[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 66 (Thursday, May 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H3722-H3733]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 119, PROPOSING
AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION TO LIMIT CAMPAIGN SPENDING, AND H.R. 2183,
BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 442 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 442
Resolved, That at any time after adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule
XXIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 119) proposing an amendment
to the Constitution of the United States to limit campaign
spending. The first reading of the joint resolution shall be
dispensed with. General debate shall be confined to the joint
resolution and shall not exceed one hour equally divided and
controlled by Representative DeLay of Texas or his designee
and a Member in favor of the joint resolution. After general
debate the joint resolution shall be considered for amendment
under the five-minute rule. The joint resolution shall be
considered as read. During consideration of the joint
resolution for amendment, the Chairman of the Whole may
accord priority in recognition on the basis of whether the
Member offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in
the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 6 or rule XXIII. Amendments so printed
shall be considered as read. The chairman of the Committee of
the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time during further
consideration in the Committee of the Whole a request for a
recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce to five
minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that follows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of
[[Page H3723]]
questions shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of
consideration of the joint resolution for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the joint resolution to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the joint
resolution and amendments thereto to final passage without
intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or
without instructions.
Sec. 2. At any time after the adoption of this resolution
the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule XXIII,
declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill
(H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for
Federal office, and for other purposes. The first reading of
the bill shall be dispensed with. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and the amendments made in order by this
resolution and shall not exceed two hours equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on House Oversight. After general debate the bill
shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule.
The bill shall be considered as read. Before consideration of
any other amendment it shall be in order to consider the
amendments in the nature of a substitute specified in the
report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this
resolution. Each such amendment may be offered only in the
order specified, may be offered only by the Member who caused
it to be printed in the Congressional Record or his designee,
shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a
substitute amendment or to a perfecting amendment carrying a
tax or tariff measure. During consideration of the bill in
the Committee of the Whole, all points of order against each
amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in the
report are waived. Consideration of each amendment in the
nature of a substitute specified in the report shall begin
with an additional period of general debate, which shall be
confined to the subject of the amendment and shall not exceed
one hour equally divided and controlled by the Member who
caused the amendment to be printed in the Congressional
Record or his designee and an opponent. During consideration
of amendments to an amendment in the nature of a substitute,
or of other amendments to the bill, the Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole may accord priority in recognition on
the basis of whether the Member offering an amendment has
caused it to be printed in the portion of the Congressional
Record designated for that purpose in clause 6 of rule XXIII.
Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. If more
than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted,
then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative
votes shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to
the House. In the case of a tie for the greater number of
affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to receive
that number of affirmative votes shall be considered as
finally adopted and reported to the House. The chairman of
the Committee of the Whole may: (1) postpone until a time
during further consideration in the Committee of the Whole a
request for a recorded vote on any amendment; and (2) reduce
to five minutes the minimum time for electronic voting on any
postponed question that allows another electronic vote
without intervening business, provided that the minimum time
for electronic voting on the first in any series of questions
shall be 15 minutes. At the conclusion of consideration of
the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report
the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been
adopted. Any Member may demand a separate vote in the House
on any amendment to the bill reported from the Committee of
the Whole or to an amendment in the nature of a substitute
finally adopted and reported to the House. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
{time} 2200
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending
which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration
of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
I would like to begin by saying it is my understanding that the only
debate tonight will be on the rule with a prospective vote perhaps on
the rule, and all general debate will be tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 442 provides for the consideration of
H. J. Res. 119 under an open amending process with one hour of general
debate equally divided between the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and
a Member in favor of the joint resolution. The rule authorizes the
Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted
their amendments in the Congressional Record and allows the chairman to
postpone votes and reduce the voting time to 5 minutes if the postponed
vote follows a 15-minute vote.
On the joint resolution, the rule provides for one motion to recommit
with or without instructions.
The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2183 under a
modified open amendment process any time after the adoption of the
rule.
H. Res. 442 provides for two hours of general debate equally divided
between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
House Oversight. Following the two hours of general debate, the rule
provides for consideration of the 11 amendments in the nature of a
substitute specified in the Committee on Rules report. In order to
allow for consideration of as many alternatives as possible, the
Committee on Rules has waived all points of order against each of the
amendments in the nature of a substitute. Under this very fair, open
rule, each amendment in the nature of a substitute may be offered only
in the order specified, may be offered only by the Member who caused it
to be printed in the Congressional Record or his designee, shall be
considered as read, and shall not be subject to a substitute amendment
or perfecting amendment carrying a tariff or tax provision.
Mr. Speaker, we have provided one hour of general debate at the
beginning of consideration of each of the 11 substitutes, which shall
be equally divided and controlled by the Member who caused the
amendment to be printed in the Record or his designee and an opponent.
The rule permits the Chair to accord priority in recognition to
preprinted amendments and allows the Chair to postpone votes during the
bill's consideration.
Mr. Speaker, we do not allow the King of the Hill rule that the
Democrats instituted for 40 years in an effort to subvert popular
legislation and undermine free and open debate. Under H. Res. 442, the
substitute that receives the most votes will be reported to the House.
If more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted,
then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes
shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House.
I am certain that I did not see this kind of process on campaign
finance reform when the Democrats controlled the House. In fact, in my
first year in this House, former Speaker Foley and the Democrat
Committee on Rules muzzled the minority and forced a closed rule upon
us. Not only were we allowed to offer only one amendment to the entire
bill, but the Democrats refused to allow us a basic right to offer a
motion to recommit with instructions.
A quick glance back in history shows that this was not simply an
isolated incident but a pattern of suppressed debate on this issue in
Democrat Congresses.
In the 102nd Congress, for example, the Democrats again stifled open
and free debate with a similarly closed gag rule. I expect that the
calls today will again be for a return to the days of closed rules and
limited debate. The opponents of this open debate want us to close down
the process, allow consideration of only one bill, and foreclose all
other opinions on this subject.
Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that we present the House with a wide
open amending process that allows each Representative the ability to
amend and perfect each of the 11 campaign finance reform bills. This
rule will create the most open debate process in the history of
campaign reform, as was promised by the Speaker.
Although I am not as cynical as some on the subject of campaign
finance reform, I agree that the system can be improved. However, the
first amendment guarantees our right to express ourselves, and that
right extends to political expression as well. Therefore, the right of
Americans to contribute to political campaigns should not be infringed.
Clearly, it is important for voters to know which individuals and which
groups are financing a candidate. I have cosponsored legislation that
ensures that voters know where that money is coming from and can act
accordingly.
On the subject of free speech, the rule allows for consideration of a
constitutional amendment that was originally introduced by the minority
leader, the
[[Page H3724]]
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), that would give Congress new
power to regulate campaign expenditures. The Member offering that
amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), opposes it because it
basically gives the Congress the authority to enact any legislation
that may abridge an array of free speech and free association rights
under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, under this open amendment
process, the Committee on Rules wanted to allow a full debate on the
measure.
I also think it should be noted that we need to deal with the problem
of union money being funneled into races across the country. Despite
their calls for reform, the $400 million in union money that was dumped
into the 1996 elections has been protected by Democrats against the
will of hard-working American union members. If we are truly going to
talk about reform, then we need to address how unions are using, for
partisan political purposes, the paychecks of the union workers.
While I do not believe that major changes are necessary to the
existing campaign finance laws, I do, however, believe that these
existing campaign finance laws have been under assault since early
1996.
We have now found that two major Democrat donors benefited from an
administration policy change that improved the accuracy of missiles
pointed at American cities. Even some in the administration believe
that the decision to provide American technology to China has put
American national security at risk. Personally, I believe it would be
more useful if we could get some kind of assurance that the current
laws we have on the books are going to be honored. Nonetheless, the
administration is calling for new reforms.
