[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 12 (Tuesday, February 12, 2002)]
[House]
[Pages H256-H264]
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
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 344 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 344
Resolved, That on the next legislative day after the
adoption of this resolution, immediately after the third
daily order of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House
shall resolve into the Committee of the Whole House on the
state of the Union for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2356)
to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to provide
bipartisan campaign reform. The first reading of the bill
shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. 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, or to the bill as perfected
by an amendment in the nature of a substitute finally
adopted, shall be in order except those printed in the
portion of the Congressional Record designated for that
purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII and as specified in this
resolution.
Sec. 2. (a) Before consideration of any other amendment, it
shall be in order to consider the amendments in the nature of
a substitute specified in subsection (b). Each such amendment
may be offered only in the order specified, may be offered
only by the Member designated or a designee of such Member,
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 40
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, and shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in section 3. All points of order against such
amendments are waived (except those arising under clause 7 of
rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI). If more than one
amendment in the nature of a substitute specified in
subsection (b) is adopted, then only the one receiving the
greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as
finally adopted in the House and in the Committee of the
Whole. In the case of a tie for the greater number of
affirmative votes, then only the last amendment to receive
that number of affirmative votes shall be considered as
finally adopted in the House and in the Committee of the
Whole.
(b) The amendments in the nature of a substitute referred
to in subsection (a) are as follows:
(1) By the Majority Leader.
(2) By Representative Ney of Ohio.
(3) By Representative Shays of Connecticut.
Sec. 3. (a) After disposition of the amendments in the
nature of a substitute specified in section 2(b), the
provisions of the bill, or the provisions of the bill as
perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute
finally adopted, shall be considered as an original bill for
the purpose of further amendment under the five-minute rule
and shall be considered as read. No further amendment shall
be in order except those specified in subsection (b) of this
section. Each such amendment may be offered only by the
Member designated in subsection (b) or a designee of such
Member, but not before the legislative day after the day on
which such Member announces in accordance with subsection (c)
in the House or in the Committee of the Whole the intention
of the Member to offer the amendment. Each such amendment
shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and
an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not
be subject to a demand for division of the question in the
House or in the Committee of the Whole. All points of order
against such amendments are waived (except those arising
under clause 7 of rule XVI or clause 5(a) of rule XXI).
(b) The amendments referred to in subsection (a) are as
follows:
(1) Ten amendments by the Majority Leader.
(2) Five amendments by the Minority Leader.
(3) Five amendments by Representative Shays of Connecticut
or Representative Meehan of Massachusetts.
(c) The announcement referred to in subsection (a) shall
describe the amendment by the number assigned to it under
clause 8 of rule XVIII and may not be made later than the end
of the legislative day on which this resolution is adopted. A
Member may make only one such announcement, which must
include any amendment the Member intends to offer but must be
limited to the number of amendments specified in subsection
(b) of this section for the bill or for each substitute
specified in section 2(b).
Sec. 4. If the Committee of the Whole rises and reports
that it has come to no resolution on the bill, then on the
next legislative day, immediately after the third daily order
of business under clause 1 of rule XIV, the House shall
resolve into the Committee of the Whole for further
consideration of the bill.
Sec. 5. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill, or
the bill as perfected by an amendment in the nature of a
substitute finally adopted, to the House with such further
amendments as may have been adopted. Any Member may demand a
separate vote in the House on any further amendment adopted
in the Committee of the Whole to the bill, or to the bill as
perfected by an amendment in the nature of a substitute
finally 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.
Sec. 6. House Resolution 203 is laid on the table.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds)
is recognized for 1 hour.
(Mr. Reynolds asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Frost),
the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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. Speaker, House Resolution 344 is a structured rule providing for
consideration of H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act
of 2001, with 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on House Administration.
[[Page H257]]
I would like to stress that this rule before us was not written by
nor is a product of the Committee on Rules. The rule reflects the terms
for consideration set forth in the motion to discharge, with the
exception of allowing immediate debate this week, versus a later date,
as determined by the House rules. The petition calls for amendments to
be introduced and printed in the Congressional Record by the close of
business today.
Equally important, I would like to stress that, essentially, we do
not know what amendments we are about to make in order, because the
Shays-Meehan, Ney-Wynn and Armey substitutes will not be filed until
after this rule is debated and approved.
Unfortunately, it is a shame to see this issue come to the floor in
such a convoluted manner. The signers of the discharge petition have
set in motion a clumsy and awkward debate that could hardly be called a
fair and open process. There were no hearings on the language we will
see on the floor tomorrow.
