[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 107 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6937-H6945]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and rule 
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 2183.

                              {time}  1724


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 
to reform the financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, 
and for other purposes, with Mrs. Emerson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Friday, July 
31, 1998, the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. 
English) to amendment No. 13 offered by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) had been disposed of.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of Friday, July 17, 1998, no other 
amendment to amendment No. 13 is in order.
  Pursuant to the order of the House of today, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
each control an additional 20 minutes of debate on the amendment of the 
gentleman from Connecticut.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 
minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) so that he 
would be allowed to control 10 minutes of time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the 
Members of this Chamber and to all my colleagues that this is truly an 
historic opportunity to restore integrity to the political process and 
vote for the Meehan-Shays substitute, which will ban soft money, the 
unlimited sums, from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other 
interest groups, recognize sham issue ads for truly what they are, 
campaign ads, improve FEC disclosure and enforcement and establish a 
commission to further study reforms to our campaign system.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I am pleased to say that the House, in an orderly fashion, has 
discussed a number of issues surrounding campaign reform and that we 
reach a point tonight in which a major decision will be made by the 
House, and we reach this point almost entirely with an open rule and 
mutually agreed upon unanimous consent, which indicates that even on an 
issue as difficult as this, if reasonable people of goodwill will sit 
down and resolve the issues that separate them, the House can in fact 
move forward.
  This particular substitute, the Shays-Meehan bill, has gone through a 
number of permutations over the years. At one time, Political Action 
Committees were seen to be the primary enemy of the Republic, and the 
current version views the fundamental erosion of the American 
experiences tied to what is often called soft money.
  Sometimes the terms that are used in political debate, although we 
have all grown accustomed to them, are sometimes confusing to people 
who do not make this their life's work.
  The idea of hard money is simply money raised under the Federal 
Election Act associated directly with elections, would be hard money. 
Other money would be so-called soft money. What this bill attempts to 
do is to quote, unquote ban soft money from Federal elections.
  One of the difficulties in attempting to do something like this is 
that we had better have a definition and a ban that works for all 
evenly and equally, and I think one of the fundamental flaws in the 
Shays-Meehan bill is that it simply does not do that. Although it 
purports to ban soft money, it bans soft money only in regard, for 
example, to political parties.
  Political parties are unique institutions in the American political 
experience. They are the only institutions

[[Page H6938]]

that program public policy, work for getting particular candidates 
elected, and what makes them unique is they nominate those individuals 
for political office.
  There are a number of other groups who carry on similar activities 
but not in total. For example, labor unions are very interested in 
legislation and they attempt to influence the outcome of it. They 
program public policy in terms of what ought to be the appropriate 
presentations and they spend money to try to get candidates elected but 
they do not nominate candidates. That makes unions different than 
political parties.

                              {time}  1730

  But ever since the 1970s, political parties have been treated as 
though they are super political action committees or they are the only 
ones involved in the political process and that by controlling 
political parties, you can control the political process.
  Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you examine 
Shays-Meehan on the question of, quote-unquote, soft money and its 
control of soft money by political parties and how it deals with soft 
money vis-a-vis labor unions, you will see exactly the point that I am 
making. Although soft money is banned for political parties in 
registration and get out the vote, soft money is not banned for labor 
unions in voter registration and getting out the vote. It is 
interesting that where this legislation prohibits the party from 
spending money, it in fact allows labor unions to spend money, the same 
defined money in the same activities in which political parties are 
prohibited.
  It just seems to me that if you are going to make an evenhanded, 
honest attempt to control what seems to be one of the primary evils in 
the system today, quote-unquote, according to this legislation, soft 
money, that you should create a structure which handles soft money in 
all its permutations, from whatever institution is utilizing it, so 
that you do not tilt the playing field in one direction or the other.
  One of the fundamental flaws of the Shays-Meehan bill is that it in 
fact inhibits and prohibits political parties who want to influence 
candidates and legislation from using soft money but it in no way 
inhibits labor unions from influencing legislation and candidates with 
that same soft money. We will be looking at other areas, I believe, 
that are fundamental flaws as well as we move through this debate.
  Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has played such a 
critical role particularly over the last year and a half in making sure 
that we got to this point in time.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Chairman, this vote is a test of this institution, 
but even more it is a test of ourselves. We have heard it said the 
public does not care, but that misreads what the public is really 
saying in oft-quoted surveys, that they believe those in power do not 
care how the public feels or what they want done, reform of a system 
where money too often counts more than the public's vote or voice.
  The opposition has invoked in this debate first amendment free speech 
protections, though on other occasions they have not hesitated to vote 
for proposals to amend that vital part of the Constitution. Shays-
Meehan does not hinder free speech; indeed, it protects the voices of 
regular citizens by controlling large sums of unregulated, undisclosed 
money now drowning out their voices.
  We in the political maelstrom know better than anyone else that the 
status quo in financing campaigns is not working. Money, once said the 
mother's milk of politics, is increasingly becoming its poison. Shays-
Meehan is a serious effort to stem and to begin to reverse this flow. 
It requires our support.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell), the professor from Stanford, really one of 
the most important leaders in this effort for campaign finance reform.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
words. This is a constitutional and appropriate piece of legislation. 
Shays-Meehan bans soft money, recognizes the phony issue ads for what 
they are, strengthens disclosure, and then creates a commission to 
study all of the remaining issues, and there are many that are left in 
this campaign finance problem. But I have been called upon today by my 
good friend and colleague to speak a word or two about the 
Constitution.
  It is important for every Member of this body to make her or his own 
judgment as to constitutionality. But it is also important to bear in 
mind that this bill enhances the first amendment freedom of speech. It 
does not restrict it. And here is why. What it does is to allow the 
disclosure, so that we know who is speaking, so that that opportunity 
is not the opportunity to dissemble. It does nothing to restrict the 
content of what one wishes to say. But if one wishes to campaign and 
say things about a candidate 60 days before the election using that 
candidate's name, Shays-Meehan says, ``Own up and tell us who you 
are.'' That, I suggest, enhances first amendment freedoms.
  The Supreme Court has frequently ruled on the question of what the 
first amendment means in this context as in others. What it has said is 
that speech may be regulated where the overwhelming purpose is to 
enhance the communicative purpose. Here that is exactly what Shays-
Meehan does. Under the Federal Election Commission law, people are 
allowed to spend only $1,000 to a candidate, but they have no limit on 
how much they give to a political party, and that political party then 
comes around and works its way to help exactly the same as the 
candidate. And so it says, ``Speak, enhance the freedom of speech by 
disclosure and honesty.''
  Madam Chairman, the most important point in this debate is that we 
honor our commitment to uphold and defend the Constitution. This bill 
does that. I urge my colleagues to exercise their judgment, but not to 
vote ``no'' because of the concern for the Constitution. The bill is 
constitutional. I urge its support.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Did the gentleman mean to say that under the Federal Election Act, 
individuals have no limit whatsoever on the amount they can give to 
political parties?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Madam Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. No, there is still the aggregate overall limit.
  Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman did say there was no limit, and I knew he 
did not intend to convey that there is no limit under the law.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Indeed, if the gentleman will yield further, the limit 
is $25,000; $1,000, however, is the limit for how much you can give to 
a candidate.
  Mr. THOMAS. That is correct. There are clear limits in the law on 
what individuals can give to political parties.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. 
Hutchinson) who has made enormous contributions to the House's ability 
to weigh options in the area of campaign finance reform, one of the 
principal authors of the underlying bill which Shays-Meehan hopes to 
substitute for and we hope it does not, the major sponsor of the 
freshman coalition bill.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time and for his extraordinary leadership in 
structuring this very open debate on campaign finance reform.
  The battle for reform has been a very long journey. Many people in 
this body have been fighting this battle certainly longer than I have. 
I congratulate the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their leadership and for 
the way they have fought the battle for their idea on reform and for 
their legislation that we will vote on today.
  Now, they know that I have a different viewpoint. I have a different 
philosophy when it comes to campaign finance reform. We both believe 
that we should ban soft money to the national political parties. But we 
have disagreements on how far you can push the Constitution. But 
despite that disagreement, I have opposed out of deference to them many 
of the amendments that have been offered so that