However, it should be noted that it is already illegal to funnel
millions of dollars in foreign money into the United States electoral
system as the Chinese did. It is already illegal to make fund-raising
calls from Federal property. It is already improper to use
the Lincoln bedroom and Air Force One for fund-raising activities, and
it is also already illegal under current law to go a Buddhist temple
and accept illegal campaign funds.
These actions are already against the law, and they were shamelessly
violated in 1996. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this new campaign reform
legislation will matter if one party or the other simply decides that
the law does not apply to them.
That is why our focus today should be on how current campaign finance
law was so flagrantly violated. Unfortunately, we cannot get to the
bottom of the 1996 campaign finance scandal because 91 witnesses who
know the truth about campaign violations have either fled the country,
refused to testify, or have taken the Fifth Amendment.
Amidst this enormous left wing coverup come the artificial calls for
campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to consider
campaign finance reform, this majority is committed to a process that
allows for a full debate on the pertinent issues. This rule provides
for that kind of open debate.
The rule for the campaign finance bill was favorably reported out of
the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so
that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of each
of the substitute campaign finance reform bills.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this rule proves once and for all that the Republican
majority has no real interest in actually pursuing real campaign
finance reform. Under the guise of full and free debate, the Republican
majority has brought to the House a process which could in all
probability take up weeks of the time we have left in this session of
Congress and in the end might produce nothing.
Mr. Speaker, there are many points of view on this subject, but it
does not serve the institution well, nor does it serve the American
people well, to debate those views in a cynical process which is little
more than a charade. The process the Republican majority has brought to
the floor ensures that the House will not have the opportunity to have
an up or down vote on either the bipartisan freshman proposal or the
Shays-Meehan proposal.
This rule makes in order 11 substitutes to the freshman reform
proposal, as well as the consideration of any germane amendment to each
and every one of those substitutes. In essence, as each substitute is
considered, the rule will allow multiple amendments to that substitute.
In addition, it is anticipated that the Committee on Rules will meet
again after the Memorial Day recess to report another rule which will
make in order a number of nongermane amendments to the substitutes.
Included in those nongermane amendments are a number of proposals which
many Members in this House consider to be poison pill amendments.
After each substitute has been considered, whichever has received the
most number of votes will be judged the winner. This may be an open
process, Mr. Speaker, but I beg to differ with those who might
characterize it as allowing the House to reach a decision when in fact
it may be designed to do the very opposite.
To further compound the complication, the rule allows the House to
bring up a constitutional amendment introduced but not supported by the
majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay). The majority whip
has called this proposal a ``big brother'' remedy, yet he came to the
Committee on Rules yesterday to ask that it be made in order.
Consideration of this constitutional amendment is just more of the same
attempt to divert the attention of the House and the American public
from the real question: Do we want real campaign finance reform or do
we not?
The Shays-Meehan proposal is considered by many outside good
government groups to be true campaign finance reform. The bill bans
soft money at the Federal and State level if those funds are used to
influence Federal elections. The bill redefines express advocacy to
include radio and television communications that refer to a clearly
defined Federal candidate within 60 days of an election or that include
unambiguous support or opposition to a Federal candidate outside the
60-day period.
All ads falling under this definition could only be run by using
legal hard dollars. The bill clarifies the Pendleton Act restrictions
on fund-raising on Federal property and bars political parties from
making coordinated expenditures on behalf of candidates who do not
limit spending their own money to $50,000.
Finally, the Shays-Meehan proposal codifies the Beck decision that
ensures that nonunion employees who pay union agency fees do not have
to pay for union political activities.
Unfortunately, this bill does not contain a nonseverability clause.
Should the Supreme Court find any essential part of this proposal to be
unconstitutional, the remainder, however unbalanced or unwise because
of the loss of that element, would remain the law of the land. Losing
an essential element of Shays-Meehan would lead us right back to the
situation in which we now find ourselves.
{time} 2215
After the Supreme Court struck down one of the four essential pillars
in Buckley v. Valeo in 1976, what was left was an unbalanced and
unstable hodgepodge that gave us the quagmire we are trying to work our
way out of today. If we are to consider amendments to these proposals,
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that prominent among them should be one which
provides for nonseverability.
The Shays-Meehan proposal represents a sea change in how Federal
elections are conducted today, Mr. Speaker, and it deserves the
opportunity to be fully and freely debated. Unfortunately, this rule
does not provide that opportunity.
The freshman bipartisan bill, sponsored by the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), is
also a proposal which would make significant changes in the way Federal
election campaigns are conducted. The freshman proposal also bans
national parties from accepting or raising soft money on behalf of the
national committee or on behalf of State political parties. However,
the freshman proposal does permit State political parties to continue
to raise and spend soft money and use those funds for activities
intended to affect Federal elections. These are significant changes,
[[Page H3725]]
Mr. Speaker, and deserve to be debated by this House.
The freshman proposal indexes for inflation the allowable amount of
PAC and individual contributions into $100 increments beginning in 1999
and increases the aggregate annual contribution limit from $25,000 to
$50,000 each year, instead of election cycle, with a maximum of $25,000
in donations to candidates and PACs, and a maximum of $25,000 to
political parties. This bill also raises PAC contributions to national
parties from $15,000 each election cycle to $20,000 each calendar year
and removes party candidate coordination limits.
Finally, the bill requires third-party advocacy groups who run issue
ads on either television or radio to report expenditures of more than
$25,000 on a single candidate, or more than $100,000 on multiple
candidates. Failure to comply with the requirements set out in the bill
could result in fines up to $50,000. These changes, Mr. Speaker, are
quite significant and do deserve to be fully and freely debated.
So, Mr. Speaker, some Democratic Members, in an effort to provide for
debate on campaign finance reform that is not designed to derail the
process, will vote against the previous question. They hope to amend
this rule to provide for the kind of process that was set out in the
discharge petition that came so close to reaching the requisite 218
signatures. They hope to allow the House to consider each substitute,
and when the House has agreed to the substitute it wishes to work from,
then consider amendments to that proposal. The Democratic rule is a
much more reasonable process and one which will allow the House to
choose within a reasonable period of time whether it wishes to pursue
campaign finance or not.
Mr. Speaker, we just heard Mr. Linder expound about things that are
currently in the press related to China rather than talking about
campaign finance reform. It is obvious that the Republicans do not want
to deal with campaign finance reform. All they want to deal with is
things that are in newspapers and on TV, whether they are substantiated
or not.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that
the reason I raise the issue of Chinese money is it was a precise
violation of current finance laws with respect to campaigning, and if
they are not going to obey the current laws, how can we expect them to
obey any future ones?
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr.
Hutchinson).
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in support of the rule.
I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his excellent work on the
Committee on Rules and his efforts in regard to this rule and this
legislation. And I also want to express my appreciation to the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon), chairman of the Committee on
Rules, for his commitment to a fair and open debate on campaign finance
reform.
I am one of the lead sponsors of the bipartisan Campaign Integrity
Act, also known as the freshman bill, and I just want to congratulate
my cosponsor, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), for his work,
and the other Democrat freshmen that have worked so hard; as well as
the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Ken Hulshof), the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Kevin Brady), the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rick Hill), and so
many other freshmen Republicans that have worked hard for over a year
in developing a proposal that is bipartisan in formation and bipartisan
in nature and it continues in a bipartisan fashion today. We have
worked well together on this. So this is the base bill that is under
consideration.
The rule before us allows for the consideration of 11 substitute
amendments to the base bill. Those substitutes range from the
commission bill, sponsored by the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Rick
White), to the Paycheck Protection bill, offered by the gentleman from
Colorado (Mr. Bob Schaffer). It allows votes on the vast range of
reform bills, even the extremes, from the Doolittle bill, which removes
all limits on contributions, to the Shays-Meehan bill, which is massive
in terms of its regulatory control over issue advocacy groups. In other
words, the rule is fair to all and will provide ample opportunity for
debate on this critical issue.
