[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 79 (Wednesday, June 17, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H4699-H4705]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
{time} 2000
PAYCHECK PROTECTION ACT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sununu). Under the Speaker's announced
policy of January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob
Schaffer) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, it happened again just a
few days ago. I was at a Republican event, a political event dealing
with putting candidates on the ballot back in Colorado and one of the
individuals in the audience came up and he said, ``I am fed up and sick
and tired of labor unions taking cash out of my wages and spending
those dollars on political causes that I do not support.''
This was a Republican worker who lives up north in the Morgan area,
in Morgan County in my district, in the Fourth District of Colorado.
And he asked if there is anything I can do about that.
Well, I asked more questions, tried to find out exactly what had
occurred to him. It seems he works for a closed-shop operation there in
Colorado, which is in not a right-to-work State. A closed-shop State
means essentially that one can be forced or compelled to join a labor
organization against their will as a condition of employment. Their
only option, of course, is to give up their job and move on and go
somewhere else.
So this individual does not approve of his union's activities. I
suppose he probably supports some of the collective bargaining and
maybe some of the agency representation and so on. But what he really
resented was that a certain portion of his paycheck was automatically
deducted and withheld and redirected toward political causes of the
union's choosing without the consent of this particular wage earner. He
thought it was a crime. In fact, he called it such. And I could not
disagree with him at all.
Well, this is a practice which occurs throughout the country. It is
interesting, here on the House floor, with all the debate about
campaign finance and campaign finance reform and what campaigns ought
to look like, how they ought to be funded, whether there ought to be
caps and limits, what kind of disclosure and reporting requirements
that we ought to insist upon, that no one is really willing to spend
the time talking about whether campaign funds are raised legitimately
in the first place.
The fact of the matter is, right here in the great old United States,
it is quite possible, in fact it is quite likely, that a wage earner
can have a portion of his wages automatically deducted and withheld out
of his paycheck and spent on some political cause simply because he
happens to be associated with a labor union. It happens with other
organizations as well.
Well, we have tried in fact to take a crack at the issue here on the
House floor. The last time campaign finance issues were raised we
brought a topic to the floor called the Paycheck Protection Act, a
proposal designed to end this practice of having wages automatically
deducted and spent on political causes without the consent of the wage
earner.
It strikes me as being a pretty simple matter, yet it gets quite
confused here in Congress. And I will explain that in a moment, why
there seems to be a source of confusion. But it seems that anybody
would be hard pressed to come up with an explanation as to why stealing
wages out of somebody's paycheck and directing it toward a political
cause without the wage earner's knowledge or the wage earner's consent
is a good idea, how it can possibly be justified, how we can in fact
stand for it, how we can allow campaign cash to be raised in this sort
of manner and not object on a daily basis.
Well, I have heard from too many constituents, rank and file union
Americans, who do object, who do come up to me at political events, at
town meetings, at the parade celebrating small towns throughout my
rural district, who come up and tell me that they are fed up with it,
that they are sick and tired of having their wages raided by people
they do not support for political causes they do not condone, and spent
in a way that is outside their control.
I sort of look at this as a pay raise. If we can really protect the
paychecks of hard-working Americans, make sure that no portion of their
wages are automatically deducted and siphoned off for political causes,
that really means, for many wage earners in America it means more
dollars in their pocket.
It is very consistent with our efforts towards tax cuts in America to
try to encourage and empower individual wage earners by protecting what
they work hard for, by protecting their earnings, to allow them to keep
what they have toiled over and the fruits of their labor and let them
spend it on things that they believe to be high priorities rather than
some union boss sitting in another city perhaps or maybe right here in
Washington, D.C., or maybe a committee of them that is forming today
perhaps to decide which Members of Congress ought to stay and which
ones ought to go.
Well, it really does work that way. If my colleagues want to figure
out what the motivation is why any labor organization would stand for
siphoning off portions of their members' wages to spend on political
causes of the union's choosing, they just need to spend a little time
here in Washington D.C.
Whenever we have these campaign finance debates, these halls are
lined out here in the committee hallways and Members offices' are lined
with union organizers and union lobbyists and union bosses who
understand that when we talk about paycheck protection, we really are
threatening the way of life for a handful of powerful union bosses who
have made an art and a career out of siphoning wages away from wage
earners' paychecks for the political purposes of their choice.
Campaigns can be fun if they are involved in them, if they are
involved in raising money and trying to spend it in a way that helps
affect the direction of Congress. It seems to be the American way. That
is what every citizen should be encouraged to do and to participate in
and be involved in, to choose the candidate of their liking and decide
which one best represents them, to put a yard sign in their yard maybe,
to put a bumper sticker on their car, to take some literature through
their neighborhood and give it to their friends and neighbors, maybe to
go to precinct caucus meetings and maybe some State and county
assemblies, maybe the national convention, to be involved in whatever
way they can in help selecting the candidate that best represents them
and that they think is the one that is really going to help turn the
country around and to meet their expectations.
