[Pages H8571-H8572]
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 Indiana [Mr. Souder] is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SOUDER. Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of people come up to me 
today and commend me on my courage, not so much for anything I have 
done as a Congressman directly, or said, but for wearing my Notre Dame 
tie today.
  I think it is important that we stand with our team and our 
favorites, even in tough times, not just in good times. So I am proud 
to wear my Notre Dame tie, even though we have had one of our rockier 
starts, and I want to express my personal confidence in our coaches. It 
is a tough transition, but I know they will eventually win because we 
are Notre Dame.
  I also wanted tonight to make a couple of other comments on campaign 
finance reform, but I wanted to clarify one thing first. I am afraid 
many Americans may get confused. This week's Time Magazine has a cover 
story ``America's Fascination with Buddhism.'' And I wanted to make 
this clear; that our Vice President is not converting to Buddhism, and 
this is not about our Vice President. He does not worship in Buddhist 
temples, he raises money in Buddhist temples, and I thought it was 
important to clarify that.
  I have been very upset to watch the headlines in the last few days 
about this administration calling on us to do campaign finance reform, 
because rule number one should be to enforce the

[[Page H8572]]

current law. In fact, I am on a number of campaign finance reform bills 
and I believe we need to have campaign finance reform. But the first 
thing we need to do is follow the current law. What good does it do to 
pass more laws if we do not follow the current law?
  I saw an editorial cartoon that said ``Campaign Reform Analogy'' and 
it showed a football player getting tackled as the ball was coming to 
him, with the referee standing there not blowing his whistle, and it 
says pass interference, no whistle. Then it shows people going off 
sides and tackling the quarterback, and it says off sides, no whistle. 
Then it shows a guy kicking another player down to get the football, 
``saying unnecessary roughness and still there is no whistle.''

                              {time}  2215

  The referee then turns to the crowd and says, ``Obviously, we need 
more rules.''
  That is sometimes the way I feel here. Not that we do not need more 
rules, but, quite frankly, what is the penalty for not following the 
current rules? Maybe to get some people to come to the floor and go on 
for a 1-minute or 5-minute special order. But what is the practical 
penalty besides having to send money back?
  Let me give my colleagues an example. Last year, Keshi Zhan, a single 
mother, earned $22,407.84 as a full-time records assistant for an 
Arlington County, VA, welfare agency. More than a third of her income 
went to rent her one-bedroom apartment. Nonetheless, blowing away Ted 
Turner in percentage giving and approaching Mother Theresa-like 
generosity, she still managed to give $2,000 to Illinois Democratic 
Senator Moseley-Braun, $2,000 to Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh, and $3,000 
to the Oregon Democratic Party. Another $1,000 went to the gentleman 
from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], House minority leader.
  Moreover, Ms. Zhan attended a posh Hay-Adams Hotel fundraiser 
organized by John Huang. President Clinton was the guest of honor, and 
40 couples donated $25,000 each. Ms. Zhan's share was $12,500. 
Altogether, she gave Democrats $20,500 in 1996. Pretty amazing for 
someone with an income of $22,407.84. No wonder Mr. Huang escorted her 
to the White House for a photo opportunity with the Vice President. To 
quote the Washington Times: ``Now either the earned income tax credit 
has gotten completely out of control, or Ms. Zhan, a close associate of 
Democratic fundraiser Charlie Trie, has an interesting tale to tell.''
  Mr. Trie, who has fled the country, apparently without any immediate 
plans to return, received $500,000 in wire transfers for the 
Government-owned Bank of China.
  I do not know about this new math, but these numbers simply do not 
add up. Rule No. 1 is, follow the current law. What good is it going to 
do for us to pass a bunch of new laws if we do not follow the current 
law?
  Then there is this matter about posturing about campaign finance 
reform while we are raking in the money. The Washington Post on Sunday: 
``Gore Preaches Funding Reform For Politics.'' I am going to just read 
three paragraphs.

       The Vice President spent Friday night beside the Florida 
     Aquarium's shark tank dining on grouper with about 50 people 
     who donated $5,000 a couple to the State party. Today, after 
     giving the keynote speech at the Florida Democratic 
     convention, he flew to Jacksonville for closed meetings with 
     about 50 members of the Progressive Foundation, a nonprofit 
     arm of the Democratic Leadership Council. The retreat, at the 
     sprawling ranch of Howard Gilman, was not a fundraiser, but 
     many of the participants are major donors to the DLC's 
     Progressive Policy Institute. Gilman is a frequent 
     contributor to Democrats. At the convention in Tampa, as Gore 
     was urging lawmakers to 'put your vote where your mouth is' 
     on campaign finance reform, the Democratic National Committee 
     was distributing a how-to manual for candidates who want to 
     tap into the party's Federal money stream.

  This is a sampling of President Clinton's schedule since campaign 
finance reform became his top priority:
  On August 7, 1997: Gazpacho, swordfish, carrots, and zucchini; 
$350,000 raised at DNC fundraiser with Democratic Business Council at 
Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC.
  August 7, 1997: In a nearby salon, couscous and beef tenderloin; 
$300,000 raised by DNC supporters who contributed $25,000 at the 
Mayflower.
  September 21, 1997: The day after the President and First Lady 
dropped off their daughter at college; $950,000, mostly soft money, 
which the President doesn't like. Apparently it is OK, if you don't 
like it, to take the money. Menu unknown. Perhaps donors were able to 
order off of the menu at the posh Postrio Restaurant in San Francisco; 
$300,000.
  Later that evening, dinner was served to the President and 18 wealthy 
Silicon Valley entrepreneurs. Menu: Gazpacho, steak, and potatoes; 
apparently it was very good, with $600,000 raised at this dinner alone.
  September 26, 1997: Hours after giving a speech in Houston, where 
President Clinton castigated politicians ``for not being sincere about 
curbing the influence of money in politics, and Clinton said, `We 
desperately need to reform the way that we finance our campaigns,' '' 
it was Texas Gulf red snapper topped with Galveston Bay jumbo lump crab 
meat and mango-roasted pepper vinaigrette at the sprawling estate of 
Tilman Fertitta, a restaurant entrepreneur; $600,000 for the DNC; 
$10,000 a person.
  According to the Washington Times, the dinner was scheduled first, 
and then aides scouted for an appropriate official event for the 
President so that taxpayers would pick up part of the considerable tab 
for his and his entourage's travel.
  According to a White House spokesman, Clinton has been speaking at 
DNC functions around the country, helping the party raise $19 million 
in the first half of 1997 alone.
  President Clinton's fundraising successes this year could be another 
subject for the emergency special session of Congress that he may call 
for on campaign finance reform. He ought to practice what he preaches.

                          ____________________