All this comes as a result of the discharge petition. But since
circumstances have afforded this opportunity for debate, let us look at
the issue before us and what it means to America.
The recent events have forged a true sense of patriotism among all
Americans. But we must ask ourselves if we are willing to trample on
this new-found nationalism by jeopardizing the most basic of American
rights and freedoms, the right to free speech, because in this fourth
version of Shays-Meehan, we have gagged Americans, whether in the
middle, the right or the left, and will allow only special interests to
have access to soft money.
It is reasonable to debate strengthening our campaign finance laws,
but taking away first amendment rights and limiting free speech is not
the way to do it. Real reform means recognizing that curbing the
expense of campaigns should not come at the expense of political
liberties. Limiting issue advocacy and curtailing who can say what is
both unconstitutional and un-American.
We would be fooling ourselves if we believed the notion that the
Shays-Meehan legislation represents a complete ban on soft money. Let
us be honest: In this bill there is no such thing as a ban on soft
money. At least the Ney-Wynn proposal ensures that such expenditures
are used for political party activities, such as voter registration,
get out the vote, overhead and fund-raising expenses.
{time} 1745
Now, neither this issue nor the bill is new. In fact, the Shays-
Meehan bill was in existence even before I came to Congress. But today,
Shays-Meehan is in its fourth draft; I repeat, its fourth draft, and is
vastly different than what was first proposed.
This new bill creates even bigger loopholes than before, creating $30
million per year soft-money loophole, restricting broadcast ads for
only 60 days prior to an election that even some of the sponsors admit
could be unconstitutional, rather than year-round, and loosening even
further the loopholes that allow party committees to shift their
current soft money over to nonprofits who, in turn, could use 100
percent soft money for issue advocacy.
Mr. Speaker, Shays-Meehan creates a $60 million soft-money loophole
for State and local parties. It creates a new loophole to permit a $40
million soft-money building fund for the Democratic National Committee
if both amendments are approved by some of the Shays-Meehan supporters.
In short, Shays-Meehan establishes a pathway to new and more
underground money.
Creating loopholes and granting special exemptions hardly seems like
reform.
Even more preposterous is the fact that some sponsors of the Shays-
Meehan bill do not want to curtail soft money right away. That is
right. Those supporters say, let us wait until after Election Day, the
next cycle, before any of this takes effect rather than the current
legislation of 30 days. Why? One simple reason: the rhetoric fails to
match up to the reality. The bill's sponsors are now in the newspapers
and on the talk shows saying how critical this reform package is. But
now they say it can wait.
Mr. Speaker, I suspect at some point during this debate my colleagues
will attempt to make a correlation between campaign finance reform and
the recent Enron scandal. They will demagogue and demagogue again that
the corporate downfall of Enron could have in some way been averted had
tougher campaign finance laws been on the books. Is there anyone who
truly believes this to be the case? Is there anyone who can look those
pension holders in the eye and honestly say that campaign finance
reform would have prevented Enron's collapse? The only connection
between Enron's downfall and campaign finance reform is political
convenience.
On a side note, I would like to extend my respect to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House
Administration. As a member of his committee, I have come to respect
his realistic and pragmatic approach to real campaign finance reform.
Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues know that today
this House will deal once and for all with a major decision on campaign
finance reform. It is very important that all Members look very closely
and know full well what it is that we may be passing.
The Committee on Rules reported out this rule without recommendation,
and, in doing so, I hesitate to ask my colleagues to support the rule.
However, by signing the discharge petition, a majority of this House
has signaled their desire to have this debate. And so, in mirroring the
conciliatory actions of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the
Speaker of the House, I ask my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Reynolds) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself
such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, the rule for considering campaign finance reform is a
fair rule, and I intend to support it. This rule was spelled out in the
discharge petition that the majority of House Members, including
myself, signed. The rule gives both sides a chance to offer substitutes
and amendments to the legislation, while also bringing debate on this
highly charged issue to a timely conclusion.
The rule designates H.R. 2356, the reported version of the Shays-
Meehan campaign finance reform bill, as the base bill. Beginning
tomorrow morning, we will have 1 hour of general debate on the bill,
equally divided between the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the
gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer). Following the general debate, the
bill will be considered for amendment.
Members should be aware that the rule requires that all amendments be
entered into the Congressional Record by the conclusion of this
legislative day. It is anticipated that there will be an announcement
at some point later this evening by both the majority leader and the
Democratic leader about the specific amendments to be considered.