And a big part of that is raising money too, as we all know in this
case. We spend a lot of time trying to replenish the campaign coffers
so that we can run for election. And our opponents who are out trying
to replace us today are on the phone, perhaps trying to raise money for
their campaign coffers so that they can convey their message.
There is nothing wrong with that. That makes a lot of sense. But it
ought to be voluntary. It seems, at the very least, we ought to insist
upon a voluntary nature about politics. To insist upon the simple
notion that no one, no one in America should ever be forced to
contribute to a political cause which they do not support. Does that
seem to be too much to ask?
Well, when we asked that question here on the House floor a few
months ago, the answer was no, it was too much to ask actually when it
came right down to it. Because those union bosses and lobbyists that I
mentioned who march around the Capitol building and who hang out around
the offices of likely Members of Congress who seem to be sympathetic to
the cause of union bosses, well, they said no, they said no to the
Paycheck Protection Act.
We hope to give them another chance and another opportunity, in fact,
several opportunities crafted in several different ways. There are a
dozen, at least a handful of proposals and variations on the Paycheck
Protection Act that we can consider here in Congress.
[[Page H4700]]
I am going to offer my proposal again. The Paycheck Protection Act is
a very similar bill. It is only a couple of pages. What it suggests is
that no wage earner's wages can be withheld for political contributions
in any manner without the consent of the wage earner. And anyone who
siphons money out of the paycheck of an unsuspecting wage earner would
be subject to judicial proceedings and actions taken against him by the
wage earner himself.
You see, I am not really against and I do not think anybody who
supports the Paycheck Protection Act is against labor unions being
involved in the political process. Quite the contrary, I am for that. I
think labor unions serve a very useful purpose. I am for collective
bargaining, I am for agency representation, as long as people
voluntarily agree to become associated with these groups and
organizations and clubs.
I am even for labor unions being involved in politics, and I think
most supporters of the Paycheck Protection Act are, as long as the
money that they raise is raised voluntarily, as long as the individuals
who contribute to the political cause know what they are doing and
agree to it and agree to open up their wages to give the special
account number to the special interest groups so that some of the money
that otherwise would go directly to the wage earner's paycheck is
instead diverted, a small portion of it, to an union's account, a
political account.
That is fine if it is voluntary. The Paycheck Protection Act insists
upon a voluntary nature associated with raising political dues.
Well, what many of the opponents of paycheck protection understand is
that the measure is pretty passionately opposed by union bosses. This
is pretty easy money for these folks, that comes pretty easily. When
they are stealing it, when they are taking it away from paychecks and
wage earners unsuspecting, that is easy cashing for those who are here
to raise money.
Many of us insist upon doing it the hard way, and that is getting on
the phone or having a meeting with individuals and asking them to
contribute, to in fact invest in our political cause and to back the
message that we propose so carry to Washington, D.C.
But taking it through this mechanism of wage withholding and wage
deduction is certainly easier. There is no confrontation involved. They
do not have to do any explaining at all. They just take it and they
spend it on these same Members of Congress and other candidates like
then who seem to be sympathetic to the notion that these union bosses
have good ideas and ought to perpetuate them in Washington.
Here is something else, Mr. Speaker, that these individuals, these
same opponents of paycheck protection know. They know that the rank and
file union members support the Paycheck Protection Act.
This is a graph that outlines a recent public opinion poll that was
taken among the American citizens. And we asked, should we change or
keep the current Federal election laws that allow unions to make
political contributions with money deducted from a union member's
paycheck?
Of all voters, when all voters were surveyed, way over there on my
right, 78 percent of American voters throughout the country said that
they in fact support changes in the law, those laws that currently
allow political contributions to be made with money deducted from a
union member's paychecks. Seventy-two percent of union households, now
these are union households, these are households where union members
are answering the surveys, 72 percent of union households say we should
change the law so that paychecks are protected and that no one's wages
are withheld without the consent of the wage earner.
Look over here, when we talk to members of teachers' unions, these
are again not all union members throughout the country, that is this
column here, this is just union members who are part of a teachers'
union, this is a smaller subset, 78 percent of teacher union members
tell us that they support changes in the current law which allows wages
to be automatically withheld and spent on political causes without the
consent of the wage earner. Seventy-eight percent of members of
teachers' unions say that that law ought to be changed.
When we exclude all the union members and talk to all union members,
we get a 2 percent bump; 80 percent of nonunion voters throughout the
country believe that we ought to change the law.
The next graph is pretty similar and in many ways restates what I had
said earlier, but the question was asked a little differently in this
instance. We asked whether the respondent would approve or disapprove
of a new Federal law that would protect workers' paychecks, whether
they would support the paycheck protection in fact.
Again, when we ask all voters, all voters throughout the country, 80
percent tell us they support the Paycheck Protection Act. Eighty
percent of union members, union households, tell us they support the
Paycheck Protection Act.
That is really remarkable for a lot of people. If we listened to the
opponents of paycheck protection, we would think, in listening to their
arguments, come to the conclusion that union members somehow want their
wages to be withdrawn and withheld for political causes against their
will. But when we asked the wage earners themselves, 80 percent of them
told us that they believe that we ought to pass the Paycheck Protection
Act and end this abuse.
