[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 56 (Thursday, May 7, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H2983-H2984]
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 Texas (Mr. Stenholm) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I take this 5 minutes to further clarify 
some of the discussions that we had a moment ago concerning the 
question of campaign finance reform.
  I want to make it very clear for those who are negotiating on what 
the rule shall look like and how we shall proceed what the Blue Dog 
Coalition suggested in the discharge petition that was filed, that was 
getting very close to having the required number of votes in which we 
could have had a free and open debate and which we have now been 
promised that we will have a clean and open debate.
  There are some general principles allowing clean up-or-down votes on 
all major campaign finance plans. The freshman bill, the Shays-Meehan 
bill, and the Doolittle bill, and any alternatives the leadership might 
come up with on either side of the aisle and wishes to offer as 
substitutes at the beginning of the amendment process, this is key to 
the discharge petition that we filed. It is exactly the same discharge 
petition that was used to successfully bring the balanced budget 
amendment up in 1992. It is a very fair process if it is allowed to 
proceed in this manner.
  All major proposals deserve a vote. The freshmen, bipartisanly, have 
worked awfully hard; and they worked in an environment in which they 
believed that there was not going to be campaign finance reform unless 
there was a compromise reached, and they reached that compromise 
internally. They worked awfully hard. They deserve to have a chance to 
have their idea voted upon as they wish it to be voted upon, not as the 
leadership or any other individual wishes. The same is true with the 
Shays-Meehan; it deserves to be voted upon on its merits.
  And then we use what is called the queen-of-the-Hill rule. Let the 
freshman bill be voted upon. If it gets the majority vote, it becomes 
the base bill. Then let us vote on Shays-Meehan. If it gets a majority 
vote and more votes than the freshman bill, it becomes the base bill; 
whichever one gets the most votes, as ascertained by a majority on both 
sides, becomes the base bill. And then allow the perfecting amendments 
to be offered. Let any one of the 435 of us who have an idea that they 
believe is important to the campaign issues before us be offered.
  I have one interest, one major interest, that I want to see 
addressed. It is the soft money question. A lot of people do not know 
what we are talking about by ``soft money.'' But to me it means 
unlimited amounts of money given by individuals or corporations for 
which there is no real reporting therein.
  I am a great believer in the first amendment, and I have been 
chagrined to be attacked by many of my so-called

[[Page H2984]]

friends, people whom I agree with in the special interest, the issue 
advocacy organizations that believe that somehow, some way, that by 
having public disclosure of who is in fact contributing to the ads that 
they are responsible for offering, that somehow that is against their 
constitutional right. I fail to understand that.
  Anybody that wants to run ads against me, as they will between now 
and November, that is a first amendment right. I just believe very 
strongly that the people of the 17th District deserve the right to know 
who is paying for those ads, called public disclosure. This is a debate 
that I hope we will spend some considerable time on, because I think 
there is a little misunderstanding about this.
  No one is talking about doing away with individual rights to express 
themselves under the first amendment of the Constitution, but we are 
talking about something which we are seeing live and in living color 
played out on both sides of the aisle, tremendous expenditures of 
dollars in which accusations are occurring on both sides.

                              {time}  1600

  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me just say again to those who are 
negotiating the rule in which we are going to consider this, it is 
extremely important, and we ask of you in a very respectful way, to go 
back and look at the discharge petition and to make sure when that rule 
comes to the floor of the House you are truly going to allow the will 
of the House to be followed in allowing the Members to express 
themselves in a free and unhindered manner.

                          ____________________