[[Page H6939]]

they can have a fair vote on their bill as it comes up on the House 
floor today. But today as we vote on the Shays-Meehan proposal, this is 
not the end of that journey that we began so long ago, but this is 
simply another fork in the road. Today we vote on the Shays-Meehan 
substitute. Tomorrow we very likely will vote on another substitute 
proposal. There are about eight other substitutes that remain 
outstanding. The base bill, the freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen 
reform bill, probably will be voted on on Thursday or Friday of this 
week.
  Today as we vote on the Shays-Meehan proposal, if it receives more 
than a majority, then it will continue on that journey. But we will 
have an opportunity later in this week to join with other reformers and 
to show that the freshman bill offers the best chance for reform, 
offers the best ideas for reform.
  The gentleman from Michigan indicated that this is a test for this 
body, and I agree that it is. But within that test, we can have 
different ideas as to what is the best proposal for reform, what can do 
the most for our country. I submit that the freshman bill, the 
Hutchinson-Allen bill, is the best proposal. Many of the things we do 
together, both the Shays-Meehan proposal and the Hutchinson-Allen bill 
ban soft money to the national political parties. Both bills increase 
disclosure and information to the American public. But there are still 
some differences. I believe the differences boil down to three points.
  First of all, the bills are different as to how they treat the 
Constitution. I respect the gentleman from California, the professor, 
who talked about how this will pass constitutional muster. Well, 
clearly the Supreme Court case of Buckley v. Valeo indicates that it 
will not. But it is the hope of some reformers that, well, they will 
change their mind, they will go a different direction. We believe the 
best chance for reform is not to challenge the Supreme Court but to 
pass a bill that is totally constitutional, and that is different with 
the freshman bill as to how we treat the Constitution.
  Secondly, they are different as to how they treat individuals. They 
both increase information for individuals and ban soft money, but what 
our bill does that is different is that we empower individuals by 
increasing their contribution limit to the rate of inflation. Since the 
last limitation of $1,000 was passed in the mid 1970s, there has not 
been any change, and therefore that contribution limit has been eroded 
by inflation and we empower individuals. We treat individuals 
differently.
  The third difference is to how we treat the States. We treat the 
States different because we believe the States are entitled to make 
some decisions on their own without Federal mandates as to what their 
State parties can and cannot do. We ban the greatest problems to the 
national political parties and the problems that we experienced in the 
last election by banning soft money to the national parties, and 
prohibiting Federal officeholders from raising soft money, certainly 
they cannot do it for the Federal parties but in our bill they cannot 
do it for the States parties, either. And so there are some clear 
differences.
  I would urge my colleagues as we take this next step on the journey 
to remember that there are some options out there, that it is your 
responsibility to pass this test of the American people by not saying 
we are going to pass reform, by saying we are going to pass the best 
reform, constitutional reform, reform that meets the obligation that we 
have to the States, reform that empowers the individual. I believe the 
best opportunity for that will come on Thursday or Friday of this week.
  I urge my colleagues to take this step, but to ask the question, what 
is the reform that we can do the best for the American people? I 
believe in this body there is a majority vote for reform. And so 
probably today we will have a majority vote for the Shays-Meehan bill, 
but I believe there will be another majority vote down the road and we 
can distinguish these two bills and set an example for the American 
people that they will have more confidence in this body.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for the best reform, to take the next 
step of the journey with the freshman bill, the Hutchinson-Allen bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the distinguished minority whip. Let me say 
there are a lot of people responsible for the historic vote that we are 
about to have, but there is no one more responsible, who has worked 
harder on the Shays-Meehan bill than the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. BONIOR. Madam Chairman, I thank my friend for his kind remarks 
and congratulate him on his outstanding effort in leading this effort 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) as well.
  Madam Chairman, months of delay and poison pills and death by 
amendment. The opponents of reform have done everything they can to 
kill off campaign finance reform and keep the spigot of special 
interest money flowing. But special interest money is precisely the 
problem. The American people are tired of campaigns that cost millions 
of dollars. They are sick of seeing their TV sets turned into battle 
zones. And they are disgusted by outsiders with big wallets drowning 
out local candidates, local issues and the voices of local voters. On 
election day, too many Americans are tuning out instead of turning out.
  Today we have a chance to vote on a bill to clean up America's 
elections and restore the faith of the American people. The Meehan-
Shays bill takes a sensible, fair, bipartisan approach. It will outlaw 
the overwhelming torrent of soft money. It will help put an end to the 
sudden anonymous special interest attack ads in the last days of a 
campaign. And most important, it will give our beleaguered electoral 
system back to the people it really belongs to, the voters.