What will the result be? Certainly it is unknown, and the amendment
process is still up in the air. But I am hopeful that we can go through
this process in a bipartisan fashion; that we will not be slamming each
other throughout this but that we work to get the job done.
I believe the freshmen who came here believe that we are here to
accomplish something and not get sidetracked on a multitude of issues.
We need to start this and we need to finish it. I ask colleagues to
support this rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate all of the Members
who signed the discharge petition, which has brought about this rule
tonight and brought about the consideration of campaign reform. And in
particular I want to commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan) for all the work that he has done, and I want to commend the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for all of the work and effort
that he has put forth.
I want to thank the members of our Blue Dog coalition here in the
Democratic Caucus and all the work that they have done. And I want to
commend the freshmen on both sides who have worked so hard to see that
this issue comes up.
In truth, this issue should have come up some months ago, when we had
this tortured procedure of having a suspension. It is time for campaign
reform. The reason the discharge petition got signed by so many
Members, and the reason that so many Members in this body are for
campaign reform is that its time has come. The American people want us
to enact campaign reform. The perception in the country, right or
wrong, is that money is the dominant feature of America's campaigns.
People are sick of that. They want to have a control on the money.
I would simply say to the Members that I hope all of the Members will
vote for the Shays-Meehan bill. The Shays-Meehan bill is, in my view,
of all the bills, and I have worked on many of the bills that are going
to be up, is the best bill. It is the first step that we can take. It
gets rid of soft money, the large contributions which have been so
dominant in this system. We need to take this first step.
It does something about outside expenditures, of outside independent
groups coming in and spending thousands and thousands of dollars at the
end of campaigns.
It does not do everything that should be done in campaign reform, but
it is a solid first step. And I hope that every Democratic Member on my
side of the aisle will support this legislation with their vote, and I
hope Republicans will support it as well.
We should be able to get 218 votes on the floor of this House next
month and we will make a blow for what the American people want to
clean up this system and move it in the right direction.
Vote for the rule, vote for Shays-Meehan when we get that chance.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia for
yielding me this time.
My colleagues, I too rise in support of this rule, and I listened
with great interest to the minority leader decry the current state and
the perception of running for political office and raising funds.
Mr. Speaker, I think there are three words that sum up the essence of
what is transpiring in the body politic today, and that is: Obey
existing laws. That is what should be done. Sadly, because of an
association with foreigners and foreign money, we now have serious
allegations.
Rather than changing the rules, although I think we are all happy to
do so under an open fashion, in stark contrast to what went on for some
40 years here before the new majority took control, we will have a
chance to openly debate this, but make no mistake, my
[[Page H3726]]
colleagues, the most radical reform would be for my liberal friends and
those at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue to obey existing laws.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the Democratic whip.
Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Speaker, every 2 years America's airwaves are flooded
with political attack ads. These negative ads leave voters feeling
cynical, disenchanted, and with little faith in politicians or in the
political process.
These attack ads are also the main reason why we spend so much time
fund-raising, defending ourselves against vicious 30-second spots,
often now funded by outside groups, and have become more and more
costly every single year and every single election. Free TV time for
credible candidates could drastically lower the cost of campaigns and
eliminate the need for excessive fund-raising.
The broadcasters and the radio folks and the TV folks and the cable
folks, they do not own those airwaves. They belong to the American
people, not the media corporations.
Under the current system, many people feel they have no political
voice. No political voice at all unless they contribute $50,000 or
$70,000 or $100,000 to the major parties. And many public officials
feel they have no choice but to court such contributions. This ends up
excluding all but the wealthiest Americans from the political process,
spawns investigation after investigation, and really eats away at the
very heart of our democracy.
One of the reasons we are seeing the decline of people participating
at the polls is because of this very system that we are forced to
operate under. Look at what is happening in California where
millionaires are duking it out to be governor, and the poor man in the
race is spending $8 million in the primary.
This Congress has the capacity to change that. We can dismantle the
current system that, I daresay, very few of us like. We can restore the
integrity of our elections. We can renew the faith of the voters. And
the first important step on that path, the first important step in this
process is passing a bipartisan bill, the Meehan-Shays bill.
This bill, as the leader said, would ban soft money, the huge
contributions to political parties that really are just an end run
around Federal contribution limits. This bill would require outside
groups that run so-called issue advertisements to play by the same
funding rules as the actual candidates. This bill would force timely
disclosure of who is really funding campaigns so that the voters can
make informed decisions about the information that they are getting.
{time} 2230
Meehan/Shays will not solve our problems entirely, but it is a good
first step. It will demonstrate that this Congress is committed to
genuine reform; and that is no small commitment for the Speaker, who,
as the leader has said, has blocked reform at every step, who said that
the problem with our political system is that we spend too little
money.
It does not have to be that way. Raising more money to clean up
politics would be like using a bucket of kerosene to put out a fire.
But we can work together this week, next month in fixing the system.
Mr. Speaker, schedule a full and a fair debate on campaign finance
reform. Americans will not accept any more political games, any more
false delays, any more poison pills, any more sham reforms, any more
gaming of the system. Give the Members of this House, Democrats and
Republicans alike, a clean up-or-down vote on Meehan/Shays. It is a
fair, bipartisan approach; and it should be judged on its merits,
nothing else.
The American people are watching. The Meehan/Shays is the one vote
that will tell them everything. I urge my colleagues when we get to
this debate to be vigilant and to stand with those who stand for
reform.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Montana (Mr. Hill).
Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
Mr. Speaker, is soft money constitutionally protected? No, not
exactly.
Are the political parties and others constitutionally protected to
raise money in any amount from any sources? No, not exactly.
Many of those who will be arguing about soft money bans are going to
claim that soft money is constitutionally protected, and they will be
using an illusionist's sleight of tongue when they make that argument.
Some will refer to the Supreme Court decision in Colorado v. FEC. In
that case, the Colorado Republican Party sued the FEC, saying that the
Federal agency had no authority to regulate soft money issue advocacy
campaigns.
Did the court sanction soft money in that decision? Well, no, not
exactly. What it said was that the Federal Election Campaign Act
permits unregulated soft money for some uses. It did not say it was a
constitutional right. It simply said the Federal Election Campaign Act
did not encompass soft money.
So what does the freshman bill do about soft money in Colorado? It
says this. It says that the National Republican and Democratic Parties
cannot give soft money to the Colorado State parties. It says that
federal officeholders cannot raise soft money for those State parties.
It says that Colorado cannot get soft money from another State party.
And it ends money laundering.
But if the people of Colorado want the State parties to be able to
raise and spend soft money, they can; and if they do not, they can stop
it. That is what the tenth amendment is about, letting States make
decisions that impact the States.
The Supreme Court has said that limits on spending have serious
constitutional problems because they restrict free speech. This bill
does not limit spending. It places limits on contributions, which the
Supreme Court has ruled is constitutional.
This freshman bill limits contributions by saying ``no more soft
money'' to our national parties. No more corporate money. No more big
labor money. No more laundering of money. And no limits on free speech.
I say, support the rule; defend the freshman rule. It is fair to both
political parties. It meets constitutional muster, and it will restore
integrity to campaigns.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Fazio), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.
Mr. FAZIO of California. Mr. Speaker, believe it or not, I would like
to be here in the well tonight to congratulate the Republican
leadership for finally relenting and allowing a fair debate on genuine
campaign finance reform. Unfortunately, I cannot do it.
The Republican leadership want no part of campaign finance reform.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrich) repeatedly has said that not
enough money is spent on political campaigns. He does not think that
billions of dollars spent each year on 30-second negative TV spots is
enough.
