[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 119 (Tuesday, September 14, 1999)]
[House]
[Pages H8178-H8187]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 417, BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REFORM ACT OF 1999
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 283
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 417) to amend the Federal Election Campaign
Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for
elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. The
first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General
debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one
hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and
ranking minority member of the Committee on House
Administration. After general debate the bill shall be
considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill
shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall
be in order except those printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each
amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the
report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the
report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for
the time specified in the report equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be
subject to amendment. All points of order against the
amendments printed in the report are waived except that the
adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
constitute the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may:
(1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the
Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any
amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time
for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows
another electronic vote without intervening business,
provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the
first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the
conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the
Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with
such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous
question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and
amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier)
is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dallas,
TX (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is
for the purpose of debate only.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 is a fair rule which
provides for the consideration of H.R. 417, the Campaign Finance Reform
Act of 1999, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of
general debate divided equally between the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule
makes in order 13 amendments which were printed in the report
accompanying this resolution. Ten of the amendments are perfecting
amendments debatable for 10 minutes each. After the disposition of
those amendments, the rule makes in order three substitutes by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from Arkansas
(Mr. Hutchinson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) which
are debatable for 40 minutes each. The Doolittle and Hutchinson
substitutes were reported without recommendation by the Committee on
House Administration and the Thomas substitute was favorably reported.
The rule waives all points of order against these amendments except
that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall
constitute the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment
which, and I will underscore this, Mr. Speaker, is the standard
amendment process in the House. So this process that we are going to be
proceeding under will be regular order.
Mr. Speaker, 26 perfecting amendments and three amendments in the
nature of a substitute to the Shays-Meehan bill were submitted to the
Committee on Rules. All three substitutes were made in order. Of the 26
perfecting amendments, only one was submitted by a Democrat, and that
amendment was in fact made in order in this rule.
The rule also permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or
without instructions.
I would like to commend Speaker Hastert for his very judicious
handling of what obviously has been a hotly debated issue over the
years. Earlier this year, he gave his word that the House would
consider campaign finance reform in September under a fair process.
Today, the Speaker has again demonstrated his leadership and good faith
by bringing this measure to the floor under this rule. I also want to
recognize the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas)
who held weeks of hearings and reported out four competing proposals.
His committee did a tremendous job in framing the debate that we will
have here this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, free speech, particularly free political speech, is a
cherished right enshrined in the first amendment to our Constitution.
For democracy to flourish, a free people must be able to express their
political views without government restriction. Our Founding Fathers
recognized that this is in fact the fundamental precept of democracy.
Without free political speech, our great American experiment cannot
continue to thrive into the next millennium.
I do not believe that the current problems with the campaign system
are caused by too much political
[[Page H8179]]
speech. They are caused by the outmoded rules and regulations which
currently restrict speech. Although I commend the authors of the Shays-
Meehan bill for their good intentions, I believe they are taking the
wrong approach. Adding more layers of rules and regulations, more
bureaucracies and barriers, to an already flawed system is not the
answer. It is increasingly clear after 25 years of living with the
Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 that the current Federal campaign
laws are fundamentally flawed. Just as the current Shays-Meehan
proposal is the product of good intentions, the Campaign Act which we
now live with was also the product of people driven to do what was
right. It was praised for eliminating the possibility of another
Watergate, lowering the costs of political campaigns and reducing the
advantages of incumbency.
It is ironic that 25 years later, many of the law's same supporters
are urging Congress to pass another campaign finance reform bill to
accomplish what the Federal Election Campaign Act has failed to do.
Limiting the amount of money spent and contributed in Federal campaigns
will not lead to increased competition. Nor will it cause the influence
of large contributors to wane or make politicians more accountable to
their constituents. The Federal Election Campaign Act places limits on
contributions and expenditures, but since 1974 campaign spending has
more than tripled in real dollars. Incumbents have enjoyed huge
advantages raising campaign funds, and they have generally had an
easier time getting reelected. While history shows that limits do not
work as advertised, the focus of reform continues to be on new
contribution restrictions and suspending the free speech rights of
grassroots organizations and their members. We are even looking at the
prospect of regulating the use of the Internet and the World Wide Web
for political purposes. Mr. Speaker, this is not the right way for us
to go as we try to focus concern for first amendment rights.
To reduce the advantages of incumbency, I believe that contribution
limits should be raised, at least to account for 25 years of inflation,
and tax credits should be reinstated to encourage more individuals to
participate in the electoral process. I will be supporting the
Doolittle substitute which will encourage individuals to exercise their
free speech rights more effectively, free political candidates from
their frequent fund-raising activities, and reduce the advantages of
incumbency. Rather than trying to regulate the Internet, a hopeless
effort in the long run, I believe 21st century technology should be
used to increase political openness. I support the establishment of
electronic filing procedures and requiring that Federal Election
Commission disclosure information be published on the Internet. With
information related to political giving freely available in an
understandable format on the Internet, Americans will no longer need to
rely on special interests and the media to interpret the Federal
Election Commission data for them.
Mr. Speaker, just as free trade encourages vitality in our economic
markets, I believe free speech fosters a stronger democracy based on
competition in a free market of ideas. Therefore, I will choose more
freedom over more regulation.
This is not an unorthodox rule. It does not stack the deck against
the Shays-Meehan bill. The rule does not make in order so-called
``poison pill'' amendments as some have suggested. The fact is this
rule provides for a debate and amendment process closer to regular
order than any campaign finance rule that has been debated in the past
decade. If the proponents of Shays-Meehan have the votes, they will
prevail.
Now is the time to cut through the rhetoric and approve this rule so
that the House may work its will on this issue of campaign finance
reform. This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, that demands very
serious thinking. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, on the road to a vote on real campaign finance reform,
our friends in the Republican Party have set up an ambush. In this
Congress, the Republican leadership has accommodated supporters of the
Shays-Meehan campaign finance proposal by scheduling the bill for
consideration, but appearances can be deceiving.
First, the rule reported by the Republican majority on the Committee
on Rules gives opponents of campaign finance reform the opportunity to
wound the bill by taking pot shots at Shays-Meehan. Then, when the bill
is down and bleeding, the rule allows opponents to bring out the heavy
artillery to try and finish it off. This rule may not give Shays-Meehan
a clean vote. And, Mr. Speaker, unless Members of the House stand up
and vote against the amendments designed to wound and weaken and
eventually kill real and meaningful campaign finance reform, the
Republican majority will once again, through a cynical exploitation of
the process, stymie the efforts of those Members who are dedicated to
reforming how Federal campaigns in this country are financed.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 makes in order a series of 10
amendments to Shays-Meehan. This series includes amendments that would,
in essence, take away the ability of labor unions in this country to
represent the views of their members in the political process, while
others would allow individuals to increase their contributions to
candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. There is even an amendment in this
mix that puts limits on the campaign of the First Lady in the State of
New York. These amendments are, by design, intended to seriously maim
and wound Shays-Meehan.