Before consideration of any other amendment, the rule provides that
three amendments in the nature of a substitute will be considered. Each
substitute will be debated for 40 minutes, equally divided between
proponents and opponents. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) are allowed to each offer one substitute. Under the Queen of the
Hill procedure, the substitute with the most votes will then be
considered the base text.
Following consideration and voting on the substitutes, it will then
be in order to consider individual perfecting amendments. These
individual amendments are debatable for 20 minutes, equally divided
between proponents and opponents. The amendments are allocated as
follows: 10 from the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), five from the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) if he chooses to use them, and
five from either the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan.)
Finally, at the conclusion of the amendment process, the rule
provides for a motion to recommit with or without instructions.
[[Page H258]]
Mr. Speaker, the various provisions of the bills before us are
technical and somewhat confusing, but there is one thing that is
abundantly clear: campaign reform legislation will require both parties
to look for alternative means to turn out their base supporters. As
many Members know, hard-money contributions are currently regulated by
Federal law, while soft-money contributions are not. Hard money is made
up of contributions to Federal candidates, Federal multi-candidate
PACs, and to the Federal accounts of national and State parties. Soft
money is everything else.
Under current law, individuals can give a total of $25,000 a year in
hard-money contributions. Unions, corporations, and other associations
can set up multi-candidate PACs which can give a limited amount of hard
money directly to candidates and to party committees. Thus, multi-
candidate PACs can give $5,000 in hard money per election to any
Federal candidate, $15,000 per year in hard money to any national party
committee, and $5,000 in hard money per year to any State party
committee. Employees of corporations, members of unions, and members of
associations contribute to these multi-candidate, hard-money PACs, but
no corporate or union money can go into these PACs.
Soft money is made up of contributions by individuals to party
committees that exceed the individual's $25,000 annual hard-dollar
limit, contributions by corporations to party committees, and
contributions by labor unions to party committees. Additionally,
individuals, corporations, and labor unions can give any amount of soft
money to independent organizations not connected to political parties.
The various proposals before the House seek to significantly change
all of this. For example, under the Shays-Meehan bill, hard-dollar
limits for individuals would be raised from $50,000 per 2-year cycle to
$95,000. Soft-money contributions to national party committees by
individuals, corporations, and labor unions would be totally banned,
and soft-money contributions to State parties would be limited to
$10,000 per year, and then could be used only for certain limited
purposes. Various restrictions would be placed on the use of soft money
by independent organizations not directly connected with a political
party.
Mr. Speaker, what does all this mean? Well, the answer depends on the
type of political race involved.
Traditionally, the national Democratic Party has relied on soft money
to mobilize its minority supporters through grass-roots efforts such as
phone banks and door-to-door canvassing. The party has funded
statewide-coordinated campaigns designed to turn out minority voters
for Presidential voters in key swing States such as Michigan,
Pennsylvania, and Illinois, and for its nominees for U.S. Senate and
Governor in a number of States.
Republicans have also used soft money to fund coordinated campaigns
designed to mobilize their base voters for Presidential and statewide
candidates. On balance, however, the mobilization efforts directed at
turning out minority voters statewide are more important to Democratic
candidates than mobilization efforts funded by the Republican Party.
Some of the funds traditionally used to mobilize base voters could be
replaced by the limited soft-money contributions permitted to State
parties under Shays-Meehan; but clearly, this will be a challenge for
both parties in future statewide campaigns.
The bill's total ban on soft money to national parties, accompanied
by a major curtailment of soft money to State parties, will also have a
significant effect in campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives.
This is particularly true if the ban on soft-money expenditures by
independent groups is held constitutional by the courts.
In recent years, both parties have benefited from soft-money issue
ads directed at campaigns for the U.S. House. In 1996, interest groups
aligned with the Democratic Party spent millions of dollars on soft-
money issue ads directed largely at Republican candidates who supported
the Gingrich revolution, which was one of the factors in Democrats
picking up nine seats that year.
In 2000, organizations connected with the pharmaceutical industry
spent millions of dollars in soft money supporting Republicans and
opposing Democrats, thus helping Republicans hold their narrow majority
in the House. In both 1998 and 2000, Democratic Party committees and
Republican Party committees spent millions of dollars in soft money on
issue ads. On balance, Republican Party committees and independent
organizations aligned with the Republican Party outspend the Democratic
Party, and organizations aligned with the Democratic Party on soft-
money issue ads directed at races for the U.S. House of
Representatives.