But this is the Speaker who made a promise in Claremont, New
Hampshire, 3 years ago. He looked President Clinton straight in the
eye, shook his hand, and promised to commit himself to campaign finance
reform. We know the old phrase ``a promise made, a promise broken.''
Last winter, the Speaker made another promise. After the Senate began
debate on campaign finance reform, he committed to have a vote on real
campaign finance reform by the end of March. Well, instead, we got a
rigged process and a phoney bill and a lot of bad press. Another
promise made, another promise broken.
It brings us to today, after House Democrats from across the spectrum
and a handful of Republicans forced the Speaker to promise a vote on
real campaign reform by May 15. Well, check the calendar. It is May 21.
And we are just beginning a debate 1 day before a 2-week recess, with
no sign of a simple vote on campaign finance reform on the horizon. We
are destined to be filler for the next several months. Another promise
made, another promise broken.
What is the Republican leadership afraid of? Well, it is pretty
obvious. They are afraid that campaign finance reform will pass. So
they bottled it up, put it off and now, in their latest attempt to kill
it, have made it complicated and cumbersome.
I think it is time we send the final message. Let us tell them that
we want a straight up-or-down vote now on the
[[Page H3727]]
Meehan/Shays campaign reform bill. No more delay. No more technical
mumbo-jumbo. No more broken promises.
I want my colleagues to know that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt); our Whip, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior); all of
those who have worked on our side are asking for a no vote on the
previous question as a way of explaining our frustration with a process
that has not served not only this body but the American people well.
Then perhaps should we prevail. We could have that vote up or down, as
the American people deserve it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) the representative of the Committee
on Rules here, the gentleman who yielded to me. Because I think they
did the right thing, and they have done something which I think all of
us in this House should embrace who believe that we should have an open
rule process for this in.
I have heard that there are supposed to be 500 amendments on this,
and it is going to be a very difficult task to straighten out what we
should be voting on and what we should not be voting on. But the bottom
line is that the leadership and the Committee on Rules in particular
heard the message here, and they have done a wonderful job, and I think
they deserve the heartfelt thanks of all of us who have been
campaigning for campaign finance reform in some way or another here in
the last couple of years.
There are a lot of good bills which are here. I think the Freshman
bill is a particularly good bill. I also happen to favor Meehan/Shays.
I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has done a much more
exceptional job on campaign finance reform than anyone has given him
credit for.
But I would caution each and every one of us as we enter into this
fray I guess after we come back from the Memorial Day break that it is
going to be very difficult to hold intact the concept of a majority for
a particular bill that will be campaign finance reform and perhaps even
more difficult to hold together a majority for the particular bill that
one cares about.
And yet, in my judgment, there have been enough abuses, some maybe
perfectly legal, as a matter of fact, and some perhaps even illegal,
that the time has come in the United States of America when we all
should look in the mirror.
I have a hunch that there is enough blame to go around from one
political party or the other and perhaps from one candidate to another
as we look across America. And I must say that most candidates live
well within the rules, but there have been a lot of abuses and the time
has come for us in the Congress of the United States to really focus on
this issue.
So it is my hope as we stand here tonight that, first of all, we do
adopt this rule. That is, ultimately, very, very important. And I hope
we adopt it by a large majority. And that, secondly, we pay attention
to this debate. And then, hopefully, when it is all said and done, we
will have campaign finance reform in America.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, they said pigs would fly before we got an
open debate on campaign finance reform in the House. Well, Mr. Speaker,
it is time to bring home the bacon because we are here at last. After 4
years of promises made and promises broken, we are finally going to get
a vote on Shays-Meehan.
Or are we? It is not all clear to me that this rule will allow for a
vote on the Shays/Meehan bill, especially in light of the commitment of
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) to essentially filibuster this
bill by offering hundreds of amendments throughout the summer.
The Speaker's message is clear. He supports more money in campaigns,
not less. He wants to enhance the role of wealthy special interests in
congressional elections rather than diminish it. Well, the public
clearly feels differently.
In a recent NBC Wall Street Journal poll, 92 percent of the American
people felt that too much money was spent on campaigns. We are here
today because the American voters demand that we fix a broken system.
Over the course of this debate, there will be many substitutes and
many amendments. I urge all of my colleagues to remember that there is
only one bill that is both bipartisan and bicameral and that will enact
real campaign finance reform this year, there is only one bill that has
the support of nearly every grassroots organization that is active on
reform, and there is only one bill that has the support of editorial
boards all across this country. That is the McCain/Feingold/Shays/
Meehan bill.
Unlike the other substitutes and alternatives, only Shays-Meehan will
conclusively ban soft money. Only Shays-Meehan will address the growing
problem of third-party campaign advertisements and only Shays-Meehan
will give the FEC the teeth it needs to prevent abuses in the current
system.
Above all, our bill is a product of compromise. It will benefit
neither party at the expense of the other. At the end of the day, Mr.
Chairman, a vote for campaign finance reform is a vote for Shays-
Meehan.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule.
I guess I would like to say I guess it is better late than never. We
should have had this debate last year. But at least now, with this
rule, we are about to have this debate. But, again, better late than
never.
I think we must thank the Committee on Rules. It was a hard job to
structure this rule. Given the complexities of the issues and the
controversies generated, and we have heard some of them here tonight,
and the interest groups that have been working at cross purposes here,
I think it is probably the best vehicle that we could have supported.
Well, whatever one would say about that, the point is the time is now
to deal with this issue and we can finally get at our campaign system
that is clearly out of control. We can at least have an intelligent
debate of sorts on this.
I think there are many critically important issues that we can
discuss and examine during the course of this debate, some of them
mentioned tonight. We must support this rule and, hopefully, pass
Shays-Meehan in the end.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time.
The freshmen Democrats and the freshmen Republicans came together as
our major undertaking in this class, all of us were involved in
targeted races in the 1996 election, and we decided we were going to
work together. It does not always happen in this House, but we decided
to work together, and we put together H.R. 2183, the bipartisan
freshman bill.
We are proud that that bill is the base bill for a debate in this
Congress. We respect everything that other reformers have done,
including the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) to bring this cause forward.
Now, we could look at this rule and say, ``We are proud of this rule.
It is going to give us the complete, open debate that we asked for.''
But when we look back at the history over the last month or two, we see
an enormous reluctance to bring up campaign reform. We remember that
when the Republican leadership tried to bring up a bill they tried to
bring up a bogus reform bill that took two-thirds in order to pass.
That was not the way, and the people of this country said, ``No, that
is bogus reform. We need real reform.''
Now we have a rule that allows 11 substitutes and many amendments;
and the question is, can this process be managed so we have a fair
debate here on the floor so we can give the American people what they
want? And what they want in every poll in every time we go back to our
districts, they say, ``There is too much money in politics. We have got
to contain the money. We need campaign finance reform.''
{time} 2245
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
[[Page H3728]]
Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I heard a lot about people denouncing
attack ads and independent expenditures and soft money, but it is
interesting to me, not one person that has spoken has denied that money
being spent in their district. They could very easily say, I do not
want any of this money in my district, but none of these self-righteous
people are doing that in their own districts.
We hear from many people too much is being spent. We also know that
Americans spend about as much each year on yogurt and potato chips as
we do on electing our officials. Are the proponents of limiting free
speech and expenditures trying to tell the American people they spend
too much money on yogurt?
They are going to come up next and say, you spend too much money on
sports, because that money is more than campaigns. Are they going to
say, you spend too much money on entertainment, because that is greater
than the amount spent on campaigns.
We have a lot of concerns. My concerns are foreign money and
campaigning on Federal property and illegal money. But, oh, my
goodness, we have laws that prevent that. We have to keep this in mind,
that you need to enforce existing laws.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, having joined with the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Baesler) and other members of the Blue Dog Caucus to
initiate a discharge petition last October to force consideration of
campaign finance reform under a fair and open process, I am very
pleased to be here tonight debating a rule to bring up campaign finance
reform under an open process.