                              {time}  1745

  So I urge my colleagues to support real campaign reform, restore the 
integrity of our system, vote to restore the faith of the American 
people.
  Vote for the Meehan-Shays bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Smith), who has been a campaign reform person going 
way back to her State days as well and has been really in the 
forefront.
  Mrs. LINDA SMITH of Washington. Madam Chairman, I think first we need 
to go back to what the bill does. The most important thing is it stops 
the process of soft money.
  In all of this it is hard to remember what soft money is, but it is a 
process of giving nearly unlimited amounts of money to the party 
organizations that often fund unlimited amounts of really nasty ads 
towards the end of the campaign. But at the bottom of them they do not 
say paid for by a tobacco company or whoever really paid for them, so 
that we really do not know who bought that ad, who is affecting the 
election.
  I think it is important for everyone to remember that is the base of 
this: cleaning up the system so we can know who is paying for 
influencing the elections, not money washed through that we cannot 
track.
  The other thing that this does is it deals with sham ads. It says if 
someone is using the face and the name of someone, it is an 
advertisement. It is not just informing the electorate, but it is 
advertising, and it does not say we cannot do it, it just says we have 
to come under the law and report it: who they are, what they are 
spending.
  The other thing this bill does is something we all want. It increases 
the disclosure. It simply says we need to tell timely who is paying for 
what, and we need to inform the folks so they know again who is paying 
for elections and make sure that everyone knows that on a timely basis.
  Then another thing it does that I think is real important is it 
establishes a commission to go on, to come back and tell us and give us 
recommendations, but it does not just fall to a commission as an excuse 
for doing nothing. This place is pretty great at coming up with 
commissions because we do not have the backbone to do what we need to 
do. We all know the American people are sick of the campaign system 
that is washing money through, and they see it nightly on their TV 
sets.
  And finally, but not exclusively, this bill takes care of a lot of 
the problems that a lot of the groups had about the freedom of speech 
on their voter guides, and it cleans that section up and lets them have 
their voter guides without super management.

[[Page H6940]]

  Madam Chairman, with that I encourage this as a positive vote.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong support 
of the Shays-Meehan bill because it is both bipartisan and 
comprehensive.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute.
  I support the Shays-Meehan amendment because it is bipartisan, 
comprehensive, and it reforms the abuse of so-called ``soft-money.'' 
More than any other proposal, the Shays-Meehan amendment has taken into 
account the concerns of both Democrats and Republicans. It has struck 
an important balance and will ensure that reform will not unduly burden 
one party or another.
  I support the Shays-Meehan amendment because it is comprehensive. It 
reform issue-advocacy campaigns by adopting tight definitions and 
reporting requirements. It attacks multi-million dollar independent 
expenditures by ensuring that they are truly independent. And it 
codifies the Supreme Court's decision in Beck versus N.C.W.A. to ensure 
that union dues are not misspent.
  Perhaps most importantly, I support the Shays-Meehan amendment 
because it reforms soft money. Both political parties are to blame for 
soliciting soft money. In 1996, Democrats and Republicans raised over 
$262 million in unregulated soft money--well over 200 percent more than 
they raised in 1992.
  Our current campaign finance laws welcome unregulated corporate and 
union contributions. In the last election cycle, Philip Morris 
Companies, Seagram & Sons, RJR Nabisco, and Atlantic Richfield each 
gave millions of dollars in unregulated soft money. Is there any wonder 
why we haven't passed a tobacco bill this year?
  The financing of Congressional campaigns prevents the political, but 
more importantly it can prevent the legislative process. And the 
exploitation of these loopholes will only continue unless the Shays-
Meehan solution is enacted.
  I strongly urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important 
bill and returning the power of democracy to the average individual 
voters and remove that power from the wealthy ``special'' interests.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Chairman, I rise, too, in strong support of the 
Shays-Meehan substitute bill.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute and I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  Madam Chairman, I rise today to commend my colleagues Mr. Meehan and 
Mr. Shays and their staffs for their tireless work and tremendous 
efforts to clean up our beleaguered campaign finance system.
  The Shays-Meehan coalition is truly impressive. It includes Democrats 
and Republicans, new Members and Hill veterans, liberals and 
conservatives, Members from around the country.
  Just last week my Republican colleague Mr. Paxon, said that 
``disclosure is the key to real reform.'' I agree, and urge anyone who 
feels this way to vote for the Shays-Meehan proposal. This bill will 
effectively end the misuse of issue advertisements by requiring ads 
which clearly urge the support or defeat of a candidate in a federal 
election to be treated like other political ads.
  The Shays-Meehan proposal also deals with the gripping problem of 
soft money, which is now the single biggest problem with our federal 
elections. Banning soft money would drastically reduce the role of 
special-interest money in elections.
  Our debates have raged late into the night. This has been a marathon 
endurance test. But, in what has been the greatest example of 
bipartisan unity I have witnessed since I came to Congress, Members 
have closed ranks across party lines and killed 16 poison pill 
amendments that would have left campaign finance reform to languish 
unpassed yet again. We have an opportunity to do today what no one 
believed was possible just a few short months ago. Together, we can 
enact the first sweeping overhaul of our campaign finance system since 
Watergate.
  Today we will decide whether to restore integrity to our campaign 
finance system, or ignore the corrupting influence of unlimited, 
unregulated money in federal elections.
  The time for reform is now. The American people have spoken. And it 
is up to us, in this body--the People's House--to pass this bill and 
restore the public's trust in our political system.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former Governor.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me, and I, too, rise in very strong support of the Shays-Meehan 
bill.
  This is a bill which under the scrutiny of the light of day through 
debate has grown in its support and has grown in its value to American 
citizens. It does so much to change our election laws in a positive 
sense. It deals with the most significant problems of the campaign 
system: the explosion of soft money and sham issue ads. Passage of the 
Shays-Meehan bill will take away the power and influence of special 
interests and begin the process of returning the power of electing 
public officials back to the American people. It will stop interest 
groups from blanketing districts with unfair and anonymous advertising 
days before elections by redefining issue advocacy laws. We need to 
remember that we went through something like 586 amendments in this 
process, and indeed we now have one of the finest pieces of legislation 
which we can pass this year. I encourage everyone, all Republicans and 
all Democrats in a bipartisan way, to support the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who speaks a little more slowly.
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
for yielding this time to me.
  Throughout this debate the opponents of Shays-Meehan have tried to 
argue that our limitation on soft money is breaking new ground. It is 
not. I believe it was in 1912 that Congress decided to eliminate 
corporate and labor union money from going to congressional candidates 
because that is not government of the people and by the people and for 
the people. It was government by the special interests. We close that 
loophole that has allowed that special interest money to go right to 
the parties and thereby influence congressional elections at the local 
level.
  This is a return of the power back to the communities and away from 
the special interests. Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Chairman, I find it ironic that the gentleman mentioned that it 
was corporations and labor unions, and Shays-Meehan does nothing about 
labor unions and soft money. One would think at some point he would 
understand what he was referring to.
  Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Fawell), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  Mr. FAWELL. Madam Chairman, I rise in some reluctant opposition here 
because I believe that the section 501 codification of the Beck 
decision in this bill is a poison pill. It simply does not do what it 
does state that it does. It states that it predicates a violation of 
the Beck decision as only involving workers who work under a union 
security agreement who are not members of a labor union. Thus, it 
basically states that the notice that has to be given to all of the 
workers in a union shop are only those who are not members of the 
union. Well, that means about 99 percent of the workers are not going 
to get notification of their rights under the Supreme Court decision in 
Beck, which basically tells workers that they need not have to pay 
union dues which are noncollective bargaining in nature, which can 
include political contributions, but which encompasses much more.
  Section 501 also states that the right to object only pertains to the 
use of political activities unrelated to collective bargaining which is 
defined to be expenditures in connection with Federal, State or local 
elections in connection with efforts to influence legislation unrelated 
to collective bargaining. But Beck covered all expenditures by unions 
not directly related to collective bargaining, not just to political 
activities.

