[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.

                          ____________________