The American people deserve to know where their representatives stand
on the major proposals to reform our campaign finance laws. Although
this rule meets the standard of openness that the Blue Dogs call for in
our discharge petition, the process for considering campaign finance
reform will fall far short of the standard of fairness unless we defeat
the previous question and allow the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Moakley) to offer an amendment to allow the House to have clean votes
on all the major proposals under a fair process.
Having worked with my Republican colleagues to use discharge
petitions to force a fair debate on the balanced budget constitutional
amendment and other issues, I am very disappointed that the majority
did not listen to the advice of those of us who initiated the discharge
petition that brought us to this point.
The Blue Dog discharge petition in the underlying rule, H. Res. 259,
calls for extensive debate on leading reform legislation followed by
votes on each offered substitute.
The guiding principle behind the Blue Dog discharge petition was that
we should allow clean up-or-down votes on all major campaign finance
plans: the freshman bill, who worked awfully hard on their bill; the
Shays-Meehan bill; the Doolittle bill; any alternative either
leadership wishes to offer and any other alternatives as substitutes at
the beginning of the process.
Under the king-of-the-hill process in which the amendment receiving
the largest number of votes becomes the base bill for the purpose of
perfecting amendments, if more than one amendment receives a majority
vote, the Blue Dog discharge rule would have allowed clean votes on all
amendments in the form the authors of the amendment wanted by
prohibiting second degree amendments.
Let me just sum up by saying what we must do to provide for a clean
and open debate is to allow all the substitutes to be submitted as
those authors wish them to be submitted and vote on them and allow the
one that gets the most votes to become the base bill and then allow
anyone that has an amendment to offer that amendment to the base bill
ultimately getting to the final package of true campaign reform. To do
less than that will make another sham. We have already been through one
sham in this process. To do other than that will end up with another
sham.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting now that wide-open
rules are considered shams when they are not getting their way.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr.
Wamp).
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time, and I am
going to overlook the specifics and the details for a moment and just
say that I am grateful to our leadership for hearing the appeal of some
of us and many from the other side to give us an opportunity over the
coming days and weeks to debate this issue in an open process. I think,
in all fairness, it will be an open process.
But just to say that our party, the majority party here, has possibly
decided to change strategy and quit running and hiding from this issue
and get on the offensive and be proactive. If we disagree with our
friends on the other side on the specifics, let us debate the issue,
and let us have a vote on each and every substitute, and let us let
majority rule. Democracy still works in this country.
Back in 1974, when this current system was brought into place, the
shoe was on the other foot, and the Democrats were in charge here. They
used this floor to debate these issues and bring forth what they
thought were their priorities. We should do the same thing. If we have
a legitimate disagreement, we should be on the offensive to say this is
the way things used to be.
I am most concerned about the corrupting influences of soft money in
the American political process. Mr. Speaker, alcohol, tobacco and
gambling are not the influences that I want to drive this process. They
are proliferating. Millions of dollars of unregulated, unlimited soft
money from some of these influences that are not good for our country
or good for our children or good for this process are now dominating
this business. Pretty soon, we, as candidates, will not even control
the messages in our own elections if we do not do something about it.
We can have an honest disagreement about whether we should fix the
current system or even possibly go back to the way things used to be
before Watergate. But, most of all, we should have the debate.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) has 10\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am struck by many different emotions. I do not intend
to talk about the merits of the issue tonight. But I feel proud to look
at Members on both sides of the aisle who, in the last 3 years, passed
congressional accountability getting Congress under the same laws as
the rest of the Nation. And I'm proud Republicans and Democrats working
together passed gift ban and lobby disclosure legislation as well.
I am proud of the work of the Blue Dogs, and I see the gentlemen from
California (Mr. Farr) and Mr. Miller and the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson) who have worked hard on campaign finance reform
legislators over many years.
I see other Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who helped
forced this issue to come to the floor with a few Republicans.
Ultimately, my leadership recognized that we did need to have a vote on
campaign finance reform and I thank them for that.
It is going to be a dicey time because it is going to be truly an
open debate. There is plenty of opportunity for mischief. Some can
misuse the process. So reform minded Members on both sides of the aisle
have got to make sure this does not happen.
I am proud also of the freshmen who made it a point to work together
to find common ground. And I look forward to the next few weeks and the
debate we will have.
I thank my colleagues who supported efforts to form debate and vote.
And I thank my leadership for recognizing we need to have an open and
honest debate. I hope and pray that, in the end, we can all be proud of
the outcome.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
(Ms. KAPTUR asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
[[Page H3729]]
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this Titanic
Gingrich stall proceeding and the previous question as well as the
rule.
Mr. Speaker, throughout the recent history of the Rules Committee, no
other major issue has ever been subjected to such a convoluted process
as campaign finance reform is being accorded;
By proposing no less than 11 substitutes, and currently considering
nearly 600 amendments, a ``doomsday'' scenario is being presented to
the American people;
Previously, the Republican leadership blocked reform efforts, made
promises for floor action and reneged and delayed, brought up
meaningless legislation on the suspension calendar and made a mockery
of the House. Today, the effort now is to kill reform by overloading
the process;
The Republican leadership is proposing an endless debate that will
take us well into the summer, will result in no resolution, and will
fail to bring about much needed reform;
As our colleague Joe Moakley has said, ``We'll just go through a lot
of motion and not get any action.''
[From the Washington Post, May 21, 1998]
Raft of Campaign Finance Reform Plans May Mean Lengthy House Debate
(By Helen Dewar)
Rival camps in the fight over campaign finance legislation
got the official go-ahead yesterday for a free-for-all on the
issue in the House that could last well into summer.
Under a procedure approved by the Rules Committee after a
lengthy hearing, the House will begin debate today on a dozen
plans, including alternative proposals to ban or sharply
curtail the unregulated ``soft money'' donations to political
parties at the heart of fund-raising abuses in the 1996
presidential campaign.
No votes are anticipated until after Congress returns from
its Memorial Day recess, and still to be determined by the
committee is the problem of how to deal with an extraordinary
load of amendments, including 586 that have been filed so
far.
Never in the history of the Rules Committee has it faced
such a formidable load of amendments, said committee Chairman
Gerald B.H. Solomon R-N.Y.), who promised to prune the list
to manageable proportions over the recess. He dismissed some
lawmakers' complaints that the process could take all summer.
``It could but it won't,'' he said. Without interruption, the
bill could be wound up in four days, he added.
Only a couple of months ago, House Republican leaders
resorted to extraordinary means to block votes on the leading
proposals, including a total soft-money ban proposed by Reps.
Christopher Shays (R-Conn.) and Martin T. Meehan (D-Mass.)
and a somewhat less stringent alternative proposed by a
bipartisan group of freshmen.
But their tactics created an uproar, and, in order to keep
from losing control of the House on the issue, GOP leaders
did a sudden about-face and opted for a wide-open process
providing for votes on a multitude of plans and even more
numerous amendments to them.
As a result, the reform groups, once united in opposition
to the leaders' tactics, are competing against each other,
raising the possibility that none of the plans would get
enough votes for passage--or that all of them would get
bogged down in a struggle over amendments.
Now it was Democratic leaders, as well as their Republican
counterparts, who were getting caught in the squeeze.
Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.), who has been
pushing for the Shays-Meehan bill, raised some hackles at a
Democratic caucus Tuesday night when, according to several
observers, he acknowledge without apparent disapproval that
some Democrats would also support the freshmen's bill.