[[Page H6941]]

  In addition, the above definition is pregnant with the implication 
that political activities can be related to collective bargaining, 
something the Beck decision never inferred.
  This is not a codification, it is an evisceration, it is an 
obliteration of the Beck decision and makes a mockery of that U.S. 
Supreme Court decision. Workers, unions and non-union alike, who work 
under a Union Security Agreement are obligated to pay their union dues 
under threat of the loss of their job. For that very reason the Beck 
court gave these workers, union and non-union workers alike, the clear 
right to be apprised of the right not to pay any portion of union dues 
not directly required by collective bargaining. It was by no means 
limited to only ``political contributions''. The decision also implies 
that workers also have a reasonable means of implementing those rights, 
preferably before their paychecks are docked rather than after the 
fact. Section 501, under the banner of ``codifying'' Beck, alters and 
waters down these basic constitutional rights to next to nothing under 
the high sounding title of ``codification''. It is nothing of the sort. 
No serious student of the Beck decision sees it as anything more than a 
political price of organized labor to support the Shays-Meehan bill. I 
think the price is too high.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to totally 
disagree with what we just heard.
  The bottom line is the Beck decision was a decision by the courts 
that if someone paid an agency fee, were not a union member, they did 
not have to have any political money go to the union, that they did not 
have to have any of their agency fee go for political purposes.
  I know this for a fact. My wife was a teacher. She quit the union. 
Her agency fee does not go for political purposes.
  It is true there are other parts of the Beck decision that we did not 
codify because they did not relate to campaign finance law. We only 
codified what was Beck as it related to campaign finance law.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers), who has been a leader on this floor many, many 
late nights.
  Ms. RIVERS. Madam Chairman, in 1913 Woodrow Wilson said:

       Publicity is one of the purifying elements of politics. 
     Nothing checks all the bad practices of politics like public 
     exposure.
       . . . An Irishman seen digging around the wall of a house 
     was asked what he was doing. He answered, ``Faith, I am 
     letting the dark out of the cellar.'' Now, that's exactly 
     what we want to do.

  So said Woodrow Wilson in 1913, and it is true today. Shays-Meehan is 
about letting the dark out of the cellar. Shays-Meehan would ban soft 
money, ending an avalanche of unreported and unregulated dollars into 
the American political system. It would close loopholes in existing 
laws and would require all dollars spent on influencing elections to be 
open to public scrutiny. It would protect voter guides, legislative 
alerts, legitimate issue ads and independent expenditures, and it would 
operate with respect and within the First Amendment of the 
Constitution.
  Both parties have built this system we have today, and both parties 
must work together to change it. We must clean up the foundation of our 
House, the people's House, to let the dark out of the cellar.
  Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to 
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  (Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. KIND. Madam Chairman, as a member of the Freshman Finance Reform 
Task Force, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Madam Chairman, today we are finally given an opportunity to vote on 
meaningful campaign finance reform legislation. This vote is long 
overdue. For almost two years we have heard about the abuses in the 
campaign finance system. We have heard from our constituents that they 
feel their voice has been drowned out by the big money special 
interests who push their own agenda. We have heard a lot of rhetoric 
from leaders in Washington who say they want to clean up our elections 
yet have failed to allow a vote on changing the system until now, when 
it is too late to effect this year's elections.
  There are many members of this body who are committed to reform of 
our broken campaign finance system. I applaud the efforts of my friends 
Congressman Shays and Meehan for their courageous leadership on this 
issue. The Shays/Meehan substitute is a good bill and I will support 
it's passage. The Shays/Meehan substitute will take the biggest money 
out of the political process and finally bring some control to the 
independent expenditures that have come to dominate our elections. It 
is a good first step to fix a problem that has no simple solution.
  I have been working over the past year and a half with a bipartisan 
coalition of freshman members of Congress to craft our own campaign 
finance reform bill. That bill, H.R. 2183, is the base bill being 
considered today. I will support that bill when it is considered later 
this year. Our bill was crafted because many members remain concerned 
that parts of the Shays/Meehan substitute may be ruled 
unconstitutional. The freshman bill is more narrow in focus, but it 
still gets at the most common abuses in the campaign system without a 
constitutional threat.
  Both the Shays/Meehan substitute and the freshman base bill are 
honest, bipartisan attempts to fix our broken election process. I 
believe that this House works best when we work in a bipartisan manner, 
and that is how both these bills were created. For that reason, both 
bills will offer true reform to a system badly in need of reform.
  Ultimately this debate boils down to the belief that there is too 
much money in campaigns. If you support that idea, as I do and most 
constituents I talk to in western Wisconsin do, then you support 
campaign finance reform. If you believe that we need more money in the 
system than you will oppose Shays/Meehan.
  The majority of the public doesn't believe that Congress has the 
courage to actually change a system that appears to benefit our own 
interests. Tonight we have the opportunity to show the public that we 
can take the big money out of this system and put elections back into 
the hands of the people we are sworn to represent. I encourage my 
colleagues to support Shays/Meehan and begin the process of true reform 
of our political process.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), our minority leader, who has 
been so instrumental in putting us to where we are right now for this 
historic vote in favor of campaign finance reform.
  (Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Madam Chairman, I rise to speak in strong support of 
the Shays-Meehan campaign reform bill, and I would like to begin this 
evening by paying tribute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Without them we 
would not be here tonight, and without them and their belief in this 
issue we would not be on the threshold of being able to take this first 
very, very important step of campaign reform. They have shown us that 
campaign reform is an issue that can be delayed, but it will never be 
denied.
  We are not here by accident. There is a national crisis of confidence 
in our system of campaign financing. It is a crisis of confidence that 
cuts across party lines and should disturb all of us as Democrats, as 
Republicans, as Americans.
  The Republican mayor of New York during the New Deal years, Fiorello 
LaGuardia, once said:
  ``There's no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning the streets.''
  There is no Democratic or Republican way of cleaning up our 
campaigns. We have reached the point in our Nation's history when too 
many Americans believe that special interests, lobbyists, wealthy 
interests wield too much influence in our campaigns and our democracy.

