[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 97 (Thursday, July 12, 2001)]
[House]
[Pages H3989-H3990]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2356, BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM
ACT OF 2001
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
has 1 minute remaining on debate on the rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, the time is here. We are going to have a vote on this
rule. This is a fair rule. It allows for full debate on Shays-Meehan,
along with the 14 changes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays)
and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to make to their
own bill. It provides an opportunity for an amendment of the Ney-Wynn
bill, the Doolittle bill and the Linder bill, along with numerous other
amendments of Members who appeared before the Committee on Rules.
It is a fair rule, one that allows for a full, balanced debate on
this very important legislation. This will bring about, once and for
all, a great debate, a debate that the entire House can participate in.
The rule that is provided before us, if it is voted up, we have the
debate; if it is voted down, it is for those who opposed it to live for
another day to demagogue it, rather than vote on it.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, the 2000 presidential election
may well be remembered for ``hanging chads'' and other evidence of the
imperfections in our electoral system. The right to vote is our most
precious freedom. We cannot afford to have a repeat of last fall's
problems.
The 2000 presidential election, therefore, should direct our
attention once again to the need for campaign and electoral reform.
Both political parties are motivated to address the issue in this 107th
session of the Congress. I have already cosponsored legislation to
provide states with the tools they need to ensure uniformity and
improve voter accuracy and access. We must be careful, however, not to
let our efforts to achieve voting reform mask the critical problem with
our electoral process--the uncontrolled and pernicious influence of big
money on the outcome of our elections. So, today, I rise in strong
support of the Shays-Meehan legislation, which will help fix many of
our system's problems.
It is time for Congress to enact campaign finance reform because
quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, our federal campaign finance system is
broken. Last year, both parties spent unprecedented amounts in soft
money for a new record in the campaigns for control of the White House
and Congress.
New Mexicans--like all Americans--are justifiably appalled by the
fact that the amount of money spent in elections has increased
exponentially with no end in sight. The Democratic and Republican
national party committees raised a record $463 million in soft money
from January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2000, according to a Common
Cause analysis released in February. The amount raised during this past
election cycle was nearly double the $235.9 million raised during the
1995-1996 election cycle. We must take action now.
In the 106th Congress, and again in the 107th, I was elected by my
colleagues to take a leadership role on the issue of campaign finance
reform in the House of Representatives. In September 1999, I helped
floor manage the House's passage of the Shays-Meehan legislation which
would have closed some of the worst loopholes in the campaign finance
laws. However, this bill never became law because of the opposition of
a single Senator.
In spite of this setback, a bipartisan group, led by John McCain and
Russell Feingold, have passed their legislation in the other body. It
is my hope that, this year, the House will follow suit, and pass
meaningful campaign finance reform legislation and that the President
will sign it into law.
Current law authorizes contributions by individuals of up to $1,000
per candidate per election and up to $5,000 per Political Action
Committee (PAC) per election. Corporations and unions are prohibited
from making any contributions to candidates or their campaigns.
Nevertheless, individuals, unions, and corporations give
contributions of hundreds of thousands of dollars, indeed, millions to
campaigns as so-called ``soft'' money to the political parties
themselves. The soft money loophole is based on the fiction that a
contribution to the Democratic party or the Republican party is
different in reality from a contribution to the party's candidates. It
is fiction because parties spend most of the contributions on
television campaigns and those campaigns have one goal--electing
candidates. Banning unregulated, unlimited contributions to parties is
the core of campaign finance reform.
Campaign finance reform is vital to every other piece of legislation
that Congress considers. From the very real need for a patients bill of
rights to the acute need for a comprehensive national energy policy, to
the need for a Medicare prescription drug benefit to education reform,
the people's voices should be heard and not drowned out by big money.
Vested interests have too often been able to exert influence in
Congress and White House through the soft money loophole.
Mr. Speaker, campaign finance reform is the most important step
Congress can take to restore citizens' belief in our democratic
process. What better motivation for reform than the egregious excesses
of the 2000 election--both in voter access and in campaign
contributions? We must act before the 2002 election, before the abuses
of the electoral process have so distorted the democratic ideal that we
are no longer truly a ``government of the people, by the people and for
the people.''
I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill. The time is now for real
campaign finance reform. Passage of the Shays-Meehan legislation is the
only true way to achieve that goal.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Speaker, I am outraged by the unprecedented rule
that has been developed for consideration of the Shays-Meehan campaign
finance reform legislation. I have never before seen a rule that
divides a Manager's Amendment into 14 separate provisions and requires
each of them to be passed individually. The Republican Leadership has
really outdone themselves this time in finding new and creative ways to
thwart the will of the American people.
Since first being elected to office, I have strongly supported
meaningful campaign finance reform. I was so hopeful last year when the
House passed Shays-Meehan by an overwhelming vote--only to see it die
in the Senate.
This year, we were hopeful again. The Senate has passed McCain-
Feingold. The House Leadership committed to allowing a vote on Shays-
Meehan.
But the Republican Leadership is still trying to pull the rug from
under reform again. The Republican Leadership's rule is designed to
make it as difficult as possible for Shays-Meehan to pass in the form
its sponsors recommend.
If the Rule is defeated, as I believe it should be, the Leadership
should rest assured that supporters of campaign finance reform will not
go quietly. The American people have said time and again that they want
to see our campaign finance system cleaned up in a meaningful way.
Defeating this rule will not defeat this issue. We will be back, and
Shays-Meehan will ultimately pass this body.
Americans have lost all confidence in the campaign finance system.
Rules like this may cause them to lose all confidence in the U.S.
Congress. I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and to demand that
Shays-Meehan be brought back under a fair rule so that we can do the
will of the American people and start
[[Page H3990]]
the process of restoring the faith of the American people in their
government.
Mr. REYNOLDS. 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 SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 203,
nays 228, not voting 3, as follows:
[Roll No. 228]
YEAS--203
Aderholt
Akin
Armey
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barr
Bartlett
Barton
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Chabot
Chambliss
Coble
Collins
Combest
Cooksey
Cox
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
English
Everett
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gekas
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Grucci
Gutknecht
Hansen
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Herger
Hilleary
Hobson
Hoekstra
Horn
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
Kerns
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Largent
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reynolds
Riley
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schaffer
Schrock
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skeen
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Spence
Stearns
Stump
Sununu
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Thune
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Traficant
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Watkins (OK)
Watts (OK)
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Barcia
Barrett
Bass
Becerra
Bentsen
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop
Blagojevich
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonior
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Castle
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Condit
Conyers
Costello
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley
Doyle
Edwards
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank
Frost
Ganske
Gephardt
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graham
Green (TX)
Gutierrez
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hilliard
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Houghton
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Mascara
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller, George
Mink
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Morella
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Phelps
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Ross
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Scarborough
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Shows
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Souder
Spratt
Stark
Stenholm
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thurman
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wamp
Waters
Watson (CA)
Watt (NC)
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--3
Lewis (CA)
Moore
Paul
{time} 1743
Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland changed his vote from ``present'' to
``yea.''
So the resolution was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 228, I was
unavoidably detained. Had I been present I would have voted ``yea.''
____________________