At yesterday's hearing, several lawmakers expressed concern
that the debate might be stretched out over weeks, with
interruptions for other business, making it little more than
``filler'' to plug into open spaces in the schedule. Several
also objected to allowing amendments to each of the plans as
they come up for votes, instead of holding them in reserve
for action on the final version, saying this could lead to
lethal delays. ``We'll just go through a lot of motion and
not [get] any action,'' said Rep. Joe Moakley (Mass.),
ranking the committee's ranking Democrat.
____
[From the Roll Call, May 21, 1998]
Congress Inside Out
(By Norman J. Ornstein)
message to members: look beyond rhetoric before voting on cfr
Campaign reform is back--for an extended debate in the
House. The ``strange bedfellows'' coalition that Sen. Mitch
McConnell (R-Ky) pulled together for the Senate debate on
campaign reform is alive and well--from the National Right to
Life Committee (NRLC) and the National Rifle Association to
the ACLU.
Encouraged by House Majority Whip Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and
McConnell crony Rep. Anne Northup (R-Ky), and led by the
NRLC's Douglas Johnson, this coalition has used the guise of
the First Amendment to fight bitterly and unrelentingly
against any reform, and in particular against any proposal
that changes the free-for-all jungle surrounding all
electioneering communications that do not use ``magic words''
like ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' and thus call
themselves issue advocacy.
The coalition opposes the Shays-Meehan plan in this area,
which would treat electioneering communications in the period
just before an election by the same rules that apply to
independent expenditures--disclosure of donors and ad
sponsors, and contribution limits for groups.
It opposes with equal fervor the freshman Hutchinson-Allen
plan, which is a simple, watered-down disclosure provision
for a narrow category of electioneering ads that covers only
sponsors, not donors--not even very large donors.
It opposed unalterably the Snowe-Jeffords Amendment in the
Senate, which covered disclosure of large donors only for
electronic communications of $10,000 or more within 60 days
of an election, tailored at influencing directly the election
or defeat of a candidate, and banned direct electioneering
contributions from labor unions and corporations.
This anti-reform coalition has already been hitting House
Members hard. The NRLC has made each provision on sham issue
advocacy a right-to-life test, telling Members that a vote
for any reform will harm their pro-life record, a serious
problem for many GOP lawmakers. The group ran harsh negative
radio ads against staunchy pro-life Rep. Asa Hutchinson (R-
Ark) for his temerity in supporting any disclosure for any
political ads.
Using the umbrella aegis of the ACLU, the coalition will
cloak itself in the First Amendment, claiming it is just for
free speech. Of course, the ACLU position is simply the
position of the organization's current leadership; as Burt
Neuborne, a former legal director of the ACLU has pointed
out, virtually every previous leader in the ACLU has a
sharply different view than the current elite in the
organization on the constitutionality of campaign reform
proposals.
But whatever the real civil liberties position on reform,
Members of Congress should be more directly aware of what the
members of this broad anti-reform coalition are for and
against:
1. They are against disclosure. Some ``reformers,'' like
Rep. John Doolittle (R-Calif), claim they are for lifting all
limits and stiffening disclosure, relying on the market and
informed consumers to self-regulate the political and
election process. This would be a worthy position for debate
if it were accurate.
But Doolittle, along with the NRLC's Johnson and the ACLU's
Laura Murphy and Ira Glasser, are not for full disclosure. In
fact, they are opposed to any and all disclosure of sources
or sponsors of any political ads except the very narrow class
of those using the few magic words.
They oppose any disclosure for the more than $150 million
in ads run in 1996 that were self-labeled ``issue advocacy''
but, as an analytical study by the Annenberg School of
Communications has shown, were candidate-centered, more
harshly negative than any other category of ads, and clearly
designed to elect or defeat particular candidates.
2. They are for secrecy, obfuscation and misdirection. The
Annenberg study and good investigative reporting around the
country in 1996 and 1997 showed that sham issue-advocacy ads
were often designed to blindside candidates and to obscure
deliberately the origin of the attacks. Funds often were
laundered through two or more organizations, with vague names
like ``Citizens for Reform,'' making it difficult to figure
out the source of the campaign electioneering messages.
Attack campaigns were often run at the end of the campaign,
leaving no time for the attacked candidate or the press to
uncover the source. Very likely, some candidates and/or their
party campaign committees colluded with outside groups to
orchestrate ``issue advocacy'' attacks on their opponents,
leaving the attacking candidate with his or her hands clean,
able to disavow the vicious attack while reaping the benefit.
Absent any disclosure, we will see a whole lot more of this
approach, aimed at confusing voters and blurring
responsibility and accountability. Ask yourself if confusion,
surreptitiousness, irresponsibility and unaccountability are
the values of the First Amendment the Framers intended to put
first.
3. They are for unlimited corporate and labor involvement
in electioneering. Since 1907, corporations have been barred
from using their funds to influence directly the outcome of
elections. The same ban has existed for labor unions and
their dues since the 1940s. Corporations and labor unions can
use voluntary political action committees to mobilize their
executives, employees and members to get involved in electing
or defeating candidates for office.
But the so-called issue-advocacy campaigns have provided a
gigantic loophole to allow corporations and unions to use
unlimited (and undisclosed) amounts of corporate funds and
union dues to target candidates, violating the intent of
those existing laws.
Of course, some conservatives are trying to have it both
ways, using the backdoor approach of ``paycheck protection''
to cripple labor unions while leaving corporations free to do
what they want to shape election results. But the best way to
stop labor unions and corporations from running these
campaigns is to follow the legal traditions and ban their
funds from use in electioneering--an approach opposed by this
coalition.
[[Page H3730]]
4. They are for foreign involvement in American elections.
Current laws ban the use of foreign money in American
campaigns. But any source of funds, foreign or domestic, can
be used for these so-called ``issue advocacy'' campaigns. And
we will never know if foreign funds, including funds from the
Chinese government, are used in ads that are clearly designed
to elect or defeat candidates--there is no disclosure.
So here's a message for Members of Congress as you prepare
to vote on reform plans and amendments that address this sham
issue advocacy. Look beyond the threats and the mantra of the
First Amendment offered by opponents of any reform in this
area and consider the implications of the votes you cast:
Do you really want to vote against disclosure of the
authors and funders of vicious attack ads?
Do you want to be on record voting for unlimited and
undisclosed use of labor union dues and funds from corporate
coffers to elect or defeat candidates?
Do you want to endorse a system allowing unlimited,
unregulated and undisclosed use of foreign money to influence
American elections?
Of course, there are reasonable and heavy-handed,
constitutional and unconstitutional, ways to approach
reforming this system. The freshman plan is frankly too week;
it includes disclosure, but only of the groups sponsoring
these ads, not the major sources of funds. The Shays-Meehan
approach (which, in the interest of disclosure, I helped to
craft) is a better one, although I fear that it will be hard
to sell to the Supreme Court.
I am much more comfortable with the approach my colleagues
and I subsequently devised that became the Snowe-Jeffords
Amendment, which puts reasonable if broad limits on
electioneering ads masquerading as ``issue advocacy'' by
providing targeted disclosure of large contributors and
keeping out corporate and labor funds.
Each of these approaches at least tries to apply the spirit
and approach of the Buckley decision and a sensitivity to the
First Amendment rights of issue advocates to a class of ads
that are not issue advocacy and thus defy the intent of the
Court. Whether too weak, too strong or just right, the
zealots from the NRLC and the ACLU will be opposed.
Which side are you on?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Speaker, it is 11 o'clock, 5 minutes of
11:00, and we are now finally getting to the debate on the rule on
campaign finance reform, an interesting rule that brings 11 different
viewpoints to the floor, allows an hour vote for each one, and
unlimited amendments.
The question is whether this Congress is going to be serious about
passing campaign reform. It was just mentioned that, when our party was
in control, we and the 101st, 102d, and 103rd did pass campaign reform,
and it was substantive.