                             {time}    1800

  That belief, right or wrong, has corroded many Americans' faith in 
their government and in their country.
  This is an issue that should have every Member of the House in search 
of a bipartisan solution to reverse this trend of alienation that 
divides Americans from their government. This is an issue that 
challenges us all to rise above the politics of the moment in search of 
a lasting solution, and I believe with all my heart that Shays-Meehan 
is that solution. This is the first real step. It may be modest, but it

[[Page H6942]]

is the first real step to begin the process of reform this year.
  Friends of reform, the majority of our House Members, have banded 
together behind the bill, and, in a remarkable show of dedication we 
have voted down amendment after amendment, often amendments that we 
ourselves have proposed, in order to pass a bill that we can all accept 
and that will begin to get at the root of the problem, a democracy that 
is drowning in campaign money.
  I am sorry the leaders of this House have fought to protect and 
preserve the current system. They have wasted the precious time of this 
House by making us run through an obstacle course designed to kill 
Shays-Meehan. But they made their choice. They stood for the power of 
big money and against real bipartisan change. They were never really 
interested in this debate. They were interested in stopping the debate 
and having deadlock.
  But our efforts are an example of what we can do when we really work 
together in a bipartisan effort, putting aside party labels and party 
ideology and finding a practical answer to a very real problem. We were 
able to overcome all the obstacles.
  There is only one more obstacle, and that is getting enough votes 
tonight to make sure that this bill is the bill that we finally vote on 
at the end of the process.
  It can be done; it must be done. All of us are not just 
representatives of the People's House, we are temporary guardians of 
the jewel of democracy, and our role as guardians gives us the 
responsibility to make sure that the jewel is protected for this and 
for future generations.
  I congratulate these two sponsors. I congratulate the Republican and 
Democratic Members who have stood with them in bringing this bill to 
this point. One more obstacle. It must be done. Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the 
minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), to thank 
him because time and again the Democrat Conference has been there as 
straight-shooters, playing no games with those of us on this side of 
the aisle. They have been true to their pledge for this bill and 
campaign finance reform.
  I want to thank both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the 
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for that, because they have been 
straight-shooters on this issue.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield one minute to 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the 
Committee on Education and the Workforce.
  (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. GOODLING. Madam Chairman, there is one real glowing error in my 
estimation in this legislation, and that is the codifying of the Beck 
decision. That is bad enough because that is a slap in every working 
man and woman's face. But, beyond that, they make it much worse, 
because then they say the notice of rights in the bill must only be 
given to nonmembers of the union. Then they make it worse by saying 
that they will limit what it is the worker can object to as far as 
paying is concerned. That makes the Beck decision worse.
  Now, what is the Beck decision? It says that you do not have to pay 
any dues not used for collective bargaining in the union security 
agreement. A union security agreement is when you agree, employer and 
union, that you must join the union and you must pay dues.
  Now, how do you handle this situation? The only thing you can do, 
according to this legislation, is to drop out of the union. If you do 
that, you must still pay your dues.
  However, now you are going to appeal and you are trying to get part 
of your dues money back. Who do you think you appeal to? You appeal to 
the union. What chance does the poor soul have? I mean, it is rigged, 
folks. It is rigged.
  You could have corrected this. All you had to do is take the Worker's 
Paycheck Fairness Act as reported out of our committee and you would 
have corrected this issue once and for all.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi).
  (Ms. PELOSI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan amendment. I commend the gentlemen for their leadership in 
bringing hope to the House that we can finally drain the swamp that is 
the political process we are in.
  Madam Chairman, when Washington first became the capital of our 
country, it was built on a swamp. It is still a swamp, a swamp putrid 
from the huge amounts of money that pours in here, special interest 
money stacking the deck against the average American seeking a 
legitimate role in the political process.
  I rise in support of real campaign finance reform. The Meehan-Shays 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act is the best chance the American people 
have at realizing there longstanding demand that we end the corrupting 
influence of big money and level the playing field so that all 
Americans can participate and be heard.
  Meehan-Shays includes a ban on soft money at the Federal and State 
level; a ban on foreign money entering the system; voluntary spending 
limits; new limits on Political Action Committees; tougher political 
advertising disclosure requirements; and campaign enforcement and 
disclosure requirements, such as mandatory electronic filing of Federal 
Election Commission reports.
  President Bill Clinton has endorsed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform 
Act, and has challenged the Congress to send him campaign finance 
reform legislation that is meaningful, substantive and representative 
of real change.
  I do not think there is any issue more important than this one 
because it is about nothing less than our oath of office. Every single 
person who comes to this body to serve takes an oath of office to 
protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and 
domestic. The greatest enemy to our democracy is foreign and domestic 
money poisoning our system.
  Vote ``yes'' on Meehan-Shays and give the political process back to 
the American people where it began and where it belongs.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House.
  Mr. DeLAY. Madam Chairman, as everyone knows, I am opposed to this 
Shays-Meehan fiasco. It is not reform. This is just another example of 
big government picking winners and losers, and in my opinion the 
winners are the Democrats and the losers are the Republicans. It is 
amazing to me that Republicans would support this disarmament bill. It 
just violates our most precious freedom, the freedom of speech. It 
tilts the campaign playing field in favor of incumbents, and it creates 
a shield between voters and the Congress that is supposed to represent 
them.
  Many of my colleagues have taken the House floor to denounce what 
they say is too much money in American political campaigns. Well, such 
cries are rhetorically effective but factually deficient.
  Congressional candidates in 1996 spent less than $1.25 per citizen 
during the course of the campaign. Is that too much money to spend on 
democracy? Americans spend twice as much per year on yogurt than they 
spend on political campaigns.
  But do we have the will in this Congress to actually change the 
Constitution and limit freedom of speech in order to reform our 
campaign laws? Most of the Members of this Congress said ``no'' in 
voting against a constitutional amendment that would actually limit it.
  What you are talking about is limiting the speech of our constituents 
and hiding behind the name ``reform.'' Any casual observer of this 
debate will have noticed the true reason why many Members support this 
bill. It is an incumbent protection bill. The bill itself bans 
photoguides and score cards, and it bans these so-called sham ads that 
Members hate to see run against them because it makes them 
uncomfortable when their voting report is brought before the American 
people. The American people have a right to know where their elected 
officials stand on the issues of the day, and this bill turns that 
principle on its head.
  When we debated the right to third party groups to send out issue 
alerts, to rally their supporters, the supporters of Shays-Meehan 
called those ads a sham. One Member even said an ad that says 
``Congressman Smith voted

