[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 98 (Tuesday, July 21, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5966-H5967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




CALLING FOR BIPARTISAN HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION, AND FOR SUPPORT OF THE 
              MEEHAN-SHAYS CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM MEASURE

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 21, 1997, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there is a Democrat health care bill and 
there is a Republican health care bill, but ultimately, if we are to 
have a bill, there will have to be a Republican and Democrat bill. I 
urge both sides on this issue, once the posturing of our various 
positions is known, to work in a bipartisan agreement to pass 
meaningful health care reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I stand before the Members to thank this Chamber for its 
support for campaign finance reform legislation that is moving before 
the House; the Meehan-Shays bill as it is sometimes referred to, or 
McCain-Feingold.
  We have had an extraordinary process that has allowed Members to 
debate this issue fairly extensively, and before last night we had 55 
amendments. We have dealt with 20 of them. We dealt with the one that 
would have been a killer amendment, and I appreciate the House 
defeating it.
  The bottom line to campaign finance reform is that we need to ban 
soft money, not just on the Federal level but on the State level, for 
Federal elections. Soft money are the unlimited sums that individuals, 
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups give to the 
political parties, unlimited sums. They ultimately get rerouted right 
back to the candidates to help them in their election, making a mockery 
of our campaign finance laws.
  The second major element, and the Meehan-Shays bill deals with soft 
money both on the Federal and State level, for Federal elections, it 
also deals with the sham issue ads and calls them what they are, 
campaign ads.
  It does not mean that if it is a campaign ad, people do not have 
their voice. They just come under the campaign law. They have to 
disclose contributions. Contributions are limited but expenditures are 
not, because the Supreme Court has found that you cannot limit 
expenditures.
  What we do is recognize that a sham issue ad that clearly is a 
campaign ad, 60 days prior to an election is a campaign ad if it 
mentions the name of the person or shows a picture or the name of the 
individual, and is intended to affect the election.
  We also codify the court decision on Beck. That was the decision 
where an individual who was not a member of a union argued that he 
should not have to make political contributions in his agency fee to 
the union to be used for candidates that a person opposed. The court 
heard this case and determined that if you are not a member of a union, 
your money does not have to go for political purposes, and therefore, 
your agency fee is less than what the union fee would be.
  We also significantly improve FEC disclosure and enforcement, 
particularly as it relates to disclosure. Any expenditure over $1,000, 
20 days to an election, has to be noted within 24 hours, and then is 
put on the Internet.
  We require, and in terms of enforcement, we give the FEC the ability 
to dismiss cases that do not have any merit, and to take up cases more 
quickly that do, before an election, and we also provide for audits of 
campaign expenditures.
  In addition, we make sure it is clear in the law that foreign money 
cannot be raised, and that we cannot raise money on government 
property. Members may think that is the law today, but soft money is 
not deemed campaign money, and therefore, does not come under the 
Pendleton Act.
  So many have argued that they can accept soft money from foreigners, 
and on government property they can raise money. They do not want 
people to know they are doing this, because they know morally it is 
wrong, but legally and technically it is not. That is why we need to 
amend the law.
  Mr. Speaker, we have, as I said earlier, 55 bills or amendments 
coming before this Chamber. We dealt with 20 last night. I would like 
to say that we have dealt with a few before. One of the things we are 
trying hard to do is, as both Republicans and Democrats, to find where 
we have common ground.

[[Page H5967]]

  We found common ground with those who supported the commission bill, 
and urged them to vote against their own substitute commission bill, 
but then support the commission bill, attach it to our bill. Also the 
gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith) took her 6 amendments 
last night and put them into one, and helped us write a better bill to 
guarantee, without question, and to satisfy those groups that are 
concerned, that voter guides are in fact legal and do not come under 
the campaign law.
  There is no ambiguity on this issue. She wrote the law in a tough 
way. We accepted her six amendments into one, and thank her for her 
work in this area. She really has been a leader on campaign finance 
reform, and has played a tremendous role in helping us move this bill 
forward.

                          ____________________