When we go to teachers' union households in this case, 84 percent
tell us that we ought to pass the protection, they approve of the law.
And again, when we exclude all the union members and just look at
nonunion households, 80 percent of nonunion households support a
measure that would protect the paychecks of, well, anybody's paycheck;
they do not even have to be a labor union member, but anybody's
paycheck that is subject to being raided by various political
operatives of various sorts.
It is interesting that we would think that with 80 percent of all
voters who favor paycheck protection that we would have the balance,
the 20 percent, that would oppose. Actually, the number is smaller than
that. It is 16 percent. There is a handful of folks in every single
instance who have not made up their minds on the matter, who have not
come to a conclusion yet as to whether we ought to protect the
paychecks of wage earners.
Sixteen percent of all voters say that we ought to leave the law as
it is. Sixteen percent of union members say we ought to leave the law
as it is. Thirteen percent of teachers throughout the country say we
ought to leave the law as it is. Sixteen percent of nonunion members
say we ought to leave it as it is.
Those are small numbers, 16 percent, 13 percent in the case of
teachers, and the comparisons on the other graph are very similar. But
it is odd how powerful this minority of voters seem to be here in the
halls of the United States Congress. Because these are the people who
won when we took the last vote here in Washington. These are the folks
who were represented who earned more votes in Congress than the people
in these tall columns.
So we wonder why that might be. And the reason is because what
happens with campaign laws as they are today, which allows wages to be
raided and a portion of those wages to be redirected toward political
causes without the consent of the wage earner, as we have this 80
percent column that is footing the bill for union political causes, and
only 16 percent, this small minority here, actually approve of how
those dollars are spent.
{time} 2015
So you take money from this big column here and you spend it to
empower the small minority there. The small minority there turns around
and gives that cash in many cases to Members of Congress, to candidates
who are running for office, to governors, to city council members, to
county commissioners, to anyone who is sympathetic to their special
interest causes.
Once again, I say, I am really not opposed at all to unions being
involved in the political process. If they want to give their cash to
candidates who are sympathetic to them, that is great. That is what
democracy is all about. That is what industrial democracy is all about.
That is what is being part of a union is all about, too. But the money
ought to be raised legitimately.
[[Page H4701]]
It ought to be raised credibly. It ought to be raised voluntarily.
That is why the Paycheck Protection Act is such a central and essential
part of any debate we propose to have here on the floor of the House
with respect to campaign finance.
Now, there are lots of issues we can discuss. Again, you will hear
all kinds of particular topics of debate, about whether we ought to
have spending limits, where candidates can only spend a certain amount
of money. Some people here in Congress support the notion of having the
Government finance campaigns. Some people think that all we need to do
is maintain full and open disclosure and timely disclosure so that
everyone knows and understands where a candidate's cash comes from in a
timely manner. Some think we ought to cap the amount of money that
people can give to the political process, really to limit the extent to
which an individual can participate in politics, in the democratic
process here in America.
But I think before we get to any of those discussions, before we get
to any of those debates, we ought to be able to agree that the 80
percent of wage earners in America who think their paychecks ought to
be protected should at least be considered here in Washington, should
at least be considered in some minor way by the Members of the House. I
hope we can convert that to consideration in a major way where we will
actually respond positively and affirmatively with a Paycheck
Protection Act as part of this overall campaign finance debate that
will reach out to hard-working wage earners, that will reach out to the
mother and father who are working extra hours, perhaps right now, maybe
two jobs, trying to make ends meet, to pay the high taxes that this
government maintains, that will reach out to those individuals and tell
them that we are just going to make sure that you do not end up
contributing to a political cause without your knowledge, and that
politics in America continues to be voluntary.
There are a lot of people involved in this debate. A lot of people
have a lot to say about it. A lot of people who are undecided, those
hard-working rank-and-file union members and wage earners who are
hoping tonight, maybe watching and maybe paying attention to what goes
on here in Congress because they care, those individuals who are hoping
that we will vote for them for a change, that we will reach out to them
and that we will ignore those minority of union bosses, we will ignore
that little 13 and 16 percent column that I showed you, and instead pay
attention to the average hard-working person in America. That we will
protect their wages, and we will construct a campaign system here in
America that will earn their confidence.
Mr. Speaker, with that I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay), the distinguished minority whip.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me and
I really appreciate the gentleman from Colorado taking this special
order. What he is doing is so right. The best part of what the
gentleman from Colorado is doing is he is trying to participate. I
think it is rather fascinating that we are here tonight when we should
be debating campaign reform under an open rule process, where every
Member can have the opportunity to offer the kinds of amendments that
that Member cares to offer and every Member get to offer their own
substitutes, unfortunately we are not doing that. What we are doing is
we are in special orders talking about an issue that is very important
to both of us. But we are being held hostage once again by what I think
quite frankly is a situation that the Democrats have found themselves
in. It is the same sort of situation when the dog chases the big dump
truck down the street and catches the dump truck, he does not know what
to do with the dump truck. Well, we have been criticized by the
Democrats and some organizations for not having open and honest debate
on campaign reform for months, mainly in my opinion to cover up the
fact that the administration and the Democrat National Committee have
broken campaign law, and so it is an old political ploy that you go
from breaking campaign law, and the way to shift the focus of the
American people is to all of a sudden be great reformers of campaigns
and campaign law.