Soft-money expenditures by both Democratic and Republican national
parties also occurred on voter turnout efforts for House races during
those years and, in some cases, made the difference and the outcome of
particular elections. These turnout efforts have been particularly
important to Democratic House candidates.
In summary, restrictions on soft money hurt both parties, but in
somewhat different ways. Accordingly, Members of the House will have to
weigh a variety of factors in deciding how to vote on the various
proposals presented under this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Linder).
Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I believe we have just heard a defense of
soft money, if it is used for purposes that the Democrats agree with:
do not use it for issue ads, but use it for turning out minority
voters, I think I heard him say.
As a member of the Committee on Rules, I must admit that I would not
traditionally propose or support using the discharge process to bring
this kind of bill to the House floor. However, I do support bringing
this measure to the floor for debate, and if that means that we would
have to agree to the major tenants of the rule proposed by the
discharge petition for H.R. 2356, then so be it.
It is time that we considered this measure. It is time that we laid
to rest allegations of unfairness and obstruction, and it is time that
we address the fanciful claims that Shays-Meehan bans soft money. It
does not.
As my colleagues well know, soft money is defined as money that is
raised and spent outside the Federal regulatory framework. Because of
this broad definition, there are numerous types of soft money and a
significant number of avenues through which soft money can be used to
influence Federal elections, thus making it all the more baffling that
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) claim to have eliminated soft money with
their sole elimination of national party soft money. Let me state
clearly and unequivocally: Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money.
During the 2000 Presidential campaign, the Republican Party and the
Democrat Party raised, in national party soft money, roughly $250
million each. However, even totaled, this number pales to the amount of
money that corporations and unions spend on electionary activities.
If Congress wishes to ban the use of all soft money to influence
political decisions, such a ban would affect or should affect everyone
and every organization involved in political activity. It hardly seems
appropriate to deny political parties a role in campaigns while
allowing corporate conglomerates the opportunity to shape the political
debate. In fact, by eliminating the role of parties, corporations and
labor unions could become increasingly reliant on loopholes allowing
them to spend funds from their general treasuries to influence
elections, activities that would be undertaken without Federal
regulation.
Truth be told, however, unions are the single biggest spenders of
unregulated soft money, expenditures that will not be affected by
Shays-Meehan. Dr. Leo Troy, professor of economics at Rutgers
University, has been studying unions for more than 2 decades. He
estimates that during the 1995-1996 election cycle alone, unions spent
more than $300 million just on voter education and get-out-the-vote
efforts. This hardly seems like leveling the playing field, as unions
can and will continue to influence the political
[[Page H259]]
process. If we give individuals, corporations, and unions a legal
avenue to funnel soft money into the political process into State and
local parties, they will continue to do so.
{time} 1800
They will continue to do so. This Shays-Meehan does not ban soft
money, nor will it stop other people from engaging in it. This is only
logical. This is not reform. This does not even begin to address the
concept of reform. Shays-Meehan is merely diverting and channeling soft
money into an ever-growing number of parties, while allowing
corporations and unions to spend unlimited and unregulated dollars on
electioneering. This does not and will not change the amount or type of
money in the system, and it certainly does not alter the ability of
outside groups to influence elections.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Turner), who is the principal author of the discharge petition
that brought this matter to the House.
Mr. TURNER. Mr. Speaker, we are at a historic moment in the House of
Representatives. This rule which will allow us to debate historic
campaign finance reform did not come to this floor without considerable
work. This issue has been before the House of Representatives before,
and the House passed similar reform legislation but it died in the
Senate.
Last year when the Senate passed campaign finance reform, a rule was
proposed that was destined to defeat true reform; and it was turned
down by the House of Representatives. The Speaker announced that he
would not bring it forward again, and we initiated over 7 months ago a
discharge procedure led by the Blue Dog Democrats in the House to bring
this issue to the floor.
I want to thank Speaker Hastert for allowing us, once we did reach
the 218, to allow the Committee on Rules to adopt the identical rule
contained in the petition to allow us to have a fair and open debate on
campaign finance reform.
Let there be no mistake about it, this is the opportunity of this
House to end the influence, the undue influence of big money in the
political process. This is our opportunity to end the 25, 50, 100,
quarter of a million dollar contributions and more that are being made
today to political parties in the form of what we call soft money. This
legislation will restore the public's confidence and trust in the
political process. And let there be no mistake, the Ney substitute is
not true reform. It does not end soft-money contributions to the
political process.