The rule then provides for the consideration of three substitutes.
These substitutes are intended to inflict mortal wounds. Should any one
of them be adopted, Shays-Meehan will be declared DOA. While we can
speculate that the first two substitutes, those offered by the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), will not pass, the third substitute, which
is a proverbial sheep in wolf's clothing, stands a good chance of
passing the House and killing Shays-Meehan.
That substitute, to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on
House Administration, embodies a number of reforms to the operations of
the FEC but does not affect the financing of campaigns. The Thomas
amendment is indeed campaign reform. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that
it is not campaign finance reform. The intent here is quite clear and
very obvious. This rule is designed to ensure that the House will never
get a straight up-or-down vote on Shays-Meehan.
All that being said, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not going to oppose
this rule, for we know full well if this rule is defeated, that means
the end of any discussion on the subject of campaign finance for the
remainder of this Congress. In the last Congress, Shays-Meehan passed
this body by a vote of 237-186 after the Republican leadership set up a
series of roadblocks designed to keep the House from getting a vote on
that bill. We can only hope that a majority in the House remains
committed to campaign finance reform and will find a way to foil this
ambush of the only proposal that fits that description.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendments made in
order in this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1315
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Campbell), my very good friend.
Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman of the Committee on
Rules, my good friend from California, for yielding this time to me.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a note of gratitude to the Speaker of
the House. Last year we tried to get this bill up for a vote, and it
took a discharge petition, with Republicans and Democrats together, to
make it happen. That was under a different Speaker. This Speaker, by
contrast, promised that we would have a vote on the floor in September.
He has fulfilled that promise without being forced to by a discharge
petition. There were many skeptics who said that it was a subterfuge;
they were wrong. He deserves to be honored for keeping his word.
On the merits, as I see the rule, and I intend to support the rule,
it allows a
[[Page H8180]]
fair discussion of Shays-Meehan and legitimate alternatives that
colleagues wish to put forward. I intend to be supporting Shays-Meehan
throughout today's debate. I intend not to be agreeing to amendments
that would kill Shays-Meehan. But other people have their reasonable
attitudes about their own approach, and it is simply fair to allow them
to present their alternatives. There is nothing unfair in a rule that
allows this House to debate alternatives.
I am going to use the remainder of my time just to identify one very
important thing we will do today, when we pass Shays-Meehan.
A television ad that was run in the last campaign stated:
Head Start, student loans, toxic clean up, extra police
protected in the budget agreement, but the President stood
firm. The President's plan: Politics must wait, balance the
budget, reform welfare.
Almost the identical words appeared in a similar ad, the first one,
however, by the DNC with soft money on May 31, 1996; the second, by the
Clinton campaign, on June 2, 1996.
What we have today is a huge loophole in campaign finance. We run the
exact same ads almost, but we run them as soft money ads through a
political party, and anybody can contribute any amount of money to
finance those ads.
Mr. Speaker, if we intend to have a system that limits how much
people can influence the system to prevent corruption, then we must not
allow a loophole as large as this whereby we can run almost exactly the
same ads and have them excused because it is soft money rather than
hard.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the author of the legislation.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding this time to me.
Members of the House have a unique opportunity today to make a real
difference and to pass campaign finance reform, legislation that is
long overdue.
As my colleagues know, we have had lots of disagreements between
Democrats and Republicans about how to determine tax policy, what to do
with the surplus, a patients' bill of rights, education reform and what
to do to improve education across our country. Finally today we have an
issue that Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
There were 50 to 60 Republicans who supported this legislation in the
last Congress. We got 251 votes from Members of this House in the last
Congress. This is our opportunity today to pass real comprehensive
campaign finance reform, to make soft money illegal, illegal because it
is a loophole that came out of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1974
and has had a corrupting influence on presidential elections in this
country.
Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to just stand up and have hearings
and spend millions of dollars talking about the abuses in the last
campaign and then do nothing about it. It is just not good enough to
have hearings and create an environment where Democrats attack
Republicans, Republicans attack Democrats, on the abuses in the last
campaign and then do nothing about it. Today is the day. Today is the
day when the votes are going to be counted and we are going to
determine who is for campaign finance reform and who is not.
During the course of this debate there are a number of what we call
``poison pill amendments,'' amendments that are designed to do nothing
but kill this unique coalition that has been established. I urge the
Members of this House to see through these amendments and recognize
them for what they are, nothing more than an attempt by the opponents
of campaign finance reform to kill this legislation.
Let us kill these amendments, and let us pass comprehensive campaign
finance reform today.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), my good friend, and neighbor and classmate.
(Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, certainly I rise in strong support of this
bill that is finally bringing Shays-Meehan to the floor, and I might
say better late than never. Neverthless, I do express appreciation to
the Speaker for fulfilling his promise that we conduct this debate.
I do think that without question, as already has been stated here,
the American people believe that we have a rigged and corrupt system,
and perhaps with good reason, but we have a good opportunity today to
really put that behind us and vote this reform. This will put us on the
road to reestablishing our credibility.
I must say that with the campaign costs skyrocketing candidates and
incumbents, as the American people have seen, find themselves devoting
more and more time and energy to fund-raising and the reach and
influence of special interests has grown out of control, and as a
consequence, people do believe that their elected officials are bought
and paid for; and it is at the core, I believe, of the voter cynicism
that is leading Americans to drop out of our political system and the
political process of our democracy.
We have here today the opportunity, without question, to address one
of the most corrupt, corrosive developments in our system, the
explosion of soft money; and that is what we are about today. If we do
nothing else, we must lay the foundation and take this giant step for
correcting this problem and ban soft money. It will not do everything,
but it will be the foundation and a giant step forward, and we must do
it.
The American people are cynical; they are disgusted. Let us take this
first giant step to restoring faith in our democratic process. Support
the rule, and support Shays-Meehan, the soft money ban, outright. It is
a strong ban, a hard ban, on soft money.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and would like to begin
my remarks this afternoon by saying: ``better late than never.
I have been part of a bipartisan group of Members who have been
seeking a full and a fair debate on campaign finance reform.
We should have had this debate last Spring.
As a result, America will be forced to witness another general
election conducted under rules the American people think are rigged and
corrupt.