But here we are in a special order as the gentleman knows. I just
asked the question, why do the Democrats not want to support an open
rule on campaign reform? I mean, we had every intention of bringing a
rule to the floor this evening that would open up the process, allow
all kinds of amendments, really have an open debate in this House, and
frankly it started with a very good debate last week. I thought it was
very helpful. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) who has the
base bill presented his side, everybody was presenting their sides, we
were getting ready to have this debate. Yet all of a sudden the rule is
not good enough. Members of the minority party asked for an open
process in campaign reform. They even demanded it. And when we first
announced that we would have an open rule, my colleagues were
exuberant.
The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), Mr. Speaker, said, and I quote,
this is great, this is exciting, after learning that we would bring an
open rule to the floor.
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said it was a great day
for democracy.
Fred Wertheimer of Common Cause said, and I quote, it was a real
breakthrough.
But now these same so-called reformers are complaining because this
debate will be too open for their tastes. Apparently the only kind of
open debate that they want is debate on their proposals and no other
proposal of Members of the House. In their minds the only reforms worth
real discussion are their reforms. This attitude is typical of the
wider debate that is going on here. The so-called reformers want to
shut down this political discussion in America. Now they want to shut
down discussions of issues on this House floor. In my view, the real
reason we are having this debate at all is because of the abuses that
the Clinton campaign had in the last election. In my opinion, Democrats
oppose this open rule for one reason and one reason only. It will allow
us to vote on reforms dealing with the Clinton scandals of 1996.
Mr. Speaker, the Clinton Democrats remind me of the boy who killed
both of his parents and then begged for mercy because he was an orphan.
The Clinton campaign brazenly broke campaign laws and then begged for
mercy claiming that the campaign system was broken. This open rule that
we wanted to bring to the floor earlier this evening would have allowed
us to vote on an amendment that would prevent fund-raising in churches
and in temples.
The open rule that we wanted to bring here earlier this evening would
have allowed us to vote on an amendment that will demonstrate that
controlling legal authority prevents politicians from raising money in
government buildings.
The rule also would have allowed an amendment closing a huge loophole
in the Shays-Meehan substitute that would allow donations from foreign
nationals to State and local campaigns and non-Federal PACs. That rule
would have allowed us to fix that gaping hole in the Shays-Meehan bill.
The rule would have also allowed us to deal with the problem of
illegal foreign money and illegal foreign voting. In short, this rule
would have allowed us to debate a whole host of issues dealing with so-
called reform.
Mr. Speaker, Shays-Meehan is not synonymous with reform. It is
synonymous with suppression. Now they want a new rule, written on their
terms, allowing only them to debate what they want to debate. I do not
think this House is going to stand for this kind of inconsistency.
Last week we defeated a constitutional amendment authored by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the minority leader, that would
have allowed Congress to limit spending for the first time. The
gentleman from Missouri, the author, told us a constitutional amendment
was necessary, because, in his words, ``Neither Congress nor the States
have any constitutional authority to limit expenditures, independent
issue advocacy or uncoordinated expenditures. The current explosion in
third-party spending is simply beyond our reach to legislate.''
Yet Shays-Meehan does just that. It attempts to legislate control of
public spending and speech. We should debate
[[Page H4702]]
this bill in an open process. We should be able to amend this bill in a
manner that the rule allows. We should not let the Democrats cover up
the Clinton-Gore scandals. We should support this rule and the previous
question that allows Members of this House to do their job, to bring to
this floor amendments and substitutes that reflect their position on
campaign reform, whether it be the position of the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), who has taken a very constructive approach
in the freshman bill being carried by the gentleman from Arkansas, or
any other piece, the substitute of the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Bob
Schaffer). We should have open and honest debate. That is what we
wanted to do. But now all of a sudden, in the 11th hour, when we were
about to start 20 hours of debate, tonight until midnight, tomorrow
from 1 in the afternoon until midnight and all day Friday, all of a
sudden we cannot pass a rule because it does not fit in somebody's
little box. I just think it is really unfortunate that we had an
opportunity to start this debate and now we are stymied by it.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado for
yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the distinguished majority whip from Texas
and my friend from Arkansas and others of us are here on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, just to underscore the point, and I think this
photograph says it all. Mr. Speaker, there are three words that would
bring about genuine campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, those three
words are these: Obey existing laws.
I marvel at the cynicism of the punditocracy, to coin a new phrase in
this town, so intent on changing the subject, so intent on saying, and
I really hate to use this analogy, given my affection for cookies, but
saying to those with their hands caught in the cookie jar, ``Oh, look
over here, there's a broken glass elsewhere in the kitchen.'' Or to
say, in case of emergency, break the glass for the standard rhetoric
that everybody does it.
Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth, for everyone
does not do it. Most of those who serve in this body attempt to adhere
to existing law. But, as has been chronicled by my colleague from
Colorado, what is very interesting, a very curious thing happened on
the way to campaign finance reform a quarter of a century ago. You have
to hand it to the left for being pretty crafty politically.
``Let's ensure,'' said members of the left, ``that organized labor
and the Washington bosses are never held accountable.''
I would commend to my colleagues and those, Mr. Speaker, who join us
electronically from coast to coast and beyond, a study from Rutgers
University, which pointed out that the widely reported figure of $35
million used by Boss Sweeney and others of his ilk to try and influence
the congressional elections of 1996 was a grossly underreported number.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the Rutgers study pointed out that the Washington
bosses spent between $300 million and $500 million to try and buy
Congress in 1996.
Now, Mr. Speaker, it is fair to ask how on earth could they do that.
Two reasons, Mr. Speaker, one alluded to by my colleague from Colorado.
Understand full well, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues, that through
compulsory dues, working men and women supply the union bosses here in
Washington, D.C. with vast moneys on an annual basis. How much? Well,
according to these studies, I have seen anywhere between 8 and $11
billion.
So indeed, Mr. Speaker, one-half billion dollars is pocket change to
those who really attempt to buy the Congress. Yet some people, well-
meaning in their intent, and others cynically looking for political
cover, would have you believe that this most fundamental reform,
restoring the constitutional rights of workers and for once making
those who claim to be friends of the working man adhere to this basic
notion of keeping their dirty hands out of the working man's pocket, to
take money from the working man to give to causes with which that
working person may fundamentally disagree, sadly those minions of the
status quo are given cover to claim campaign finance reform.
{time} 2030
Those protesting the loudest are headquartered at the other end of
Pennsylvania Avenue. Not only ironically, Mr. Speaker, the Chief
Executive of this Nation, but the Vice President of the United States,
who has been heard within recent months to offer this buzz phrase when
asked about his direct violation of Federal law, and do not take my
word for it, Mr. Speaker, take a look at the memo from former White
House counsel Judge Abner Mikva who sought to forbid those types of
campaign phone calls from the White House.
The Vice President of the United States told the press corps in this
town and the American people, and I quote:
``My legal counsel informs me there is no controlling legal
authority.''
How cynical, Mr. Speaker. How tragic, and how fundamentally wrong
because, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Vice President and to the
American people, yes, there is a controlling legal authority. It is
called the Constitution of the United States which gives this body
oversight of the executive branch.
And indeed, Mr. Speaker, how much more constructive it would be if we
did not have so many colleagues fall for the siren song of the pundits
who often find themselves affiliated with the left to throw up this mud
and this dust under the guise of reform. How honorable it would be if
we moved toward a system that would rid us of these Orwellian
definitions of reform that do more to repress the constitutional rights
of American citizens than anything dreamt of. How interesting it is,
Mr. Speaker, that many on the left would say, if we move to protect the
rights of workers through a paycheck protection act, that would mean
any type of agreement on campaign finance reform. To use their words,
Mr. Speaker, it would be dead on arrival.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Doolittle) and want to make sure we save time here
for the gentleman from Arkansas who is leading the freshman effort on
campaign finance reform.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I just wondered if I can get the gentleman's comment
on the Minority Leader's statement as reprinted in Time Magazine last
year:
What we have is two important values in direct conflict,
freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns and a
healthy democracy. You can't have both.
Is that true? I ask the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) does he
agree with that?
Mr. HAYWORTH. That is as false as false can be.
The Minority Leader demonstrates in that statement why he will remain
the Minority Leader if, in fact, he remains in this Chamber because I
believe exactly the opposite is true.
Mr. Speaker, we should trust the American people, and that may shock
my colleagues here, Mr. Speaker, having been the No. 1 target of the
Washington union bosses, having had $2.1 million pumped into my
campaign for my adversary to falsely characterize my record. But you
see in America, Mr. Speaker, I believe that people even have the right
to disagree with me to the point that they can choose to
mischaracterize the record because I believe as Abraham Lincoln said:
The American people, once fully informed, will make the right
decision, and fully informing them is up to me in my role as a
candidate and as a Member of Congress and as a citizen of the United
States.
So what we have here, Mr. Speaker and the gentleman from California,
is a cynical, sadly misguided attempt to explain to us how we should
abridge constitutional freedoms.
Now I guess it should come as no surprise since we have already seen
these supposed champions of the working man thrust their hands into the
pockets of working people across the country uninvited to take coercive
dues to go to political campaigns with which those working people
disagree. I say how sad and how cynical and how important it is, Mr.
Speaker, to shine the light of truth on that hypocrisy and that
wrongheaded notion which may be popular in the editorial reams of
certain liberal eastern dailies but is just plain wrong in the
shipyards and the construction yards of America.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman from Colorado would yield, I just say
everything the gentleman says I totally
[[Page H4703]]
agree with, but the problem here is that the corrective action that the
gentleman might want to take, and there are other Members of this House
who want to take the kinds of corrective actions that the gentleman
claims are abuses, we cannot do because the openness of the minority
has been thwarted. They are thwarting open rules because they will not
allow us to pass a rule that allows the amendments that the gentleman
might be able to offer in order to correct these abuses.
