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


[[Page H1703]]
               CONCERN REGARDING CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not usually address the House on 5 
minutes before the session, but I am not sure how much time will be 
given to debate campaign finance reform when these bills are brought 
before us under suspension. I just want to make a number of points for 
the Record for that debate.
  First, I want to express my concern that on a Friday afternoon, after 
Members were proceeding to leave, the House was told for the first time 
that we would have debate on four campaign finance bills, debate that 
likely will begin before many Members get back to Washington.
  I would also like to express concern as to how we will be debating 
these bills. We will have four campaign bills debated under suspension 
of the calendar, which has three major flaws:
  We cannot amend a bill under suspension.
  The debate is limited to each side having 20 minutes, so a total of 
40 minutes for the major issue of campaign finance reform. Admittedly, 
there will be four 40-minute debates, because there are four bills.
  And it takes, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a two-thirds vote to pass legislation. 
In the Senate, they need 60 votes to invoke cloture and actually end 
debate and have a vote on a bill, 60 votes out of 100, or 60 percent. 
Here we need, in the House, under suspension, 66 and two-thirds percent 
of the membership's vote. Mr. Speaker, this is not the Senate, thank 
goodness, and it should not take a supermajority to pass meaningful 
campaign finance reform.
  I would like to now address the issue of what bills are coming 
forward. They are all bills that have been promoted by Republicans, not 
Democrats, so the Democrat party and leadership was not consulted in 
what bills would come up. It strikes me that, at the very least, they 
should have been. Had I been in the minority, I would be outraged to 
see Democrats do the same thing to a Republican minority.
  Second, not only were Democrats not consulted, Democrat proposals are 
not being allowed to be debated. I am wondering why we would not allow 
such a debate, given the rule says we need two-thirds to pass.
  Third, I would like to express the concern that a bipartisan group of 
Members who have been working in good faith have not been consulted and 
that some of the bills are bipartisan. So there are many reasons to 
express concern about the process, which, is deplorable.
  Having said that, I want to acknowledge that three of these bills, in 
my judgment, merit support. I do not intend to vote against a good bill 
just because I do not like the process. I vote against a rule because I 
do not like the process. I have been in public life 24 years in the 
State House and in Congress, and I learned a long time ago you do not 
vote against a good bill simply because you do not like the process.
  The Thomas bill is a comprehensive bill worked on just by 
Republicans. It is a good-faith attempt to get a bill the Republican 
party likes. To me, it is not a bill that merits support in its present 
condition. It has flaws to it that I hope are pointed out during the 
debate, but it was a comprehensive effort to deal with Republican 
concerns.
  The FEC bill, providing disclosure when you raise and spend money, is 
a no-brainer for me. That should get our support.
  A ban on foreign contributions, how could we vote against a bill that 
bans foreign contributions? It gets my support, if that is, in fact, 
the bill that comes forward.
  Paycheck protection is a little more controversial. I understand why 
some might not vote for it. It basically says if you are a member of a 
union, the union has to get your permission before it supports 
particular candidates or political causes. I think they should get 
permission of a member beforehand.
  My wife had to get out of the union because her money was being given 
to candidates she did not support. The only way she could prevent this 
was to invoke the Beck rule and say her money could not be used. Under 
the Beck rule she is forced out of the union, and pays an agency fee.
  Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of my constituents said they believe, and I 
quote, ``Our democracy is threatened by the influence of unlimited 
campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and 
other interest groups.'' A biased statement?
  I asked what my constituents felt in a questionnaire I sent to them. 
Fifty-one percent strongly agreed, 33 percent agreed. Eighty-four 
percent of my constituents believe our democracy is threatened by the 
influence of unlimited campaign contributions by individuals, 
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. Regrettably, 
their Representative will not be able to vote for the McCain-Feingold 
bill, which prevents soft money, those unlimited contributions my 
constituents abhor.

                          ____________________