But we are finally having it now and I thank the Speaker for
fulfilling his promise to conduct this debate.
Mr. Speaker, the lack of fundamental change in our campaign finance
reform is one of Congress' most significant failings. Clearly, our
campaign finance system is out of control. The signs of impending
disaster dominate the headlines every day. Campaign costs are
skyrocketing. Candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, find
themselves devoting more time and more energy to fundraising. The reach
and influence of special interests continue to grow. As a consequence,
many people believe elections are ``bought'' by those organizations
with the most money! And is at the core of voters cynicism leading to
Americans dropping out of the political process of our democracy.
Without question the most corrosive recent development has been the
explosion of so-called ``soft money''--donations from wealthy
corporations, labor unions and individuals to the major parties.
Of course, there are many critically important issues that we will
examine during the course of this debate--the so-called paycheck
protection amendment, issue ads, independent expenditures, and others.
But if we do nothing else--let's ban soft money. My Colleagues--soft
money was at the heart of each and every one of the scandals of the
last Presidential campaign today--nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, White
House coffees, alleged contributions from the Chinese military to the
DNC, and more.
The American people are cynical and disgusted. They should be.
Support the rule. Then, to ban soft money outright, support Shays-
Meehan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo, the
Supreme Court said, and I quote, ``To the extent that large
contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from current
and potential officeholders, the integrity of our system of
representative democracy is undermined. Of equal concern is the danger
of actual quid pro quo arrangements and the impact of the appearance of
corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for
abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial
contributions.''
[[Page H8181]]
Twenty years ago the main problem was unlimited individual
contributions going for undisguised campaign ads. Today the problem is
different. It is unlimited contributions from individuals and groups
going for campaign ads that are disguised transparently as issue ads.
So this is the real question. Will it take a Teapot Dome scandal to
get action under this dome on campaign finance reform?
The Annenberg study says the abuse of sham issue ads is growing. I
read for my colleagues this campaign ad from last year:
``Linda Smith on education: I have decided the U.S. Department of
Education is not necessary. That explains why Smith cosponsored a bill
to eliminate the Department of Education, voted to cut Head Start and
student loans, voted against testing standards to make schools
accountable. Linda Smith even voted to slash safe and drug-free schools
in half. Linda Smith puts her narrow political agenda ahead of our
schools. Tell her to stop voting against kids.''
If the words had been used ``defeat Linda Smith,'' under our campaign
laws, instead of the word ``tell'' which was used, that was clearly a
campaign ad. Games played with language using the word ``tell'' instead
of the word ``defeat'' should not thwart the law.
Corruption by money of the democratic process is not freedom.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), my good friend.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this rule of course, but against final
passage of Shays-Meehan. Let me make one thing clear at the outset of
this debate. There is no public clamor for this legislation. I have
been in almost every corner of my 24-county district during the last
month, and not once did a single citizen bring up the issue of our
campaign finance laws. No, the hue and cry for this bill is occurring
inside the Beltway of Washington D.C. largely by those who would
receive a special advantage by this proposed tilting of the playing
field.
Mr. Speaker, I am proudest of this House when it works in a
bipartisan manner, but this is not what we will have today. There may
be high-sounding tones in the media about the winds of reform, but for
its liberal advocates this bill is really about party politics, and
here is why. The big labor bosses use the forced dues of their union
members to further their political goals, and that usually means
support only for Democrats. This bill would do nothing to stop that
practice.
Shays-Meehan takes no action to limit another of the most significant
abuses of the liberal labor bosses, and that is the in-kind, unreported
use of union employees for get-out-the-vote, organization efforts, and
other political activities. These actions benefit one party exclusively
and, frankly, are beyond the scope of anything we can do as a Congress.
Mr. Speaker, this debate should be about freedom of speech, freedom
of expression, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
Look at this diagram, Mr. Speaker. We should shudder to contemplate
the arcane, complex, Rube Goldberg limitations on American expression
which are contained in this bill. This is the convoluted process that
the courts and the FEC, candidates and citizens will have to go through
in order to make sure their advocacy is permissible under Shays-Meehan.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have friends on both sides of the aisle who
legitimately believe that there is too much money in campaigns today,
and I will admit that there is a certain nostalgia for the one-on-one
campaigns of yesteryear; but this bill, Shays-Meehan, does not get us
there. When I was a youth growing up in Mississippi, there was always a
huge crowd around the court square on a Saturday morning. A candidate
could come into town with a loud speaker on top of his station wagon
and get his point across to a large percentage of the voters. But those
days are over. We live in the days of malls and cable TV with 99
channels, the Internet, not to mention radio, direct mail and the print
media. Those are the methods we use in the United States of America to
convey information today, and it costs money to buy that form of
advertising.
Freedom of speech is worthless if no one can hear it. The truth is
that it takes funds to amplify our political discourse to a level which
reaches the public.
Mr. Speaker, there are solutions out there to rectify the most
unpleasant aspects of campaigning and raising funds to do so, but that
will not occur today. It will not occur as long as one political party
believes it can achieve a significant and unfair advantage under the
guise of reform.
I urge passage of the rule and defeat of Shays-Meehan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New
York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support
this rule because it remains the only way that we will get real
campaign finance reform on the floor for a vote. The underlying Shays-
Meehan bill is strong, bipartisan legislation that deserves the support
of every Member of this House. It is the only bill that shuts down the
soft money system and reins in the phony issue ads; but in order to get
to Shays-Meehan, this rules forces us to navigate a minefield of poison
pills, killer amendments and substitutes introduced by many Members who
have absolutely no intention of voting for the underlying bill.
The most dangerous of these is the Thomas substitute. It would
strengthen the FEC, a cause I have long championed. Along with my
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), we introduced an
amendment that would incorporate the Thomas substitute as a perfecting
amendment, as many of us did with the commission bill of the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and others last year. But, Mr. Speaker,
this was rejected.
I urge my colleagues, vote for the rule, against all substitutes, all
killer amendments, and for campaign finance reform.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the lead author of the campaign finance reform
bill which brought us to this point.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time
to me, and I thank this Congress for debating this issue.
This is legislation that clearly has bipartisan support. It is a team
effort, and it has probably been one of the more satisfying activities
that I have been involved in.
{time} 1330
I just want to say that I disagree strongly with the gentleman from
Mississippi talking about it being one party. It is not about one
party, and it is not about freedom of speech because we retain freedom
of speech. It is about ending corrupt politics. That is what it is
about.
It has been against the law since 1907 for corporate treasury money
to be used in campaigns, but it happens. It has been against laws since
1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns, but it is happening.
