfway through the session at the end of the year, we are going to adjourn probably tomorrow and what is the final score, Mr. Speaker? The final score is handshakes 1, campaign finance reform nothing. That is a poor record for this Congress. It is a poor record for the Republican leadership of this Congress. Next year we need to do better.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. If my colleagues do not mind, Mr. Speaker, I am going to speak from this side of the aisle. It seems to me sometimes we spend more time talking to those that agree with us than those that disagree with us. Let me just make two points in my 1 minute as a new Member here. First of all, last night when the privileged resolution came up and the gentleman from California [Mr. Thomas] said it is an opportunity to present proof, I came down here in the front row to see the proof. I did not see proof. What I saw was accusations, heartfelt accusations, but there were numbers on a chart. I thought we were going to see blowups of voter registration cards; that is why I came down close. Seeing a number, 1,000 or 4,000 or 305, is not proof, and we need to be laying out in these resolutions proof that we can look at, the L.A. Times can look at, the people of the 46th District can look at and not just have a card with Magic Marker ink on it and say, this is proof; that was an accusation. Now, last point I would like to make, the reason we are so intent on bringing this to an end, it is Campaign 1998 is well underway. Mr. Dornan has announced for reelection, he is raising money for reelection, and the fear of us on this side of the aisle, on that side of the aisle, is that this whole process becomes part of the campaign, and that is wrong.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, over the last several months we have heard a number of discussions about the problem of large donations in our campaign system. I have been up on the floor, as have many people, discussing that issue. At one time I had a large blown-up check that we had which had been signed by my friend, Ima Big Donor, made out for $1 billion, with a big sign, ``To any old political party,'' a completely and perfectly legal donation under our current campaign laws. I continue to be optimistic that something will occur in this session of Congress that will deal with campaign finance reform. But when I go back home and make speeches and people ask me, do you think that you all are going to do anything in Washington about campaign finance and these terrible problems we are having, I say, look, it may take one more election cycle. Maybe we will have to go through the 1998 election cycle, and just see these thousands and thousands and millions of these soft dollars, these unregulated, unlimited, huge donations saturate our system to where the outrage of the American people will finally force this Congress, specifically the Republican leadership, to let us take up campaign finance reform. But I am thinking that maybe we are not going to have to wait that long, because we have some examples right now going on in special elections where we can see and predict what is going to happen in 1998. Right now in New York this Tuesday there is going to be an election to fill the seat of retired Representative Susan Molinari. We have two candidates, a Democrat, Eric Vitaliano, and a Republican, Vito Fossella. As the press reports a couple of days ago, the Democrat had spent about $35,000 in television ads and the Republican had spent about $85,000. I am sure those numbers are substantially higher now. But what we have is a duel between two local candidates who care very much about their country and are trying to win the election. But in the middle of this duel comes the 800-pound gorilla. The 800- pound gorilla is the Republican National Committee. Not only is it an 800-pound gorilla, it is an $800,000, $800,000 gorilla that has brought in outside money through the committee saturating the airways to tilt the election toward the Republican. Our laws do not have loopholes, they have an absolute, major sieve, and have become almost meaningless to deal with these massive amounts of money. Madam Speaker, for Mr. Vitaliano, the Democratic candidate, he is currently required by Federal law that he can only accept a $1,000 donation from any individual, and he can only accept $5,000, maximum, from any political action committee. The Republican National Committee has absolutely no limit on the amount of money it can accept into the party as soft money, and in fact, there have been reports of donations over $1 million, and I suspect we will see more of those to that size. So what is the problem? The problem for the voters of New York, they are going to have to decide if that seat is for sale to the highest bidder. Folks say, well, Democrats do it, too. But I do not think that makes it in any better. All it means is if you are a local person sitting in New York, you are going to say, is the amount of Republican money coming in from the outside going to win the day or the bid, or will it be offset by the amount of the Democratic money coming from outside New York? Is that going to tip the scale? The seat becomes for sale to the highest bidder. The problem for our system is two, as I see it. No. 1, what do those huge donations buy? Is it access? That is what we often hear. Is it access, the ability of someone who makes a $300,000 donation to get into the seat of power and discuss the issues that a person who makes a $25 donation does not get to do? I think that is one of the problems. The other one is this issue of the 800-pound gorilla. When I am a candidate and I announce for a race, I call my brother-in-law and he sends me $25, and I call the guy down the street and he sends me $100. The outside money in these huge amounts, $800,000, absolutely overwhelms the local fundraising. It distorts the local politics. It makes the race one in which outside huge money powers control the race, and I think that is wrong. We have a second example. Our dear friend, Walter Capps, passed away just a few days ago, and there is obviously going to be a special election. There is already discussion out there in California about who is going to be in the race, and Walter's funeral has not even occurred yet. Yesterday's Roll Call newspaper has a quote discussing that race from an employee of the National Republican Congressional Committee, and this is what he said. ``We will do whatever it takes to win this seat. That means spending whatever it takes, ground troops, party money. This is the kind of seat where we will go to war to win.'' Well, aside from perhaps commenting on the crassness of making such a statement even before poor Walter has had his funeral, listen to those terms. ``Party money.'' Not ``local money,'' ``party money.'' The $800,000 gorilla presents his head. It is wrong. Mr. Speaker, this Congress needs campaign finance reform.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, it is always tragic to lose someone like Walter Capps, who showed such enthusiasm for his newest challenge in life, this new career in Congress. But I will have to say if Walter had stayed on this Earth until he was 103, his life even then would have been tragically interrupted because I suspect he would have been mastering some new skill, taking on another new challenge, inspiring those around him to do better, probably writing another dang book. Mr. Speaker, he worked hard for his country because he loved his country. We loved Walter Capps. We respected Walter Capps and we will miss him. Mr. Speaker, I noticed in the last few moments that we have heard the delightful sound of little children in the gallery. I think Walter would have liked that.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, does a fish feel the wet? So asked an editorial writer last week in discussing campaign finance reform. A fish spends so much time in water he does not wake up one morning and say, gosh, I feel damp today. Have we in Congress become so immersed in campaign dollars that we no longer feel the wet? Have we become fish, so used to swimming in the search for campaign donations that we no longer feel the wet? Have our lives become so immersed in making calls for donations that we no longer feel the wet? Do we spend so much time worrying about the level of money in our campaign funds that we no longer feel the wet? Has the Republican leadership become so immersed in the flood of campaign donations that they no longer feel the wet and will do everything they can to block campaign finance reform from even coming to the floor of this House? Madam Speaker, we have been immersed so long our voters no longer think we are wet. They think we are sliding. It is time to get out of the wet, dry off, and pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. The question is when.