[[Page H6943]]

against a tax cut'' should be banned and that we should manage free 
speech.
  Of course, we have the views that we just heard from the 
distinguished House minority leader, who happens to have over $3 
million in his campaign account and wrote the laws that we are living 
under today. He said, ``What we have here 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.''
  That is the minority leader of the House saying that you cannot have 
freedom of speech and healthy campaigns.
  Madam Chairman, we must have both. Whether they want to admit it or 
not, the supporters of this bill believe there is such a thing as too 
much information about our government and that Americans are too stupid 
to sort out what is true and what is false. These free speech 
prohibitionists want to restrict Americans' political dialogue and 
debate. To me, I cannot think of anything more self-righteous.
  My friends, we are talking about core political speech that is 
protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. The First 
Amendment is at the very core of what our Republic stands for. It 
allows any of us to criticize the politician who governs us, to voice 
unpopular ideas and to engage in debate.
  This bill does the opposite. It shields Members of Congress from 
public criticism by the very people who elect us. I do not think 
Americans need Washington restricting and censoring the information 
that we have access to. Why should Washington be able to judge what 
speech is good and what speech is bad? But that is what this bill does. 
It does just that.
  I have been told privately by a number of our Members that they know 
that the bill is unconstitutional but they want to take a free vote. 
They have told me they know that the bill gags citizen groups and 
voters. They have said they want to vote ``no,'' but their local 
editorial board supports the bill, and because the Senate will never 
take up the bill, they can safely vote ``yes''.
  Well, Madam Chairman, to those Members, I plead with you, do the 
right thing; uphold your oath of office; do not violate the First 
Amendment of the Constitution.
  My friends, this is not a free vote. There are over 100 citizen 
groups that have written you to urge you to oppose this bill. Many of 
those groups will score your vote tonight.
  To my Republican colleagues, let me just simply say that this is not 
reform. This is not good government. This is political disarmament. It 
does nothing to protect union members from forced union dues, while 
putting a shackle on our traditional supporters who use voter guides 
and score cards and independent expenditures to keep the American 
people informed of what goes on in this House.
  You do not have a free pass to violate our Constitution. Support free 
speech and vote down Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to respond to 
the comments just heard from the majority whip.
  Madam Chairman, first off, this is not disarmament, and it would be 
an absurd thing to suggest unilateral disarmament. How could it be 
unilateral disarmament to ban soft money to both political parties? Is 
the inference that Republicans benefit more from soft money than 
Democrats?
  Why would it be unilateral disarmament when we call sham issue ads 
what they truly are, campaign ads? It is not a freedom of speech issue. 
We do not say you cannot advertise. We do not say people cannot say 
whatever they want. They are just campaign ads, and you call them 
campaign ads.
  When you call them campaign ads, two interesting things happen; you 
cannot use corporate money and you cannot use union dues. How could it 
be unilateral disarmament to improve the FEC disclosure and 
enforcement? How could it be unilateral disarmament to allow the 
commission to deal with other issues that we have not yet dealt with?
  The bottom line to this bill, it is about restoring integrity to the 
political system. Both parties, individuals, corporations, labor 
unions, everybody has to play it by the same rules.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr), who has been such a leader in campaign finance 
reform.
  Mr. FARR of California. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding, and congratulations to the authors.
  Shame, shame, shame on those that will try to tell you that this bill 
does all kinds of things that it does not do. It does four things, very 
simple things. It brings control back to people who run for the House 
of Representatives. It takes soft money out. That is outside the 
system. That is not candidates' money. It bans soft money.
  It bans sham ads. Since when are sham ads in the interests of 
candidates? Those are done by third-party organizations that do not 
have anything to do with the campaign. You or the candidate should be 
able to speak your own words, not have outside interests speak for you.
  It has more power for the FEC to look into disclosures and to enforce 
them. We certainly need that if you are going to enforce the law.
  Lastly, it sets up a commission to study it. That is all it does. How 
can one not vote for this?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) who was so instrumental in 
forging this coalition that we have, in merging this coalition that we 
have through merging the commission bill.
  (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend her remarks.)
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Chairman, I rise in support of this 
bill. We have the power to make history tonight and to succeed where 
past Congresses have failed by passing true campaign finance reform, 
and we owe it to the American people. I rise in support of the Meehan-
Shays bill.
  I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Not because I think it's the ``cat's meow''--it has its 
imperfections. But it certainly has nine lives.
  It's dodged a number of death threats and I'm proud to say that 
reformers have done a great job of keeping it alive.
  The bill before us today--is our last best hope.
  It bans soft money, increases disclosure, and strengthens the means 
of disclosure.
  It also provides an on-going process in the form of a commission to 
come back and do more to repair our broken down elections process.
  This bill brings the American people back into the elections process.
  I applaud Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan for their dedication . . . and 
success so far.
  And I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for the Shays-Meehan 
substitute.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Roukema).
  (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Madam Chairman, I say that we know what the issue is. We have seen it 
on all these amendment votes. We should not be trying to face our 
constituents in November unless we have been able to vote for this 
historic measure to stop the corruption and restore honor to our 
election system.
  Madam Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan 
substitute and urge my colleagues to pass this landmark legislation.
  Madam Chairman, after years of newspaper headlines, months of 
testimony before this congressional committee or that congressional 
committee, special investigations by the Justice Department, one thing 
is crystal clear: Our campaign finance system is out of control. Costs 
are skyrocketing. Candidates of all kinds are finding themselves 
devoting more time and energy to fundraising--at the expense of their 
public service duties. Our airwaves are jammed with attack ad piled 
upon attack ad.
  Madam Chairman, our campaign system has become twisted and abused to 
the point where it is the biggest threat our democracy faces today. It 
fuels the cynicism of an already cynical American electorate. It 
promotes voter apathy among an electorate that has become convinced 
that elections are bought and sold by the interest group with the 
fattest wallet.
  My colleagues let's be honest if we defeat this legislation it will 
be on our backs to explain to the voters why we voted to protect this

[[Page H6944]]

corruption, and against restoring power back to the ordinary citizen.
  With the Shays-Meehan bill, we have a historic opportunity to correct 
many of the problems that beset our campaign system. And yes, this 
legislation is by no means perfect. But we can not let the perfect be 
the enemy of the good. And this bill represents the good.