It has been against the laws since 1974 for foreign nationals to
contribute to campaigns but they are, and they are because of two
loopholes: Soft money, the unlimited sums of money from individuals,
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups; and the sham
issue ads which are truly campaign ads.
We do not prevent those ads for money. We just call them campaign
ads. What that means is, out goes the corporate treasury money, the
union dues money, and the foreign national money. That is what this
debate is about. It is about having a fair system, where everyone has a
right to speak out, and where we enforce the 1907 law, the 1947, law
and the 1974 law.
I would want to just end by saying this is a fair rule, but it is a
fair rule that gives the opponents of our legislation seven shots to
kill us as amendments and three shots to kill us through substitutes.
It is still a fair rule. It is a rule, though, that does not allow for
one amendment, and that is the Thomas amendment. We wanted it as a
perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute because it is a very
good piece of legislation, but it is process, not reform, in our
judgment.
So I salute sincerely the chairman of the Committee on Rules for
making sure we have a debate that will not go on for months, giving us
time limits,
[[Page H8182]]
letting us know what is coming, and I thank him for doing it; and I
thank our Speaker for living up to his word.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine
(Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this rule, in
strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill, and in opposition to the
poison pill amendments. Today's votes present clear choices. If one is
a Member of this House and they like spending more and more of their
time raising money, vote for the poison pills; but if they prefer
working on issues important to their constituents, support Shays-
Meehan.
If one works for a corporation or a labor union and they like getting
hit up for soft money donations again and again, support the status
quo; but if they prefer to invest money in their own organization,
support Shays-Meehan.
If one is a TV viewer and they like endless streams of deceptive
anonymous issue ads in election years, oppose reform; but if one
prefers honest and less frequent ads, support Shays-Meehan.
If one is an American and likes their voice being drowned out by
special interests, big money, support the DeLay-Doolittle coalition;
but if one wants a greater say in how our laws are made, support Shays-
Meehan.
I urge approval of the rule, defeat of the poison pill amendments and
passage of the underlying legislation.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Dreier) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule and I do rise in
support of Shays-Meehan and in opposition to the amendments. There has
been a lot of fussing over the rule here today. I do not think there is
anything unexpected there. That is what the majority of the majority
parties wants, to have a certain limited circumstance. I think, in
fact, the Committee on Rules and the leadership deserves credit for
letting us vote on this at all; and because there has been so much
attention paid to it, I think we all know exactly what we have to do on
the individual votes under this particular rule so I do not think that
is a problem.
I hope that all of us will support it.
I hope everybody will consider very carefully what we are doing here.
It should concern every one of us that there are corporations, there
are labor unions, there are organizations out there which are
contributing to the political parties in soft money a quarter million
and more, perhaps something less than that. And if anyone believes they
are doing it because they believe in good government, I would tell them
to look at the underlying legislation that those groups are interested
in.
The bottom line is that I think we need to do something about it. I
am for individual contributions. I am for complete disclosure of all
contributions and all expenditures which are made. I think we have to
limit the special issue groups so that is obviously not in order. And I
think Shays-Meehan would do it, and I would encourage all of us to do
it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Forbes).
(Mr. FORBES asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I think it
is clear in this body last year we made it known that a majority of the
Members here believe, as the public does, that we have a need for
campaign finance reform.
The people have lost faith in the current system, a system that
should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people
wonder actually, does it belong to the people?
The current system really makes it impossible for people who want to
give voice to their issues to get into electoral office. They feel shut
out. We need Shays-Meehan so that we can restore confidence in our
electoral system and make this great democracy even greater.
Today we have a chance to change all of that. We can restore faith in
this political system breathing democracy by passing Shays-Meehan. The
proposed amendments only cloud the main issue, and the substitutes
unfortunately seek to gut it. We need to send a clean bill to the
Senate and represent the change that Americans want, starting here in
the House.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the author of one of the key substitutes.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule being offered today. I
believe it is fair. It will allow a broad-ranging debate on campaign
finance reform. The rule makes in order four major alternatives, one of
which is the substitute that I have offered, along with the gentleman
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Brady). It is the Campaign Integrity Act which does three things that I
think are very important.
One, it bans soft money to the national parties which is the most
significant problem that we have on our scene.
Second, it empowers individuals in our system by increasing the
information that is available to them through more disclosure.
Third, it raises the individual contribution limits to prevent the
value of the small contributor from being eroded through rising
inflation. Ours is the only substitute that does that.
As my colleagues examine which alternative is the right one to
support, we should all ask a couple of questions.
First of all, what fixes the most significant problems?
Second, what can realistically get passed in the Senate?
Third, what is consistent with the Constitution?
I believe that is the framework for the debate as we engage in this
under the rule.
The Hutchinson-Moran-Hill-Brady-Hulshof substitute accomplishes all
three of these objectives. So I believe it is a fair rule that is being
offered today.
The question has been raised, does the public support reform? I
believe that they do. In fact, I believe the reform is more intense in
the body politic in America than it is in this body, because we know
the script; we know what is going to happen, and we know the Senate is
not going to consider the same bill that they considered the last time.
So I think the public is wiser. They support reform, but they want
good reform and they are willing to debate the substance of each
proposal.
Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 15 said, why has government been
instituted at all?
The answer is, because the passions of men will not conform to the
dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
I believe that defines the debate on campaign finance reform, that
reason and justice demands this type of reform and the rule will
support that.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost), 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if we sweep campaign finance reform under
the rug, what legacy will we be leaving our children? Political
mistrust, apathy? Or today, will we take a giant step forward in
reforming a political system and leaving a system that our children can
be proud of?
Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. The American people want campaign
finance reform. They want it now.
The American people are weary of the glaring abuses and outrageous
sums of money spent on political campaigns. The American people believe
big money is destroying our political systems.
Campaign reform is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is a
Democratic and Republican responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, it is time to come to this House floor and honestly
address
[[Page H8183]]
campaign finance reform. Let us do it and let us do it once and for
all. Let us vote yes on Shays-Meehan. Let us vote no on all poison pill
amendments.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Frost) for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully depart from some of my colleagues here
who think that this rule is a fair rule. I suggest that this rule is,
in effect, a somewhat hidden attempt to kill the only campaign finance
reform proposal that probably has a chance of passing this year. We
know that because last year when it was presented, it passed by 252
votes to 179. It had 61 Republicans on it. It was, in fact, a
bipartisan effort. This year, instead of showing a willingness to
either take a stand and be counted on the issue of banning unregulated
soft money donations to parties, of regulating phony issue ads on
television, and imposing new fund-raising disclosure rules, some are
trying to use the rules, I believe, to obfuscate the issue, take 10
swipes either killing it with a poison pill or killing it by
substituting suggestions that are unpalatable to most of the Members of
this Congress.