Yesterday, I was able to participate in a press conference with some
of the leading business CEOs from around the country who have joined
together under the umbrella of the Subcommittee on Economic
Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Those business leaders
said they are tired of being leaned on for these big checks. They are
ready to see this system cleaned up. They are ready to know that when
they come before this Congress there is a level playing field for all
people, including them.
I am proud to support this legislation and this rule.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Rules.
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, everyone likes to say that they are for
reform, and it is very unfortunate that there are some people who are
supportive of the Shays-Meehan bill who argue that those of us who are
not necessarily supporting their version of what they call reform are
somehow opposed to the process of campaign finance reform.
Well, I am proud to stand here and, Mr. Speaker, say that I will take
a back seat to no one when it comes to the very important issue of
reform. I have been very proud to internally bring about some reforms
of this institution. We were able to, in the last Congress, reduce the
number of rules in this place from 52 down to 28 rules. We brought
about sweeping reforms when we became the majority.
One of the things that I am very proud of, Mr. Speaker, is that when
we became the majority we said that we were not going to put in place
the kind of rule that we are considering right now for this
legislation. It has all of these sort of inside baseball things, like a
``king of the hill'' procedure. I am not going to get into the details
of it, but I will tell you it is unfair and it is wrong. But having
said that, I am going to support the rule.
I am going to support the rule simply because 218 members of House of
Representatives signed the discharge petition, and for that reason I
think it is important that we move ahead. When it comes to the issue of
campaign finance reform, I am for it. I am for it, Mr. Speaker. I am a
proponent of reform, and I do not want anyone to say that I am not pro-
reform. I happen to believe that what we need to do is we need to
empower the American people with as much information as possible.
In fact, in the last couple of Congresses I have introduced
legislation called the Voter Empowerment Act, and basically what we
say, as President Bush has said, we need to instantly make available
information on who is supporting whom so the voters can make a decision
as to whether or not a Member of Congress is somehow beholden to their
contributors.
I also believe that if we are going to ban soft money, we should ban
it all the way across the board. And I think we should make this
package effective immediately, as my colleague, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Rangel), said on television on Sunday. I think we should do
it now. I believe we should also realize that the proposal before us,
which is called reform, we have not actually seen it yet. We will see
it somewhere around midnight tonight. So much for a fair and open
process. But we will see it very, very late tonight, and then we will
proceed.
Based on what I have heard about it, it does impose more regulations
on the American people. And I came here to deregulate, and I did not
come here to jeopardize the ability of Americans to exercise their
first amendment rights.
I happen to believe that another issue needs to be addressed here,
Mr. Speaker. I happen to be a strong proponent of the two-party system.
I am proud to have worked around the world encouraging the development
of political parties. Let us take that historic election which took
place in 2000 in Mexico. For 71 year we saw one political party, the
PRI Party, the Institution and Revolutionary Party, control Mexico. And
with the encouragement of the National Election Party and support from
around the world for a degree of political pluralism in Mexico, we saw
a political party, when it came to getting support from all over, in a
position where they were able to win the election.
Well, we also encouraged it in eastern and central Europe; in
Nicaragua we encouraged it. What is it we brought about? We brought
about a degree of fairness. We brought about a great contrast. And that
is what exists here in the United States today, an interesting clash
between the two political parties and then we allow the American people
to make a decision.
Well, the measure we are going to be considering, the Shays-Meehan
bill, basically undermines the two-party system. If you look at
countries where the party systems are really in a state of disarray,
they have had real difficulty. I do not want the United States of
America to follow that route. I want both the Democratic Party and the
Republican Party to remain strong. And I do not like the idea of us
empowering the media when it comes to determining who is going to win
these elections. I think that is wrong. I think the parties should be
able to stand strongly for the ideals on which they were founded.
So I believe that we have a package of reforms that are the right
thing to do. I think that we should say that union members should with
their dues be able to decide which candidates they support without
having a few people here in Washington, D.C. decide how those dollars
are expended.
I think we should do everything we can to let the American people
know that we want them to have choices and we do not want to jeopardize
the great system that we have.
We live with reforms today. They were put into place following
Watergate, 1974. I was privileged, I wrote my
[[Page H260]]
senior thesis at Claremont-McKenna College on the campaign finance
reform of 1974. We live with it today. And while some people talk about
the fact that we have some horribly corrupt system here in our Nation's
capital, well, I argue that we have a great degree of transparency and
we can have even more. And, again, as my friend, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds), said, those who will try to draw this allusion
between the bankruptcy of Enron and the political process, obviously,
there is no correlation.