Mr. SNYDER. The gentleman knows how. We have other Members that know how. The issue is having the debate to make the final decision about the how.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Senate had a series of votes which temporarily killed campaign finance reform. I know the general public is confused over what happened over there, but the bottom line is the majority of the Members of the U.S. Senate support campaign finance reform, the American people support campaign finance reform, but the Senate Republican leadership will not let there be a clean vote on campaign finance reform. And I say to my friends on the Republican side of the aisle, I know there is Republican support. I know there are many Republicans that support campaign finance reform. Here on the House side we have had no hearings, we have had no votes on campaign finance reform, we have had no bills brought to the floor. In almost a year we have been in session, we have had no debate on the floor on campaign finance reform. And, again, the problem is the Republican leadership of this House. I say once again, I know there are many Republican Members who will vote for campaign finance reform if it is brought to the floor of the House. The problem is the Republican leadership. What is the problem? What is the problem with our campaign finance laws? This morning I held up this phony check I had made out here for a billion dollars, and the reality is it is now currently legal to make unlimited donations to the political party of our choice, Democrat, Republican, Reform Party, or any other party. Whether we are an individual, whether we are a corporation, whether we are a union, we can write out a check for any amount of money we choose to, as long as the account is good, and it is legal under campaign finance reform. That is wrong. It contributes to the cynicism of this country, and it is a problem that needs to be fixed. To discuss possible fixes to this very real problem facing America, I would like to yield to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr], a leader in campaign finance reform.

Mr. SNYDER. I appreciate the gentleman's comments. There are several good ideas out there, and they are incorporated. I think we now have 85 bills filed. If no bill gets to the floor of this House, none of those bills are going to be discussed, and it is very discouraging, given the uproar in the last election cycle from the American people about the volume of money spent, that we see that we are not doing anything about it this year.

Mr. SNYDER. In closing, I will just say it comes down to the question of the Republican leadership, the leadership in this House saying to the Members, yes, it is okay to bring that bill on the floor of the House.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Republican leadership in the Senate successfully blocked meaningful campaign finance reform. So what do the rules now mean? It means that it is perfectly legal for us to donate, or a corporation or a union, this amount of money to the political party of our choice. That might create some confusion in our minds about what that means for us. Does that mean that if we are an individual making $24,000, $25,000 a year, is it legal to donate $1 billion to the political party of our choice? Yes, it is. If we are a small business that grosses $100,000 a year, is it legal to donate $1 billion to the political party of our choice? Yes, it is. If we are a retiree living on a fixed income, is it legal for us to donate $1 billion to the political party of our choice? Yes, it is. Those are the rules. Those are the rules the Republican leadership blocked from being changed yesterday.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take my time out of turn.

Mr. SNYDER

Mr. SNYDER. Madam Speaker, once again, I want to thank the staff for being here this evening to let us talk about the issues of campaign finance reform. Madam Speaker, we call these special orders. The reason we have to talk about these during this time of special orders is because the Republican leadership will not let the matter of campaign finance reform be brought to the floor of the House for a meaningful discussion. It is something that I do not understand and want to talk about more, but I appreciate the staff being here. Madam Speaker, on June 11, 1995, this was the famous photo between the President and the Speaker of the House, I believe it was in New Hampshire, in which they shook hands and committed themselves to working on campaign finance reform. This weekend I was shocked to hear the Speaker once again reiterate what he thinks campaign finance reform is, which is unlimited donations, that is right, absolutely no cap whatsoever on the ability of an individual to give money to a campaign. Would $1,000 be good? Yes. Would $10,000 be good? Yes. Would $20,000 be a legal donation? Yes. Would a Ted Turner $1 billion donation be legal under the Speaker's definition of meaningful campaign finance reform? That is what he said this weekend, and that is the position that he is advocating. That is contrary to the position of the American people. Madam Speaker, this weekend I was in Arkansas and the President was there. He has had a good week. It has been a great week for Arkansas, talking about the Rock 9. But the President has confirmed his support for campaign finance reform. It was interesting to me that in Arkansas in 1990 when the legislature thwarted the effort to have some meaningful campaign finance reform, President, then Governor Clinton, called a special session. When that was unsuccessful he led the effort to get an initiated act with signatures on the ballot that is now the current law of Arkansas. The President is committed, the American people are committed. It is the Republican leadership in this House that needs to let this body bring the issue of campaign finance reform, meaningful campaign finance reform, to the American people.

Mr. SNYDER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. SNYDER. If I might reclaim my time for a moment, what is discouraging about the Speaker's position is that there are Republicans who are advocating for meaningful campaign finance reform, and we are going to hear from at least one this evening on this issue. So I do not understand the motivation, trying to block meaningful campaign finance reform from coming to the floor of the House.

Mr. SNYDER. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from California.