In fact, the New York Times, in an editorial on September 13, I
think, justifiably called these junkyard tactics of 1998. It is
essentially the same tactics that we saw last year.
This rule, in a good world, would be defeated; but apparently it is
going to pass because people fear that without this rule we will have
no chance at campaign finance reform at all.
We should have that chance. We should vote for Shays-Meehan without
all the other shenanigans.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with little enthusiasm for this rule
but in great support for the Shays-Meehan proposal.
Mr. Speaker, I have a picture on the wall of my office that I
purchased several years ago from a high school art competition in my
district. It was produced by Jeff Vogelsberg, a student at that time in
Belleville High School. It is a picture of a car made out of money that
has lassoed and is towing away the capitol of the United States.
We have a saying in our language, out of the mouths of babes, which
really recognizes the pure and perfect insight that children often
possess, their ability to get to the nub of the issue; and in fact, Mr.
Speaker, this is how our children see us, how the public sees us. Of
course, it is the children who will grow up and write the history books
of the future.
What do we think they will have to say about us and this Congress?
How will history portray us? Will this Congress be portrayed as
supporters of a system with integrity and honor, or one of money that
is so powerful it can pull the capitol of the United States from its
very foundations? Support Shays-Meehan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule
because it is going to present an opportunity to the House of
Representatives to vote on the merits of this very important bill that
I am a cosponsor of, the Shays-Meehan bill.
It has been suggested earlier, there is not public clamor for us in
Congress to take up campaign finance reform, and I think that statement
alone really demonstrates what a problem we have here.
The public is leaving it to us to figure out the details on how to
rid this system of its excesses. What they want from us, what the
public is clamoring for, is simply independent judgment.
{time} 1345
They want control over this political process returned to people.
They expect us to judge each of the issues that come before us on the
merits. If they were exposed to what we are exposed to, the incredible
acceleration in the rate of soft money and sham issue ads pouring into
the system, overshadowing their individual votes, they would expect us
to take up this very bill today. We have to be on guard to defeat the
poison pill amendments.
The Shays-Meehan bill is not a bill that favors Democrats or
Republicans, it favors ordinary citizens who want their vote to count.
We need to defeat the poison pill amendments, we need a straight-up
vote on Shays-Meehan, we need to return control of our elections of
this Congress to the people of the United States.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas prepared to
yield back the balance of his time?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend from California
by saying that we have additional speakers; however, they are not
currently on the floor. We have Members who have requested the
opportunity to speak.
Mr. DREIER. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Speaker?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from California
(Mr. Dreier) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, does my friend anticipate that he is going
to fill that entire 15-minute period?
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have requests for that time, but the
Members are not currently on the floor. It is our anticipation that we
would use the time. We had planned to.
Mr. DREIER. So if I were to move the previous question, would the
gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
Mr. FROST. Not at this point, Mr. Speaker, because there are Members
who are in transit. There are Members who are coming to the floor who
would like to speak.
Mr. DREIER. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks).
(Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support
of the rule that will help to deliver comprehensive campaign reform to
the American people.
Last session, I was one of the authors of a bill to create an
independent commission that would be empowered to make specific
proposals that Congress would have been required to act upon. But
today, the underlying bill before us combines the best of two
approaches: the independent commission and Shays-Meehan.
While the old Shays-Meehan legislation addressed some of the most
corrupting elements of our campaign finance system by banning soft
money, reforming issue ads and imposing tougher FEC disclosure, it
failed to address a variety of other legitimate concerns. But now, with
the independent commission having become part of the Shays-Meehan
proposal, the bill before us now has an added dimension. The commission
created by this legislation will provide a means to address those
issues that continue to breed public mistrust in our campaign finance
system.
Today, Congress needs to face a harsh reality. Shays-Meehan, which
now includes the independent commission, is the only real opportunity
to deliver to the American people a campaign finance system that they
can trust. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we rapidly use up our time on this side,
leaving my friends with 15 minutes on their side, I am happy to yield 1
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is
recognized for 3 minutes.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for helping us out here.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be loved by both sides here
today.
I rise in support of the rule and in great appreciation for the
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules who I think has been
very fair and courteous through this process, and also in great
appreciation to the Speaker of the House who is proving to all 435
Members of the House today that he can be trusted to follow through on
his word; that we would, in fact, this week in September consider the
issue of campaign finance reform
[[Page H8184]]
after an overwhelming success last year on basically the same decision,
and that is, the underlying text of Shays-Meehan, which we have before
us today.
Of the four major alternatives that the gentleman from Arkansas laid
out a few minutes ago, three of them truly address systemic campaign
reform, that is, the issue of money and influence on the federal
process. One of those four alternatives, though, frankly, does not
stack up to the level of significant campaign finance reform as the
other three. And that one is the Thomas substitute.
Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the
Committee on House Administration is a brilliant man in this House; we
all know that. He understands all of these issues extremely well, but
what he has offered and the Committee on Rules embraced as a substitute
really is an amendment, and my colleague, the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Davis), and I appeared before the Committee on Rules and asked
that that amendment be ruled in order, not as a substitute or an
alternative to the other three major provisions, but as an amendment so
that it could be attached to our bill, because frankly, there is
nothing in it that everybody would not desire as an amendment to any of
the three major alternatives. Yet, it was chosen as a substitute.
Now, folks out there do not know what this really means, but what
happens here is if it gets more votes than the rest of the bills, it
goes forward; the rest stop, dead in their tracks, and therein lies
somewhat of a gimmick in this whole process of today.
So there are issues that will be considered as we go through this
day, and we are grateful for the opportunity that will not be what they
appear on the surface, because people will be voting against things
that are perfectly good so that the underlying bill, the Shays-Meehan
bill, the bill with momentum, the bill that is the most significant
campaign finance reform legislation to move through this Congress since
1974 can be considered on its own merits.
Now, today, as we go through all of this debate, Members are going to
look for places to hide. I have seen this; this is my fifth year here.
They look for some way to position themselves so that they can say I am
for it, but. And the American people should say, the buts must stop
now. You are for it, you are going to vote for it, you are going to
move it forward. Soft money is the target. There are a lot of details
that people will hide behind, but soft money is not defensible in
today's environment. It is excessive, onerous, egregious, and should be
removed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
first thank my friend for his complimentary remarks and then to respond
to a couple of points that he raised.