Mr. HAYWORTH. To simply respond, it should come as no surprise my two
friends in the well preceded those of us here in the Congress of the
United States, and we realize for 40 years, and it eventually caught up
with the left, the notion of saying one thing and doing another led to
the change in this Chamber. And what was the first thing that was
passed by a new common-sense conservative Congress on the first day of
the 104th Congress? This notion: that Congress people should live under
the laws every other American lives under.
So it should come as no surprise that the tired, discredited
architects of cynicism on the left would come to this Chamber and under
the guise of openness seek to abridge the debate, the debate which
should go on in the people's House. It is the ultimate irony, and
though we will have the predictable cacophony of support from those
allied in the left and the editorial rooms of the major eastern
dailies, the American people, Mr. Speaker, will see that for what it
is, a crass, cynical attempt to change the subject when again.
And I think it bears repeating, if the American people desire a
campaign finance reform, it comes in three simple words:
Obey existing law.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. With that in mind I yield the floor
over here to the gentleman from Arkansas who has led the effort on
bringing the base bill on campaign finance to the floor, and hopefully
we will have a chance to eventually consider it.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Colorado, and I
want to express my appreciation to you for your leadership in our class
as well as on the issue that you believe in that I have supported which
is paycheck protection. And I also want to compliment my good friend
from Texas who has really fought hard for an open and fair debate. And
as I have gone through this procedure in a short fashion, I guess I
have come to appreciate the importance of debate, and my friend and I
both had a good debate on the floor of the House earlier this week on
campaign finance reform coming from two different standpoints, and as
we stand here, my friend from Arizona, we all have different viewpoints
on campaign finance reform in how we deal with this important subject,
and so we need a fair and open debate.
And I think, as we debate this subject, it is good for the American
public and it is good for the Members of Congress that we share our
ideas, and ideas will ultimately triumph, and so even though I would
like to move this process along, and I am extraordinarily disappointed
that we are not here tonight debating this important subject as a full
body, I do hope that we can pass this rule, that we can move on to the
debate.
And I know that with the disagreement that we have a number of
amendments that have been offered to the base bill. This will increase
the debate, but we can complete this in regular order if we pass the
rule and we move along with it.
And the amendments that have been offered have been from both sides.
My friend from Texas offered a number of substantive amendments to the
legislation, but the Democrats also on the other side of the aisle have
offered 74 amendments, have gone to the Committee on Rules and asked
for 74 amendments to be made in order, and you look, from even the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), one of the lead sponsors of
a bill has offered 22 amendments to the base text and to the different
substitutes that have been offered.
And so I think it is important that we simply pass the rule, let us
move the debate. I hope that many of these are withdrawn as time goes
on. I think that reason triumphs, and I think it will, but we all need
to show the American people that we, as a Congress, can debate it, can
make a decision and that we can move on.
As my friend mentioned, I support campaign finance reform, the
freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen bill that has broad support on both
sides of the aisle. I hope that it can ultimately pass because I
believe it meets the test of constitutionality. I believe that it is
reasonable reform but is significant reform the American public will
respond to and still protect the First Amendment which we all believe
in.
So I thank the gentleman for yielding, I thank the friend from Texas
for his work on this, and I hope that we can pass the rule tomorrow,
that we can move on to debate and by Independence Day we will have done
something on campaign finance reform that is good for the American
public.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would yield, I appreciate
the gentleman from Arkansas being here and talking about this because
he is being honest and forthright about his position. And I have
complimented him in the past even though he and I do not agree on his
bill. He has been very honest about the fact that we need to move
forward and open up this debate.
I think it is very cynical, and I know what is going to happen. You
are going to have my friend from Connecticut and others go to the press
and say, Oh, my goodness, it's not moving as fast as we think it was.
There's so many amendments. We know what they're trying to do. They're
trying to bring dilatory amendments to the floor and trying to stretch
out the process.
The point here is that the process that they demanded, open and
honest debate, forced us, not just us that are against the Shays-Meehan
bill, but as the gentleman from Arkansas says, other Democrats and
everyone to protect ourselves, making sure that we bring every
amendment that we can think of to the floor because the process said
you had to put it in the Record, your amendment in the Record, so that
the Committee on Rules could look at it and give you a waiver from a
point of order on germaneness.
So of course there are going to be a lot of amendments. No one says
that every amendment is going to be offered. But Members will protect
their rights to offer amendments by putting them into the Record.
So to hide behind this notion that there is 200 amendments, so many,
and then they do not want those amendments to be brought to the floor
because they want a new process, a whole new rule, they want it their
way, is hiding behind the fact that they do not want an open process
because they are scared to death about standing up in the light of day.
You know, when we called their bluff, their turning tail and running,
that is what is happening here. They are running from an open and
honest process, a process that they have demanded, and I think it is
really sad that we have come to this point in this whole process.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Colorado, and I
appreciate the input of my good friend from Arkansas and our friend,
the distinguished Majority Whip. But again I think we need to come back
to this point again and again so that everyone understands this, Mr.