We need to encourage people to get involved in the political process,
rather than making it unattractive to be involved in the political
process. And you make it unattractive when you impose an onerous level
of burdens on the American people; and that is exactly what this
legislation will do.
I believe also, if we look at this question of a conference, and,
again, I am getting back to inside baseball here, if we all want
openness, we want to follow the legislative process, those who argue by
going to a joint House-Senate conference we are killing the prospect
for any kind of reform, I do not believe that for one second. Sure, if
given the choice of imposing onerous regulations on the American people
undermining their first amendment rights or seeing nothing done, I
choose to have nothing done. But I believe the thoughtful reforms that
we have in the Ney-Wynn proposal, the disclosure issue that I
mentioned, the other kinds of proposals, those can be addressed in a
joint House-Senate conference, and we can come back with improved
legislation.
So those who say they do not want us to go to conference are in fact
saying, let us not follow the constitutional guidelines, the process
which was put into place by our framers for making laws. I do not
believe that is an open process. I do not believe that is a fair
process.
So let us do what we are paid to do here. Let us legislate. Let us
work. Let us try to come to a package which will be beneficial for the
American people. That should be our number one priority.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), who has worked tirelessly on this project
for a very long time.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and thank the
ranking member for yielding me time.
Thanks in large part to the efforts of the Blue Dogs, we will
consider meaningful campaign finance reform legislation under a fair
process. I want to thank every Member who signed that discharge
petition, particularly the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri
(Mr. Gephardt), who worked tirelessly to get us back to the floor under
a fair rule.
Mr. Speaker, with the Enron scandal casting a cloud over the White
House and the capital, this House has a historic opportunity to reform
our campaign finance laws by ending the soft-money system. Twice this
House has passed bipartisan campaign finance reform with over 250
votes, but never with such a strong chance that the bill would become
law. Tomorrow will be the moment of truth for reform. The role will be
called and the votes will be counted. And over the course of this
debate opponents of reform will attempt to perpetuate several myths
about our bill in an attempt to stop us. But do not be fooled.
Myth number one, Shays-Meehan has been weakened to the point that it
is meaningless. My friend, if that were true, do you think getting this
bill passed into law would be so difficult? Would this floor fight be
described as Armageddon?
Here are the facts: our bill bans soft-money contributions to the
national parties, prevents Federal office holders from raising soft
money for parties to spend in Federal elections, and prohibits State
parties from spending soft money on TV attack ads attacking Federal
candidates.
Myth number two, it is a partisan bill. This is a bipartisan bill. If
this were a partisan bill, I have complete confidence that the
President of the United States would be waving his veto pen for all of
us to see. But he is not. McCain-Feingold, Shays-Meehan, Levin, Castle,
Graham, Stenholm, Roukema, Lieberman, Thompson, Snowe, Wamp. The list
goes on and on, Democrats and Republicans joining together to say
enough is enough.
Myth number three, the Ney bill is a better choice. The truth is the
Ney bill allows $900,000 in soft money per donor to be given to
national parties in just one election cycle, and unlimited money to the
State parties for TV attack ads on Federal candidates. The Ney bill is
not serious reform. It is, to put it bluntly, a political device
proposed in an attempt to break apart our reform coalition.
Myth number four, Shays-Meehan is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court
has upheld contribution limits time and time again. This Court has long
upheld laws saying that spending on campaign ads has to be disclosed
and has to come from hard money. The Shays-Meehan bill makes sure that
campaign ads masquerading as issue discussion are subject to the same
laws that uncloaked campaign ads should be.
Mr. Speaker, more than any other recent scandal, the unfolding Enron
scandal has made it clear that under the present system money talks and
public interest walks. Let us pass campaign finance reform.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
Mr. Speaker, as I voted in favor of bringing this bill and a rule to
the floor for debate and deposition last year, I urge my colleagues to
support this rule tonight. It is time to yield to the processes of this
institution and bring this measure to the floor.
But I also rise, Mr. Speaker, today in strong opposition to the
underlying legislation for the single and exclusive reason that I
believe in my heart that this legislation is, in fact, despite what the
author of the bill just offered into the record, I believe it is, in
fact, unconstitutional.