First, what he described as somewhat of a gimmick is, in fact,
something called regular order. We are proceeding with the regular
Rules of the House here. And to describe the Thomas substitute as a
measure which should, in fact, be considered as an amendment and not a
substitute would be doing a disservice to the chairman of the committee
which will be managing this legislation as it moves forward, and in
fact, the Thomas substitute was the only substitute that was favorably
reported from the Committee on House Administration, so I think it is
important for us to just clarify the record. Again, under this regular
order procedure, we are allowing the Members the opportunity to
consider a wide range of alternatives.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Long Beach,
California, Mr. Horn.
(Mr. HORN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker. Speaker Hastert told us
in March, we will bring it up in September, and here it is September,
and it is brought up. He is a person of his word.
I support the rule; I support Shays-Meehan. The question is, ``Do we
have the will to get a majority?'' We had it last year; let us get it
again this year. Will it stop current practices? Will it stop the
auctioning off of the Lincoln bedroom? The greatest scandal in American
history was the collection of foreign and domestic money for the 1996
presidential campaign. Shays-Meehan will stop that.
The time is now. Twenty-five years ago well-meaning colleagues
thought that Congress was banning soft money. It turns out they were
not. They had reform for individual candidates, but they failed when
corporate money, union money, and very wealthy individuals' money,
could be laundered through party organization committees of both
parties and smaller parties. This flow of money was readily welcomed
and the parties simply became great Automatic Teller Machines that one
can push in at one end and millions of dollars come out at the other
end. If we did that as candidates, we would be indicted. The parties
are not. They had found a huge loophole. Shays-Meehan will end that.
Mr. Speaker, every right that we have flows to us in the governing of
this country. We need to really reaffirm it by doing the right thing.
We need to decide now whether our elections will be governed by law or
manipulated by loophole. Let us do the right thing. Let us change the
law. Let us make sure that people have faith in this institution and
the institutions of government generally. If we do not do it, we will
continue to see people as doubters about how ethically clean are
legislators at the local, State, and the national levels. This is the
chance to clean house. Let's do it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
(Mr. GEPHARDT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today first to congratulate the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their excellent across-the-aisle,
bipartisan work in bringing about this legislation. I might say that I
hope that this bipartisan effort that they have put together with lots
of Members from both parties is something that we cannot only win with
today, but have repeated with other bills: the patients' bill of
rights, education. We ought to be able to find a way to work across
party lines to get things done for the American people. I want to
congratulate both of them vociferously for the hard work that they have
done day in and day out to get us to where we are today.
I would also like to recognize the work of our Democratic Blue Dogs
and their discharge petition effort which forced the leadership to take
our demands for a vote on campaign reform seriously. Because of their
work, 202 Members of the House signed the discharge petition, urging
the Republican leadership to bring Shays-Meehan to the floor, and we
are able to be here today on the floor discussing this because of that
discharge petition and the work that was done, again, in a bipartisan
way to get this on the floor.
The truth is, some of the Republican leaders have done their best to
prevent this issue from coming to the floor, despite the fact that a
bipartisan majority of the House wants this vote. And they are still
trying to kill reform with poison pill amendments and substitute bills.
I hope that does not succeed. I hope the bipartisan majority for good
campaign reform prevails.
This is a very simple issue. A vote for Shays-Meehan today is the
best way and, in my view, the only way to begin to roll back the
influence of wealthy special interests in government. It is the only
way to focus the Congress back to the issues that the people I
represent care about; to make our politics more responsive to their
needs and not simply listening to wealthy special interests.
We have all seen what being bound to big money from special interests
has done to our present legislative agenda. Republican leaders put the
needs of powerful lobbyists ahead of average families and their needs.
They killed gun safety legislation. They have tried to block a real
patients' bill of rights, and they have refused to take action to make
prescription drugs affordable to every senior.
Instead, they have introduced a tax bill which gives a small minority
of wealthy Americans and corporations an $8 billion tax break which
threatens the economic growth that is the best I
[[Page H8185]]
have seen in my lifetime. We have gone from a government by the people,
for the people to a government of lobbyists and special interests.
By passing Shays-Meehan we take the first major step toward restoring
the trust of the people in their government, in their House of
Representatives, and returning us all to the agenda of ordinary
American families.
{time} 1400
It is time to begin this process. It is time for Shays-Meehan to be
the law of the land. I ask every Member, Republican and Democratic,
refuse to vote for the amendments designed to kill this reform, reject
the Thomas substitute, which will only distract us from what we are
supposed to be doing, and stand up today for Shays-Meehan, for real
campaign reform. Return the people's Houses to the people of this great
country.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the committee of
jurisdiction.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge
its passage. What did he say? What kind of doublespeak is this? Is he
speaking out of both sides of his mouth? I will leave it for the
Members to determine, and I will discuss this rule and why I think it
ought to be passed, and why I think it is an unfortunate rule in that
context.
Mr. Speaker, there is a disease infecting American politics today.
That disease is cynicism--cynicism towards our public institutions and
our public officials.
The symptoms are plain to see: civic disengagement, voter apathy,
detachment, disaffection, and erosion of trust. In my view, this
cynicism is inextricably linked to our current campaign finance system.
In the 1996 presidential election cycle, less than one-tenth of 1
percent of Americans contributed the maximum $1,000 per election for
any candidate, according to the Advocacy Group on Public Campaigns.
Yet, Americans cannot help but be awe-struck by the so-called soft
money contributions pouring into our politics. In the 1996 election
cycle, the two major parties raised $260 million in soft money. The
same group predicts this figure will explode to $750 million in this
cycle.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a rare opportunity to attack this
cynicism before it hardens into a more debilitating contempt. We also
can show the American people that we indeed can work together in a
bipartisan manner.
Just 13 months ago this House overwhelmingly passed the Shays-Meehan
campaign finance reform bill, 252 to 179, 61 Republicans, 190
Democrats. There is no reason that we cannot pass this important
measure by even a larger margin today.
As we all know, Shays-Meehan would chip away at this cynicism by
banning soft money contributions. In addition, it would regulate issue
advertising that is clearly aimed at electing or defeating a specific
candidate.
While I am hopeful that we will pass Shays-Meehan once again, I am
mindful that the path to victory is treacherous. That is because the
rule governing today's debate in my view is designed to do one thing
only, to kill Shays-Meehan. That is why I said at the beginning that I
rise in opposition to this rule but urge its support, because I fear if
it goes down, we will not have the opportunity to consider Shays-
Meehan.