Speaker, so there can be no doubt real campaign reform means obeying
existing law.
And, Mr. Speaker, I note with interest an article which appeared in
the Washington Post on Tuesday, July 9 of this year. The banner
headline: ``Campaign Finance Probe, 94 Who Aren't Talking.''
Count them, Mr. Speaker, 94. Ninety-four individuals have either fled
or pled. That is to say they have either left the country or they have
claimed their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. No
controlling legal authority indeed. This cynicism, which betrays the
rule of law from those who are supposed to be the stewards of our
Constitution from those who are charged, Mr. Speaker, with being the
chief magistrate or the chief executive or occupying a position of
trust secondary only to that position of Chief Executive is absolutely
cynical, hypocritical and just plain wrong.
Mr. Speaker, the American people and this great Nation have been
endowed with many blessings, but chief
[[Page H4704]]
among them I would say this evening in addition to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness is a good solid dose of common sense, and
while there are those who try to fool most of the people most of the
time, Mr. Speaker, in this they will not prevail. So even as this
Chamber attempts to seek an open rule for a full, fair, complete,
comprehensive honest debate on campaign finance reform, so too is it
incumbent upon this body to exercise its legitimate rights of
oversight.
{time} 2045
Because indeed, the ultimate irony, Mr. Speaker and my colleagues,
are charges that have appeared in the press in recent days involving
the curious timing of transfers of missile defense technologies to the
People's Republic of China; the end result, Mr. Speaker, being that
over one dozen American cities are now targeted by Chinese nuclear
missiles.
This is a disturbing fact which should shake our freedom-loving
people to their very core, because, Mr. Speaker, it transcends politics
as usual and what Drew Pearson and later Jack Anderson called the
Washington merry-go-round.
Mr. Speaker, this is no game. This is no debating competition to win
points. This goes to the heart of our national survival providing for
the common defense, and I look forward to the day when a select
committee will examine these, as Senator Shelby and others have done in
the other body, to get to the bottom of this. Goodness knows, the
headlines are as relevant today when the outlaw nation of North Korea
attempts to deliver an ultimatum to the United States of America saying
that, Mr. Speaker, yeah, we sold missiles to other countries. What are
you going to do about it? Oh, and if you want us to stop, we want to
extort some money from the American people. How shameful.
But again, Mr. Speaker, sadly, we have seen that the burdens of
deliberation and leadership and providing for the common defense rests
uneasily upon the collective shoulders of this administration and their
apologists in the press, and those who would enter this Chamber. How we
need a clear, consistent policy which says extortion, either by foreign
governments such as the North Koreans, or by other foreign governments
attempting to subvert our political process, will not be tolerated by
the United States of America, and this body fulfilling its
constitutional responsibilities will stand and deliver in the clear
light of day to get to the bottom of this, no matter how incredible the
findings may become, no matter how shocking the truth may be.
Let me state for the Record, Mr. Speaker, it is my fervent hope that
there is nothing to these allegations, because they are almost
unspeakable. And those who would greet these with cynicism or cat calls
from the press do this Nation a disservice, for constitutionally it is
our responsibility as the citizens of the United States to form a more
perfect union and to provide for the common defense that we stand as
sentinels at the gates of our constitutional republic, and that we get
to the bottom of these disturbing malodorous, troubling allegations.
Yes, we believe, Mr. Speaker, in that unique American notion of
jurisprudence and fairness, that all are innocent until guilt is
proven, and yet, Mr. Speaker, the headlines scream to us, and mercurial
actions of timing compel us to say, what on earth has gone on here?
What has transpired with those who are to be the custodians of our
national defense? What has happened to the veracity of the act of
raising your right hand and taking an oath, whether an oath of office,
Mr. Speaker, or an oath before a jury to tell the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
Forbid it, Mr. Speaker, that in this Nation there are actually those
who would suggest that those who perhaps have lied under oath should
have the right to do so in civil litigation concerning personal
conduct, and, Mr. Speaker, we wonder what transpires in terms of
respect of the rule of law. And we wonder why we see troubles in the
schools and in the streets and with the breakdown of the family unit.
Mr. Speaker, our constitutional republic offers a representative form
of government, and I would suggest that oftentimes this form of
government is as a mirror to the citizenry. And if we allow the rule of
law to fall into such disrespect, then history will show that on our
heads will rest the shame for the unraveling of the rule of law and the
pursuit of justice.
We dare not allow that to happen, Mr. Speaker. We must answer these
questions, and those who serve the executive branch, Mr. Speaker, would
be well served to, quoting now, offer those answers sooner rather than
later and recognize the fact that we are entitled to the full story.
Campaign finance reform indeed, Mr. Speaker. The American people and
those who would serve the American people in seats of government should
obey existing laws.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, is it not interesting that
the investigations that are taking place where we have individuals who
are refusing to testify unless they are granted immunity are being
prevented from telling their story here in Congress by those who know
that there is a story to be exposed, that there is something to be
shown by exposing the light of truth upon these terrible allegations
that the gentleman referred to. And like the gentleman, I am hopeful
that there is no foundation to these allegations.