It was a bill that, first of all, had the premise of fairness, a bill
that did not favor one party over another. Second, it reduced the
influence of special interest. Third, it leveled the playing field.
And, fourth, it made access to the system by nontraditional candidates.
One of the bills that is in order is a bill that does that. It caps
spending. It reduces individual PAC contributions. It reforms the role
of wealthy donors and people who use their own money. It reforms the
role of soft money. It finally puts the brakes on massive expenditures
of money in the political realm that are now unregulated, undisclosed
and outside the law, those that are independent expenditures.
I hope Members of the party will take a look at this bill. There are
106 coauthors on this side. It is the only bill that is on the floor
that is really comprehensive, the only bill that addresses all the
issues that the 101st, 102d, 103rd Congress did. If you adopt this
rule, you will have a chance to do comprehensive campaign finance
reform.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes to point out
to the gentleman that just spoke in the well that all of these
wonderful bills and all of the previous approaches by the Democrats in
previous Congresses left out one minor piece; that is, the special
interests that spend more money in politics than all the rest combined,
the labor unions, which spent, in the last cycle, in the last election,
somewhere between $300 million and $500 million according to a Rutgers
University study.
Are they at all impinged by any of these bills? Of course not. That
is not soft money. You see, that is Democrat money. We will not abuse
it at all.
I know the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) said that the Shays-
Meehan bill codifies the Beck decision. What the Beck decision says is
that labor union members must approve their money being used for
political activity.
This codification of the Beck decision says you may get your money
back if it was used for political activity so long as you are no longer
a union member, which is to say you have to leave the money to get your
money back.
This is the sham. This is the game that is being played. Stop the
union or stop the corporate soft money accounts. That is fine. We both
get about $140 million a year. We both get $140 million over a 2-year
cycle from three committees. But eliminate any opportunity from
impinging on the labor unions which support the Democrats 100 percent.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) said that the airwaves are
flooded with negative political attacks. Yes, of course they were, by
unions. Of course they were. He was not there stopping them. In fact,
he was welcoming them.
When the unions this year decided that occasionally they would
support some friendly Republicans, the Democrat leadership wrote a
whining letter to the union leadership and said, do not dare support
Republicans. You are our guys.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) also said that, in this
process, no political voice is heard unless they contribute up to
$50,000. It is only a rich guy's game. He may be speaking from personal
experience; but from my experience, and anyone that I know, we listen
to all. We hear from everyone, whether or not they are contributors. If
it is his experience only to listen to those who contribute $50,000,
that is his problem, not the country's problem.
There is, indeed, an outside influence. If we are going to treat them
fairly, we treat them all, including the labor union's money. But I
will point out to the gentleman there is no controlling legal authority
to do that.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio) was
going to point out that the facts of the gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
Linder) are wrong. We will get into that. But I take seriously your
description of the issue. You say major changes are not needed to
implement present law. I say implement present law and make major
changes in the law. That is what you said.
Money is swamping the Democratic process and you are standing up,
defending the status quo. The present system demeans the contributor.
It demeans the recipient. It increases polarization, and it deepens
public cynicism.
Shays-Meehan addresses both soft money and issue ads. I say to the
minority who usually are not such defenders of free speech, free speech
is not the same as unlimited paid campaign ads. Vote for Shays-Meehan.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time for the
last speaker.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the remaining time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder) has
4 minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) has 6\1/2\
minutes remaining.
{time} 2300
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, because it will
eventually allow us to vote on campaign finance reform, though I must
say that it should be called the heel-dragging rule. There is so much
debate scheduled on this issue, that I am afraid it could go on for
months.
While I object to this filibuster tactic, I am pleased that it will
finally allow us to vote on Shays-Meehan. Shays-Meehan bans soft money,
it regulates third party expenditures, it will help to level the
playing field between challengers and incumbents and it encourages
greater disclosure. It will help
[[Page H3731]]
to turn the political process back to an election, instead of an
auction that is going to the highest bidder, the person who spends the
most money.
Mr. Speaker, we need to show the public that our elections are not
for sale, our government is not for sale, and bring in real campaign
finance reform. We need to vote on it before we go back and ask our
constituents to vote for us.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the message the American people are sending
us is clear: Reform our campaign finance system; reform it now. The
Republican leadership does not get that message. They do not want to
get that message.
There was a famous handshake three years ago with President Clinton.
The Speaker said he was going to have a vote on campaign finance
reform. Time and again that vote has been delayed. He promised a vote
in March. It is May; we are still waiting.
Keep in mind the Speaker is in charge of this House. If he wanted a
vote on campaign finance reform, we would have that vote tonight. That
is what we ought to be doing, instead of delay and delay on this issue.
And speaking of delay, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the
Republican Majority Whip, is working vigorously to kill campaign
finance reform. You should clap. We all know what you are doing.
The Republican leadership thinks we need more money in this political
system. They would lift current limits on campaign contributions. They
would increase the influence of the wealthiest in this country.
Point of Order
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, is hissing, and I mean this seriously if we
are going to set precedent, is hissing from Members of this House in
order?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Hissing is not proper decorum in the House,
under Jefferson's manual.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Miller).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized
for 2 minutes.
(Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I urge the people of America
to pay close attention to this debate on campaign finance reform. Pay
close attention, because you will hear so many different arguments,
facts, figures and legal theories, not just today, but possibly for
weeks to come. There will be so much that is said that it may be hard
to follow what is really important in this debate.
There is only one thing that matters when all is said and done: Will
your representative in Congress vote for the only meaningful campaign
finance reform bill to be offered this year? Will your representative
vote for the Shays-Meehan bill? That is all that matters.
The Shays-Meehan bill is the only bill that truly bans soft money and
has the support of grassroots campaign finance reform organizations.
Huge soft money contributions have become the leading corrupting
influence in our political process today. Soft money contributions have
caused politicians to do many things that they would not ordinarily do
to abandon their constituents, to abandon the taxpayer, to abandon the
public interest.
My friends, ask yourself this: With all of the evidence of the
corrupting influence of campaign contributions on politics, why should
it be so hard to reform this system? Why should it be so hard? The
answer is because the Republican leaders who control this House are
committed to blocking the successful passage of campaign finance
reform.
The vast majority of Democrats are committed to real reform, and we
have been joined by a small group of concerned Republicans. Together,
hopefully, we represent a majority. But we do not control the action on
the floor. That is why, ladies and gentleman across this country, you
must pay attention.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) has expired.
Mr. MILLER of California. Remember, there is only one way to
determine whether or not your Representative truly believes and
supports and is for campaign finance reform. That is, at the end of
this debate, did they vote for the Shays-Meehan bill?
Mr. LINDER. Regular order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
(Mr. Miller) has expired.
Mr. MILLER of California. * * *
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from California
has expired.
Point of Order
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it the regular order of the House for the
gentleman to ignore the Speaker and to ignore the time limits and speak
as long as he did?
Mr. MILLER of California. As did the gentleman when he just
previously spoke. You were also told time expired, and you continued to
speak.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule of the House is the person speaking
must cease speaking and his remarks are not transcribed when he is no
longer under recognition. The gentleman is out of order.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the Majority Whip of the House.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for
6\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I think we just got----
Point of Order
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, we have jeering back here on this side. Can
we get some order in the House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The House will be in order.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people just saw that
display, because what they saw is Big Brother on the prowl again, Big
Brother government trying to stifle the American people once again, and
they are not even satisfied with open and honest debate. They want the
debate on their terms, voting up or down on their bills, and they do
not want any amendments. Well, I look forward to having a vigorous and
complete debate about the state of our campaign laws, the laws that the
gentleman from California enacted around 1974.