Here is what the Washington Post said about the 10 amendments made in
order by this rule: ``They were written and chosen either to vitiate
the Shays-Meehan bill, or to poison it for Democrats who might then
take the lead in killing it. Perhaps even worse, this rule pits
noncontroversial Federal Election Commission reform, the Thomas
substitute, against Shays-Meehan.'' If the Thomas substitute receives
more votes than Shays-Meehan, the latter, of course, dies, and we will
never even get to vote on it.
The substitute on FEC reform is not nor was it ever intended to be
campaign finance reform. I ought to know. The Thomas substitute we will
consider under this rule incorporates many of the provisions that I
sponsored in H.R. 1818. But make no mistake, FEC reform is not campaign
finance reform. FEC reform should have been on a suspension calendar or
made as an amendment to Shays-Meehan. It was not. It was not because if
it is adopted, it will automatically kill Shays-Meehan.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thomas substitute, which I
support, but I support Shays-Meehan today, and we can support Thomas
tomorrow.
I should note, too, that not one of our four committee hearings this
summer, not one, was focused on FEC reform. Frankly, as best I can
tell, their only real purpose was to try to discredit Shays-Meehan.
Finally, despite the fact that this is an unfair rule, as I said at
the outset, I urge my colleagues to adopt it, to adopt it so that we
can consider legislation critical to trying to allay the cynicism of
which I have spoken.
Rules, of course, are not always fair, but there is no reason we
cannot overcome the obstruction in our path, pass the bipartisan Shays-
Meehan bill, and chip away at the cynicism toward American politics
that exists today. I urge my colleagues to reject the poison pill
amendments, to reject the Thomas substitute so we can adopt it on
another day, to leave standing Shays-Meehan, and to vote in a
bipartisan, overwhelming fashion to tell the American public that we
are in fact, as our leader has said, going to return this House to the
people.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Nadler).
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to put this debate into a little perspective.
When the United States became independent, when our Constitution was
adopted, there were many skeptics who said that our new system of
government would not last, a republican form of government, a
democratic form of government. There had been many republics and
democracies in the past and in antiquity, in Middle Ages, but they had
not lasted. They all, every single one of them, degenerated into
oligarchies or autocracies. Skeptics said this new democratic republic
would not last, either.
There have been two greatest tests of our democratic system. In the
Civil War, because of slavery, Lincoln quite correctly characterized it
as a test of whether a government of the people, by the people, and for
the people could survive.
Now we face a second great test, the increasing domination of our
politics by big money. People are cynical, and rightly so. They believe
that their participation, their voices, cannot count against the power
of big money, and recent experience says they are right.
We all know the power of the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies. We
watched this Congress pass a $50 billion giveaway to big tobacco
companies. We gave away, not sold, not rented, gave away a $70 billion
spectrum to the broadcasting companies. Why? Because of the power of
big money.
That power has corrupted both major political parties, and if we do
not stop it, if we do not take this step, Shays-Meehan is the first
step towards shopping it, when the histories are written, they will say
the United States had a good 200-, 250-year run with democracy, and
then it degenerated into an oligarchy and not a democratic system.
We must begin to stop it now. We must pass Shays-Meehan. We must
reject the trickery and the conniving of the Republican leadership in
putting all these procedural obstructions in its path. If we want
democratic government to survive into the next millenium, this is the
time to start saying so today.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to
me, and I thank him, as well as the Speaker, for his fairness in
allowing us to bring this to the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of how we finance our campaigns overshadows
and undermines every other issue we debate in this Capitol. It distorts
our policy with regard to the national defense of our Nation, it
distorts and skews our policy with regard to health care, it distorts
and skews our policy with regard to environmental protection.
Reasonable men and women of this Chamber, friends of mine who come to
[[Page H8186]]
the floor and argue otherwise, they will argue that when unions or
corporations contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money
to the parties, that in fact that has no effect whatsoever on the
policy that proceeds from this House.
I do not believe that, but reasonable people can differ. What is
clear, though, is that the fact that there is this question before us
undermines public confidence in democracy, and the public's confidence
in our institutions of democracy is too important, far too important to
act in any way but to err on the side of prudence.
Mr. Speaker, the standard for conduct in public office is not simply
for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest. It is for us to
avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. Clearly, indisputably,
the current system creates at least the appearance of conflict of
interest, conflicts of interest between what is in the best interest of
the American people and what is in the interest of those who donate
such large sums to the parties.
Shays-Meehan allows us to transcend that conflict of interest. I urge
its support.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
(Mr. VENTO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule and a bad deal, but it is
the only option we will get in this Republican controlled House.
The effort here is to try and defeat, and if not to defeat to
undercut, any positive step to make a downpayment upon true campaign
finance reform. The Republican leadership does not want to enact
campaign reform. Their transparent behavior and actions speak louder
than words, the Republican postponement of the Shays-Meehan bill so it
will not likely reform the 2000 election cycle late in this session,
and even then to float so many amendments, such wood decoys, as to
distract and shoot down true campaign finance reform.
Today, hopefully, the House and the American public, will let them
know it's not duck season, will avoid falling into this public
relations trap and demand reform which will ensure the empowerment of
voters.
Pass Shays-Meehan. Restore credibility. Empower voters, not just the
special interests in this cycle. Restore confidence to the American
public. Elections are at the core of our democracy. We need to take
this step and pay an installment in terms of campaign reform.
Mr. Speaker, today the Majority leadership is trying to turn the old
saying, ``If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it must be
a duck'' on its head. Under that strategy, they hope to put out enough
wooden decoys to distract our attention and the attention of the
American people. With such waddling around and a cacophony of quacking
on campaign reform, they hope that they will be able to distract, to
decoy the House from voting for a responsible change in our campaign
laws and to avoid public accountability for their actions to block real
campaign reform.
Mr. Chairman, that strategy will not work. The Members of this House,
are working on a bipartisan basis for positive change within the limits
of the Constitution. The American people know that today's system of
political campaigns and how we fund them is broken. The American voter
also knows that we have to enact meaningful reforms to return our
political process to free our political process from the perception and
reality of special interest control and empower the public interest as
vital to a democracy.
The essence of this debate is returning our political process to the
American people; clarifying the election process as inviolate and
making certain that the people have a restored sense of control through
their participation; making certain that their vote makes a difference.