But the gentleman is absolutely right when we see the continual
stories that are being uncovered by the press, by the media, that are
being admitted to by the White House and other places, that these same
individuals who are trying to constrain the rights of individuals in
America, free American citizens to speak freely at election time and
participate in the election process, are also the same ones who are
willing to build a stonewall, to do nothing in the face of the
allegations that are very serious that seem to suggest just in terms of
the timeliness of waivers being signed on U.S. satellite and targeting
technology making its way to the Chinese military government, at the
same time as these contributions made their way to the Clinton-Gore
campaign, that these allegations should not go investigated.
That is the position of our opponents on the other side, over on the
Democrat side. They would love to stall these investigations. They
would love to prevent us in the Republican Party and the Republican
majority from moving forward on creating laws that would prevent those
kinds of occasions to occur, or even the suggestion of those events to
occur again. Instead, their answer is to constrain the participation of
freedom-loving Americans. It is just appalling.
But that is the debate that is before us. That is what is here for us
to win or to lose if we are not tenacious enough to stand our ground
and to win this debate and to keep coming back night after night after
night and talk about the real scandals that have been alleged over in
the White House and the real opportunities before us here on the floor
of this Chamber to construct a campaign finance law that really does
restore integrity and encourages more full participation in the
political process by average rank and file Americans.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I concur wholeheartedly with my colleague
from Colorado and again would just note that sadly, there are those who
draw the wrong lessons from history, those who believe that somehow, to
use the words of my dear friend from Colorado, that by erecting the
great Stone Wall of China down Pennsylvania Avenue from the White House
to this hallowed Chamber that somehow, by placing partisan concerns
over patriotism, somehow the people are well served.
Indeed, cynics from the Watergate era a quarter of a century ago
seemed to draw the lesson that if anyone steps forward on the other
side of the aisle, if they step forward collectively to adhere to the
rule of law, somehow they will suffer losses at the ballot box.
So, Mr. Speaker, tonight I again renew my call. At long last, is
there not one, is there not one to step forward from the other side, to
say, let us adhere to the rule of law and these allegations are so
disturbing that we owe it to the citizenry, not as Republicans or
Democrats, but as Americans, to get to the bottom of this. Is there not
even one who will stand for this?
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I want to go back to this
chart that the gentleman from California who joined us earlier let us
in on.
[[Page H4705]]
This is a quote from the Democrat leader, the floor leader for the
Democrat Party here on the House floor on the notion of campaign
finance reform back in February. This was reported in Time Magazine on
February 3rd, and the quote is as follows: ``What we have is two
important values in direct conflict: Freedom of speech and our desire
for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. You can't have both.''
What are they talking about? Freedom of speech refers to the desire
by the left wing of the United States Congress to impose laws under
their sick version of campaign finance, which restricts the ability of
free citizens, American citizens, business owners, school teachers,
union Members, to speak freely and contribute as much as they want to
the political process, whether it is cash or whether it is any other
activity. Usually it is cash that they are talking about, those folks
who think that we ought to place a cap on what somebody can contribute
and participate in the political process, and the second part of this,
our desire for healthy campaigns.
Well, we know from the Democrat side of the aisle what constitutes
healthy campaigns for them is suppressing the ability of entrepreneurs,
of capitalists, of business owners, of hard-working Americans to
participate to the fullest extent in the political process and instead,
allow for labor union bosses, for political operatives, sometimes from
other countries in the case of the previous example from China, to
participate to whatever extent they want, and to go unimpeded, to go
unimpeded by the Paycheck Protection Act, which guarantees voluntary
political contributions, to go unimpeded by a serious level of
investigation here in the United States Congress as to whether Chinese
campaign contributions have contributed to the signing of waivers that
allowed U.S. targeting and satellite technology to make its way into
the hands of Chinese Communist military leaders. Those folks have no
restrictions under the Democrat ideas. Only freedom-loving Americans,
rank and file citizens, taxpaying citizens, those are the individuals
that they would propose to constrict the free speech.
Well, those are interesting ideas. They are awful ideas, if someone
asks me, but nonetheless they are important to raise here on the House
floor because they do draw a distinction in the vast difference, the
huge conflicted vision of what freedom and liberty means in America,
their vision of repression for American citizens, restriction on the
ability to speak freely and our vision of full and honest and open
political participation by Americans, by American citizens, by
individuals who have earned the right under the status of citizenship
to participate fully in the political process, and I am sorry if that
does not involve Communist Chinese military leaders, or that does not
involve union bosses stealing cash from unsuspecting wage-earners.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, indeed, this is a phenomenon where those
who would claim to champion the rights of working Americans can do more
for those working Americans by getting their uninvited hands out of
their pockets. If that is done and if, Mr. Speaker, we as a people and
those of us who would serve in public office at both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue would obey existing laws, we would see genuine
campaign finance reform.
Mr. BOB SCHAFFER of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Arizona for joining me tonight. The others that were here, the
gentleman from Texas, the gentleman from Arkansas, and the gentleman
from California. Mr. Speaker, thank you for indulging the freshman
class. We will be back one week from tonight.
____________________