{time} 1815
The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) said on the floor of
this Chamber moments ago that the Supreme Court has upheld spending
limits, and in that measure he is right, but also in 1996 the Supreme
Court ruled that ``independent expression of a political party's views
is core first amendment activity no less than is the independent
expression of individuals, candidates or other political committees.''
It is precisely those individuals and other political committees that
the Shays-Meehan bill bars, Mr. Speaker, from any political
communication that mentions one of us incumbent Federal officeholders
in the 2 months prior to an election.
One of the great ironies of the debate this week is that many of the
supporters of the Shays-Meehan legislation are using the very issue ads
that they would ban, financed by the very type of groups that they
would ban, to sell this legislation to the American people.
Mr. Speaker, Members of Congress and I had the privilege a little
over a year ago to take an oath of office where we promised to uphold
and defend the Constitution of the United States. My promise to uphold
the Constitution and those blood-bought freedoms constrains me from
supporting this legislation.
By barring any groups of Americans other than political action
committees from criticizing Members of Congress by name in the 2 months
before an election is unconstitutional. It is good for incumbents, bad
for democracy; good for bureaucracy, bad for liberty.
Let us support the rule but oppose or amend this underlying
legislation to discharge each of our oaths of office.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn), who is one of the principal authors of one of the
alternative proposals that we will consider tomorrow.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost)
for yielding me the time and also for his hard work in the course of
developing this issue.
Let me begin by saying I take strong exception to the statements by
some of the media and some of my colleagues who say that our political
system is corrupt in order to advance their own ends and to pass
campaign finance reform. There may be Communist dictatorships that are
corrupt, there may be
[[Page H261]]
Third World despots that are corrupt, but I stand here today for the
proposition that the Congress of the United States of America is not
corrupt.
There have been no indictments, no convictions to justify the
essentially self-serving accusations made by some Members of this body
who support campaign finance reform. We differ on issues, we have
different constituencies, we have different approaches to economic
prosperity. That is all fair game for debate, but I believe to call
this institution corrupt is totally unjustified. It paints with a very
broad and a very misguided brush.
There are ways our system can be improved, but I do not hear the
broadcast media or the print media calling for free air time or free ad
space. The role of money in politics is not for personal gain, as would
be the case if this were a corrupt government. Rather, money in
American politics is a function of free speech, the ability to
communicate views through the mass media. Thus the drive for campaign
funds is not motivated by corruption, but rather by the necessity to
pay for ad time and print space.
There is certainly room for reform to reduce the amount of money in
politics and to reduce broadcast attack ads by national parties. That
is what many of us want to accomplish with the Ney-Wynn bill. I did an
analysis under Ney-Wynn. The top 10 contributors of soft money would
have contributed $21 million less than is currently allowable, but
excessive bans on so-called soft money only weaken the political
parties and strengthens the influence of wealthy individuals and
candidates while reducing the role of our national parties.
Next, consider the right of free speech by issue advocates, whether
liberal or conservative or even moderate. This is unconstitutionally
restricted under the Shays-Meehan bill during the most critical time
just before the election, 60 days before the election. This is not only
unconstitutional, I submit that it defies common sense and our supposed
goal of promoting an informed electorate.
National political parties have an important core function in terms
of get out the vote, voter education and voter registration. These
functions are critical to both party building and to ensure greater
participation in our political process. This is particularly important
for minority groups, African Americans, Hispanics, and others, and
these functions should not be relegated to so-called other groups whose
agenda we are not aware of, but who may, in fact, represent special
interests. These are functions the parties should perform.
Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill restricts State political parties. I
submit the States can regulate political activity within their borders.
We should not be federalizing elections.
Finally, let me conclude by saying that self-appointed reformers
suggest that Shays-Meehan would solve the Enron problem. That is
patently absurd. Campaign finance reform would not have enabled Enron
to avoid bankruptcy. Campaign finance reform would not have saved those
employees and investors from losing their money. It is totally
misleading to suggest that Shays-Meehan would have or could
prospectively solve the Enron problem.
What we do know is Enron, Arthur Andersen and the accounting industry
gave politicians, Senators and House Members lots of hard money. Shays-
Meehan does not get rid of hard money; therefore, these direct
contributions would continue. But we also know that our system works
because disclosure exists. Disclosure allowed us to know who got what,
who got how much, and ultimately it allows the voters to make the
decisions, not the reformers. That is the way our system should work.