  Among other important reforms:
  Shays-Meehan bans fundraising on Federal property (and many of the 
amendments we've added to this bill relating to the White House and Air 
Force One strengthen this substitute amendment).
  Shays-Meehan expands the ban on franked mail to 6 months before any 
election.
  Shays-Meehan contains new prohibitions and new penalties for foreign 
contributions.
  Shays-Meehan takes aim at those sham campaign ads and protects voter 
guides and the ability of citizen groups to lobby their elected 
officials.
  But most importantly, Shays-Meehan bans soft-money--perhaps the most 
corrosive development in campaigns today.
  In the last election cycle, unions, corporations, and wealthy 
individuals pumped over $260 million of soft money into the political 
environment! That's triple the amount that was raised in the 1992 
cycle.
  These funds are raised and spent outside the reach of Federal 
election law and are directly connected to many of the scandalous 
practices now the focus of numerous congressional investigations: the 
Lincoln bedroom, mysterious foreign contributors, White House 
``coffees,'' and the like.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is the only substitute amendment that contains 
a hard ban on soft money. It doesn't have the loopholes that some of 
the other reform proposals have and will not allow the parties to 
launder their money through the State parties.
  That alone is reason enough to pass this important amendment.
  Now, over the past several weeks, this House has voted on many 
amendments. Frankly, in a different context, I would have voted for 
several of them. But I recognize that the only way for us to begin the 
real process of real reform, is to pass Shays-Meehan and its hard ban 
on soft money as is.
  Let's get on with. Pass Shays-Meehan today. Reject the other 
substitutes and move to final passage of.
  Let's give the United States Senate a ``going away present.'' After 
years of resistence, let's present them with the opportunity to redeem 
themselves by joining us as reformers.
  Support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is 
recognized for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Chairman, there comes a time in a legislator's life 
when he or she has to be held accountable for his or her vote. That day 
has arrived for the Members of the 105th Congress. Once in a generation 
Members of Congress take it upon themselves to change our campaign 
finance laws, once in a generation. Madam Chairman, that day has 
arrived for the Members of the 105th Congress.
  Madam Chairman, there are Members of this House on both sides of the 
aisle who have worked diligently over a period of years. On the 
Democratic side, there is the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Sandy 
Levin), who has been working so hard; the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Carolyn Maloney), who I mentioned earlier; the gentleman from 
Maine (Mr. Tom Allen), who came to this body as a freshman, working 
diligently; the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), who have 
played such a critical role in getting us to the point where we are 
now, on the verge of this historic vote.
  And yes, Madam Chairman, on the other side of the aisle there is the 
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Zach Wamp), the gentlewoman from 
Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith), the gentleman from California (Mr. Steve 
Horn), and the coauthor of this legislation, the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Chris Shays), who has stood up, at times in very 
difficult circumstances, to the leadership of his own party and taken 
that leadership on so we could get to where we are right now, on the 
eve of a very, very historic vote.
  We have a piece of legislation that abolishes soft money. After all 
we have heard and witnessed, is it not about time that we abolish soft 
money? I did not hear any Members of this House, with over 60 
amendments offered to try to defeat this bill, I did not hear anybody 
trying to defend the corrupt soft money practice that we have seen 
abused in the last election cycle. I did not hear anybody. I heard 
excuses, I saw amendments, but nobody stood up to defend the soft money 
corrupt system that we have spent so much money holding hearings over 
the period of the last year and a half.
  Madam Chairman, my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, this is, 
indeed, an historic opportunity that only comes once in a generation, 
because it is not usual when Members of the House have a bill with 
bipartisan support, a bicameral bill, so when we send this bill to the 
other body, they have already spent time with the majority Members 
supporting.
  This is an historic opportunity, because even though we end for 
summer recess, the other body is ready to pick up this legislation. Let 
us rise to the challenge tonight and meet our responsibilities, Members 
of this House of Representatives, and pass the Shays-Meehan legislation 
by a wide majority and get it over to the other body.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Chairman, I am tempted to rise for a unanimous consent request, 
speak for 2 minutes, and then yield myself the 1 minute, but I will 
accept the 1 minute the Chair gives me.
  Madam Chairman, no amount of volume, no amount of vehemence, covers 
up the fundamental flaws in this bill. It took my breath away when the 
gentleman from California said that he could tell us exactly what the 
Supreme Court would do on the express advocacy section. The fact of the 
matter is in all probability the court will hold it unconstitutional.
  Therein lies the rub, because there is a severability clause in 
Shays-Meehan. It means the courts will continue to write what the law 
actually is. The only bill left that has merit is the Hutchison-Allen 
freshman bill, because it does not have a severability clause. If in 
fact a section is declared unconstitutional, it will come back here. We 
will write the law.
  The fundamental flaw in Shays-Meehan is its severability. It has 
unconstitutional provisions. The court will continue to write the law. 
Vote no on Shays-Meehan if Members want to continue to write the law 
and not let the Supreme Court do it.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, to close debate, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Zach Wamp), really a hero on campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. WAMP. Madam Chairman, what an honor to close the debate on this 
most important issue that affects every single Member of this House and 
the political parties, and most importantly, the American people.
  I say to my colleagues that tonight really is the moment of truth. 
The truth is that for a generation, the majority in the Congress 
opposes reforming the current system and the minority supports reform. 
Before we took a majority 4 years ago, the very same people who opposed 
reform tonight supported the same kind of reforms, because they were in 
the minority. That is the truth. It is inherent, supposedly, upon the 
majority to support the current system.
  However, I come from the majority. I come from the freshman class of 
the 104th Congress. We have reformed a lot of things. We have changed 
this place in many respects, but we are pulling up short if we do not 
reform our own campaign system.
  It is important that we face the truth. The truth is that banning 
soft money cuts across the spectrum. Everybody gets treated the same. 
If we find it offensive that tobacco can give a half a million dollars 
on a single night at a fund-raiser when tobacco legislation is pending 
before the Congress, vote for this bill. It does away with that.
  If Members find these ads run by these outside groups offensive in 
the final 60 days of a campaign, where they do not have to tell the 
truth and they come in unlimited and unregulated, all we are saying is 
they have to abide by the same rules that I do as a candidate or a 
political action committee does. We are not restricting their right to 
speak; we are saying, you have to play by the same rules as everybody 
else from now on.