As campaign spending has skyrocketed and campaigns have come to rely
more and more on paid media, paid phoners and paid consultants, the
growing disillusionment of the American public has been evidenced by
declining numbers at the voting booth across the nation. A simple
review of the Federal Elections Commission compilation of national
voting turnout reflect a steady erosion in turnout over the past 30
years. In 1960, over 63 percent of the U.S. voting age population
voted. In the last Presidential election, only 49 percent eligible
citizens actually voted. For non-presidential years, the percentage of
voting age population who actually voted dropped by an alarming 11
percent.
There is no need to explore in great depth, the causes for voter
drop-off. Legions of political scientists have debated this matter in
academic circles for over the past decade. And we, the practitioners of
politics, also have our own preconceptions of what has brought about
the decline in voter turn-out. For too many voters political campaigns
have become too slick and too negative. The result, the voter just
disengages from political campaigns.
Unfortunately, most of the options before us do nothing or too little
to address the totality of this problem. Instead these proposals are
new schemes designed to sidetrack this Body; to subvert the goal of
campaign finance reform; and to embed in law special advantages and
special interest control. In particular, I would like to draw my
Colleagues' attention to the amendment to be offered by the Member from
Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling. This amendment, masquerading as ``campaign
reform'', in reality targets one segment of our society, labor unions,
and gags them from communicating with the membership. This amendment
ignores the fact that unions today are prohibited from using union dues
in federal political campaigns and that individuals cannot be forced to
pay funds that will be used for political purposes. This Shays Meehan
legislation in fact treats unions the same as everyone else by clocking
the use of ``soft money'' and closing the ``express advocacy''
loophole. Perhaps that is the problem with this legislation, it is too
fair. It treats Democrats and Republicans, labor and business, the NRA
lobby and gun safety groups alike. The opponents of this bill would
rather have a bill that tilts the process in their direction. The
inherent balance of Shays Meehan is the correct way to go, not an
approach that gives an advantage to any group.
By approving the Shays-Meehan bill, Congress will be taking the first
positive step in campaign finance reforms in decades. This legislation
will certainly not eliminate all problems. This bill will not stop
negative campaigning. Nor does it bring all campaign spending under
control. The Shays-Meehan bill will, hopefully, be the first step in
restoring some sanity to our campaign process. By eliminating the
infusion of ``soft money'' into campaigns and closing the ``issue
advocacy'' loophole, we are taking important positive steps to regain
control and public accountability into our political base. This
foundation will hopefully lead to further positive legislation to
restore the rightful role of the American people in our political
process. Critics say it will not work because of the courts or that the
only way to go is public financing. The fact remains that this bill
addresses serious loopholes and presents a common ground basis to act
today.
To restore the role of the people and to return campaigns to a debate
on issues, not sound bites, we must defeat the distracting phony decoy
ducks that the Republican leadership and other anti-reform groups have
floated and pass the Shays-Meehan bill today, as installment payment to
restoring voter confidence and credibility to the federal election
process now not later.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need to reform the system
that finances our elections on political parties. Far too much of the
time of this Chamber is devoted to fund-raising. We as Members know it,
and so do our constituents. It is not surprising that the current
system has led to a serious erosion of public confidence in the
democratic process.
Also, we know that all too often the policy has been shaped by
campaign contributions. One needs look no further than what we have
seen with the tobacco industry over time. The most egregious example I
have seen since I have been in Congress was the $50 billion tax break
for the cigarette manufacturers slipped into the 1997 tax reform
legislation unannounced.
This campaign finance legislation, authored by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Meehan), does not just improve our terribly flawed system. More
important, it will break a logjam that has prevented reform.
It will show the American people we can deliver something that is
good for the political process and good for America. It will help us
clean up the political process and make other reforms easier and more
likely. It will help us exercise the bipartisan collaborative reform
tendencies that can have a huge impact on the people's business in this
Congress and beyond.
[[Page H8187]]
I urge a rejection of the poison pill amendments, and to pass Shays-
Meehan.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
close.
Mr. Speaker, it is important that campaign finance reform come to the
floor and be voted on. For that reason, we will not oppose this rule,
even though this is an unfair rule, an unusual rule, and a rule
structured by the majority to provide the maximum opportunity for
mischief and the maximum opportunity to deny the House a direct vote on
Shays-Meehan.
This is not a good rule. This is not a fair rule. But the minority
has no choice but to permit the process to go forward and attempt to
frustrate the majority's mischief by uniting our side with Members on
the other side who want true campaign finance reform.
We will support Shays-Meehan. We reluctantly agree that this rule
should go forward so the debate may begin.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy, even though it is reluctant, to
have the support of Members of the minority for this rule. But I have
to tell the Members that they should be enthusiastically supporting it.
Why? Because it is in fact a very fair and balanced rule. In fact,
the degree of fairness is greater than what it was when my friends on
the other side gave when they were in the majority.
{time} 1415
This is something called regular order. Now, our regular order, in
fact, says that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), as chairman
of the Committee on Administration, has allowed to move forward the one
substitute that was reported favorably from his committee and have that
considered as a substitute. We have also chosen to make two other
substitutes in order.
As I said in my opening remarks, 26 amendments were submitted to the
Committee on Rules. Of those, we have made in order 13. One amendment
was offered by a Democrat, and that amendment was made in order. So my
Democratic colleagues have had every amendment that they submitted to
the Committee on Rules made in order under this measure.
So it is a very fair rule. It is what is known as regular order.
There is no poison pill involved in here. We are following regular
order, which is exactly what Speaker Hastert said when he stood in this
well on the opening day of the 106th Congress. So I urge my colleagues
to support the rule.
I will say that I am one who does believe very, very strongly in the
importance of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is right on target in
trying to provide a wide array of information to the American people as
they look at the prospect of choosing their leaders.
The issue of campaign finance reform is important. It is important
for us to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect and
nurture that First Amendment to the Constitution. That is the reason
that I am supportive of the Doolittle substitute, and I will be
supporting the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) in his effort.
I know there has been a lot of talk about what the level of public
interest is in this issue, and clearly there are some people who want
to spend a lot of time focused on it. I do not think that we should be
legislating based solely on what is the highest rated poll item. But I
will say this, the issue of campaign finance reform is not quite as
important as some of my colleagues have said.
When the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) talked about this being
such an important issue, a decisive issue, as we juxtapose it to the
Civil War, it seems to me that there are a wide range of important
things that have taken place betwixt the Civil War and today, ranking
all the way from the Second World War to the civil rights legislation,
which was very, very important for our country. As the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) has just reminded me, we had a man who walked
on the moon 3 decades ago. So there are lots of things that are
important.
We are, because of the level of interest that exists in this body,
proceeding with consideration of this campaign finance reform measure
under regular order, and I look forward to a free-flowing and
stimulating debate.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________