Some believe that the laws that govern our elections are in such
desperate shape that we should erect a huge government bureaucracy and
sharply limit the ability of our citizens to participate through
further spending limits; others believe that things are so serious that
we need to scrap the First Amendment to the Constitution, the premier
political reform in human history, and start all over with a new First
Amendment that restrains the exuberance of the American electorate; and
the president uses campaign finance reform as a way to distract the
American people from his own campaign's shameless abuse of the campaign
laws.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need to throw the baby out with
the bath water. We do not need to scrap the First Amendment simply
because the Clinton campaign could not abide by our own current laws.
Some of my colleagues, with very good intentions in their hearts,
have crafted legislation that would make our Founding Fathers turn in
their graves. The Shays-Meehan approach is a direct assault upon the
First Amendment. The Hutchinson bill is only slightly less offensive. I
contend that these two bills will erect a Byzantine set of laws that
will gag citizens' speech, and, as the ACLU has warned, not exactly one
of my best supporters, but they have warned that this barrier would
inevitably be analogous to barbed wire fences. No individual or group
would try to scale it, unless they were willing to become ensnared in a
complicated set of laws, whose penalties would inflict serious pain.
Now, attempts to regulate and to require disclosure of issue advocacy
that has been talked about a lot here
[[Page H3732]]
through statute and through FEC regulation have repeatedly been
declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and other lower Federal
courts.
{time} 2310
The Court has always viewed issue advocacy as a form of speech that
deserves the highest degree of protection, strict scrutiny under the
First Amendment. And that Court has not only been supportive, has not
only been supportive of issue advocacy, it has affirmatively stated
that it is untroubled by the fact that issue advertisements may
influence the outcome of an election. In fact, in Buckley v. Valeo the
Justices stated, and I quote, and it is a wonderful quote, ``The First
Amendment denies government the power,'' denies big brother the power,
``to determine that spending to promote one's political views is
wasteful, excessive, or unwise. In a free society ordained by our
Constitution, it is not the government, but the people, the people,
individually, as citizens and candidates and collectively, the people
as associations and political committees, they are the ones who must
retain control over the quantity and the range of debate on public
issues in a political campaign.'' Not this House, not some bureaucracy,
not the FEC, not even you. The people, something we forget about in
this Chamber a lot.
Freedom of speech is the issue. My friends who support Shays and
other bills to restrict freedom of speech will deny that any First
Amendment issue is at stake.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the First Amendment is not a loophole. Freedom and
reform are not mutually exclusive principles. They go hand-in-hand.
The First Amendment is not an idea that should be tossed aside like a
piece of garbage. It is our first freedom. It is our most critical
freedom. It is the First Amendment in America's premier political
reform. We should be expanding freedom. We should be encouraging
participation in the political process.
Now, many campaign reform proposals go in the other direction. They
clamp down on freedom, they gag citizens, they restrict freedom. I
believe that there are things we can do to improve our campaign laws.
We should have full disclosure so that the American people have quicker
and better access to the information that they need to make informed
decisions. And the proposal of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Doolittle) to require that all campaign contributions be posted on the
Internet I think is an excellent way to get full disclosure.
We should cut out the bureaucracy and the paperwork so that more of
our citizens feel more comfortable about running for office. We should
lift up campaign limits so that middle America can solicit the support
that they need to run for office, not only rich people.
We should oppose any effort to give welfare to politicians, and I
urge my colleagues to stand for freedom and join with me in protecting
the First Amendment from further attack.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Meehan-Shays
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1998. This legislation bans soft
money and prevents this ban from being circumvented by loopholes and
exceptions.
Campaign finance reform is essential to restoring public confidence
in not only the political system but our legislative process, as
evidenced by a Wall Street Journal/Hart poll in which 68% of the people
questioned said they believed the American political system is more
influenced by special interest money than it was 20 years ago. But we
don't need polls to tell us that the American people distrust the way
that soft money has infiltrated this institution. All of us in this
body have heard from our constituents, and they are clamoring for
reform.
Mr. Speaker, those opposed to this legislation would have us believe
that the bill is unconstitutional, that it would erode our First
Amendment rights to free speech. H.R. 3256 does not impinge on our
constitutionally guaranteed rights to free speech. What it does do,
however, is strengthen the definition of the term ``campaign ad'', so
that groups who pay to produce and broadcast these ads must adhere to
federal election laws. Specifically, under the Meehan-Shays Bipartisan
Campaign Reform Act, any ad run within 60 days of an election that
features a clearly identified federal candidate is considered
``campaigning'' and will have to be paid for according to FEC
guidelines.
This provision ensures that the public is fully aware of who is
paying for these so-called ``issue advocacy'' ads. It would be applied
evenly, to Republicans and Democrats, corporations and unions,
individuals and organizations. Mr. Speaker, we have a limited number of
legislative days remaining in the 105th Congress. We are well into the
1998 election cycle. H.R. 3256 is a reasonable and well-crafted
bipartisan approach to an issue that the American people want this
Congress to address as soon as possible.
Let's do the right thing, let's pass real reforms to the
Congressional Campaign System.
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the
resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on ordering the
previous question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 5 of rule XV, the Chair
will reduce to a minimum of 5 minutes the period of time within which a
vote by electronic device, if ordered, will be taken on the question of
agreeing to the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 208,
nays 190, not voting 35, as follows:
[Roll No. 186]
YEAS--208
Aderholt
Archer
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Bartlett
Barton
Bass
Bereuter
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Bryant
Bunning
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cannon
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth
Christensen
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cook
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crapo
Cubin
Cunningham
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeLay
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Ensign
Everett
Ewing
Fawell
Forbes
Fossella
Fowler
Fox
Franks (NJ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Ganske
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Goss
Graham
Granger
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayworth
Hill
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inglis
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Jones
Kasich
Kelly
Kim
King (NY)
Kingston
Klug
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Livingston
LoBiondo
Lucas
McCollum
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McKeon
Metcalf
Mica
Miller (FL)
Moran (KS)
Morella
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neumann
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Packard
Pappas
Paxon
Pease
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Radanovich
Ramstad
Redmond
Regula
Riggs
Riley
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roukema
Royce
Ryun
Salmon
Sanford
Saxton
Schaefer, Dan
Schaffer, Bob
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (OR)
Smith (TX)
Smith, Linda
Snowbarger
Solomon
Souder
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Talent
Tauzin
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Traficant
Upton
Walsh
Wamp
Watkins
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
White
Whitfield
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--190
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baesler
Baldacci
Barcia
Barrett (WI)
Becerra
Bentsen
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (CA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Cardin
Carson
Clay
Clayton
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Cummings
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Fazio
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Furse
Gejdenson
Gephardt
Gordon
Green
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hamilton
Hastings (FL)
Hefner
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
[[Page H3733]]
Holden
Hooley
Hoyer
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (WI)
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MA)
Kennedy (RI)
Kennelly
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Klink
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Lantos
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manton
Markey
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McDermott
McGovern
McHale
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller (CA)
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pickett
Pomeroy
Poshard
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Schumer
Scott
Serrano
Sherman
Sisisky
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith, Adam
Snyder
Spratt
Stabenow
Stenholm
Stokes
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson
Thurman
Tierney
Turner
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Waters
Watt (NC)
Wexler
Weygand
Wise
Woolsey
Wynn
NOT VOTING--35
Bateman
Berman
Boehner
Burr
Burton
Canady
Clement
Coburn
DeFazio
Deutsch
Foley
Gonzalez
Harman
Hefley
Herger
Johnson, Sam
Manzullo
Martinez
McCrery
McDade
Meeks (NY)
Oxley
Parker
Paul
Quinn
Scarborough
Shaw
Skaggs
Stark
Taylor (NC)
Torres
Towns
Waxman
Wicker
Yates
{time} 2333
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. PICKERING and Mr. KNOLLENBERG changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hansen). The question is on the
resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________