[[Page H6945]]

  If Members want candidates to have better reporting, better 
disclosure, more accountability, vote yes on this bill. It is the 
moment of truth. If Members think that a commission can report back 
recommendations for the rest of the details of campaign finance reform, 
vote yes on this bill. All four of these things are a step in the right 
direction.
  The truth is, this bill is as fair to Republicans as it is to 
Democrats. The truth is that it affects any outside groups. It is the 
same for Wall Street or the labor unions, the same for the Christian 
Coalition or the ACLU. Everybody gets treated the same. Is that not 
fair? Is that not reasonable?
  I say to my colleagues in the majority, this is the moment of truth. 
I ask Members, will they please put the public interest above their 
personal interest? Will they please put good government above their 
political party? Will Members please do the right thing for the 
American people, and send the signal that we have gone the distance on 
reform? Vote yes on Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. EVANS. Madam Chairman, we are about to take a significant step 
forward in our efforts to restore public confidence in the American 
political system by passing the much needed reforms contained in the 
Shays-Meehan substitute.
  Under the current system, many average, hard-working Americans feel 
their voices can't be heard above the call of special interests.
  And who can blame them?
  The roar of unaccountable advertising campaigns financed by unlimited 
soft money donations dominates our elections. Where the voters seek an 
informed discussion of the issues, they find only slogans and rhetoric.
  Long after the need for reform became clear to the voters, its 
opponents resisted. Opponents of reform would have the American people 
believe that the only change necessary is increased disclosure, that 
unlimited sums of soft money pose no threat to the foundation of our 
democracy, the principle of one person, one vote.
  Against the will of the voters, opponents of reform sought to deny 
consideration of Shays-Meehan. Having failed in their delaying action, 
opponents of reform then waged a war of attrition, attempting to amend 
Shays-Meehan to death. Once again, supporters of reform stood tall and 
these efforts were defeated.
  Today, I am proud to join my colleagues, Democrat and Republican, to 
vote for the Shays-Meehan substitute, to pass meaningful campaign 
finance reform legislation, and to fulfill the commitment we have to 
the American people to ensure that their voices will be heard.
  Mr. BAESLER. Madam Chairman, this has been a great debate over Shays-
Meehan, and I am proud to have played a role in advancing the issue to 
this critical point. I only wish I weren't the only Kentucky Member who 
fought for this bill.
  As we prepare to vote on Shays-Meehan/McCain-Feingold, it's important 
to remember Senator Thompson's investigation and report. The Thompson 
report identified the exact problems we're trying to reform here and 
the Shays-Meehan bill was offered up to solve these problems:
  Shays-Meehan outlaws foreign money once and for all!
  It outlaws Soft money--a loophole exploited by BOTH parties!
  It outlaws fundraising on government property!
  It reforms our campaign issue ad laws by reigning in sham issue ads!
  In fact, it is the only bill that addresses all these problems which 
were documented after the 1996 election.
  Now, although I'm the only Kentucky reformer in the House, maybe 
there have been some converts. The people of Kentucky care about this 
issue. I spoke at a campaign finance reform town meeting in Louisville 
about a month ago. Over 150 people packed a church on a Monday night, 
and stayed way beyond the scheduled time to express how badly they 
wanted to reform our out-of-control campaign finance system.
  It would be an outrage to have spent $8 million of Kentuckians and 
other Americans' tax money on these investigations and then not do 
anything to solve the problem. The problems of too much money in the 
political system are documented. We know what we need to do. The 
question now is whether we have the WILL to do it.
  So I urge my Kentucky colleagues, I urge all my colleagues, to vote 
for Shays-Meehan.
  Mrs. KENNELLY of Connecticut. Madam Chairman, I rise in enthusiastic 
support of campaign finance reform legislation offered by my colleagues 
Chris Shays from my home state of Connecticut and Marty Meehan from our 
neighboring state of Massachusetts. Further, I strongly commend Mr. 
Shays and Mr. Meehan for their bi-partisan effort to bring before the 
House the most sweeping changes to the way we finance political 
campaigns in over two decades.
  For the past month, amendments have been offered to weaken the reform 
provisions in the Shays-Meehan legislation. Conscientious members from 
both sides of the aisle have joined repeatedly to vote down these 
destructive amendments.
  This is a critical vote for the 105th Congress. Passage today of the 
Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill will begin to correct the 
abuses of our current system of financing political campaigns. But even 
more important, it will begin to restore the integrity of our election 
system and the confidence of the American people in their elected 
officials.
  Four comprehensive campaign finance reform bills were passed by this 
House when the Democrats were in the majority, but never was enacted 
into law.
  Let'f finish the job that began a decade ago and vote for historic 
campaign finance reform. Vote yes on the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. FAZIO of California. Madam Chairman, I rise today in support of 
Shays-Meehan.
  The bipartisan bill will:
  Eliminate soft money contributions to political parties from 
individuals and organizations:
  Require disclosure of contributions for issue ads that target 
specific candidates within 60 days of an election; and
  Prohibit state parties from spending any soft money on activities 
that affect a federal race.
  Most importantly, it would return the electoral system to the 
American people by limiting the amount of unregulated, unreported money 
in local politics.
  Madam Chairman, every Member of this body has heard from constituents 
who have lost their faith in the system.
  The American people no longer see an opportunity to participate in 
the system.
  Each campaign cycle, we see an increase in the amount of money 
funneled into local races by outside special interest groups that have 
no ties to the community.
  In 1996, the top two dozen outside groups spent $150 million dollars 
on independent negative ads.
  Such free, uncontrolled spending has perverted a fair, democratic 
system into a bidding war by unknown entities.
  The American people are tired of unregulated negative attack ads and 
the Shays-Meehan substitute takes a major step forward in regulating 
undisclosed funds to launch negative attack ads.
  The time has come to pass meaningful campaign finance reform.
  The American people want it, editorial boards across the country have 
endorsed it; and in vote after vote last week it became clear that the 
majority of this House supports a clean, bipartisan bill that achieves 
real reform.
  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Pease) having assumed the chair, Mrs. Emerson, Chairman of the 
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that 
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2183) to 
amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the financing 
of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other purposes, 
had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________