I urge adoption of the rule, rejection of Shays-Meehan and the
adoption of a compromise approach that would protect national parties,
restrict soft money and not interfere with the States. That is the Ney-
Wynn substitute.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is correct, that is exactly
why I am a cosponsor of his legislation, because his bill does a better
job. It talks about meaningful reform and instantaneous reporting, and
it takes a special kind of guy to look in front of a camera and make a
statement that the Shays-Meehan bill ends all soft money. It just is
not true.
The Shays-Meehan bill empowers special interests to use independent
expenditures, underground expenditures to influence campaigns while
silencing average Americans.
Most everyone wants to reform our campaign finance laws, but taking
away first amendment rights and eliminating free speech is not the way
to do it. Make no mistake about it, the Shays-Meehan bill does not ban
soft money. Instead, it creates a new road for cash to travel to
political parties, allowing up to $60 million in soft money per donor
nationwide via the States.
Funneling is not reforming, and if the supporters of Shays-Meehan
were serious about campaign finance reform, the bill would completely
ban soft money and take effect immediately. It does neither, raising
questions about its intentions.
Matter of fact, the first Shays-Meehan bill in 1999 banned all soft
money, did not allow State and local political parties to get at soft
money. It banned labor, it banned corporations, and it banned the
wealthy from being able to put money in. So we talk about a change of
what a bill had to do to get 218 motion-to-discharge signers, take a
look at the different bills in the fourth draft we are now having
before us in Shays-Meehan.
If the Shays-Meehan does not raise hard-money limits for House
candidates and combine with other restrictions on finances, it will
make the House of Representatives a millionaires' club. Take a look at
some of the candidates we have had to recruit through our political
parties that had wealth in order to run for public office. Wealth,
individual wealth, and then we try to find some gimmicks on how we can
have a millionaires' amendment or some other solution. My colleagues
should live in fear, all 435 of us, that a wealthy American decides to
run, and we have no available solution to get our message out.
The Shays-Meehan campaign finance legislation is no reform at all,
rather some mechanism to limit free speech while turning over power and
decisions to parts of the media and the wealthy. Limiting issue
advocacy and curtailing who could say what and what can be said is
definitely unconstitutional, and I have sat in the Committee on Rules
where some of the sponsors have admitted it is unconstitutional.
The time has come. We have used a motion to discharge to get this
bill on the floor. By gosh, we are going to have the debate tomorrow,
maybe into the next day, but there is no longer anyplace to hide that
the Senate will take care of it or the White House will take care of
it. It is going to be settled right here in the House of
Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the assistant to the minority leader.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will consider one of the most
important pieces of legislation before the Nation today, the urgent
need to overhaul our failed campaign finance system. Last summer we
attempted to close many of the loopholes that allowed unregulated and
unlimited soft money to poison our electoral system. This is a system
that allowed the wealthiest individuals and the biggest corporations to
seek unchecked influence.
We proposed ending the phony negative advertising that masqueraded as
voter education, but are actually campaign commercials in all but name.
We were ready to take these substantial steps toward cleaning up the
system.
I wish the Republican leadership had chosen not to become the enemies
of reform and change. They have thrown up every procedural roadblock.
They cannot imagine a world without such special interest money. They
were successful in this intransigence before Enron. Now the winds of
change blow strong, and now a majority of this body say, no more.
That is why a bipartisan coalition of Members has forced this bill to
the floor with a discharge petition over the objections of the
Republican leadership. That we were forced to resort to such a rare
parliamentary maneuver speaks volumes about the new urgency in the
country.
[[Page H262]]
Make no mistake, those wedded to this corrupt funding system will do
all in their power to defeat, alter or contort this bill. They have
called consideration of this bill Armageddon. They will attempt to add
poison pill amendments that purport to strengthen the bill, but, in
fact, are only designed to destroy the delicate bipartisan compromise
that the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) have worked hard to put together.
I urge my colleagues to turn these amendments aside so that the
President can sign meaningful campaign finance reform, this
legislation, into law as soon as possible. The American people are
demanding that we clean up this system. The time for reform is now, and
in light of recent events, the need has never been greater.
We have in this Chamber tonight a strong and courageous woman, Granny
Dee. We see her here and thank her for the long road she has traveled
for campaign finance reform. She inspires all of us. I thank her for
her hard work. Tomorrow is the day of reckoning.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Some say that what killed campaign finance in July was not the
Republican leadership, it was the Presidential ambition of some of the
leadership in the minority.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire as to the time remaining on
each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) has 7\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) has 11 minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Davis).
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of
this rule and the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.
Unlimited contributions are polluting our democratic process. By
passing the Shays-Meehan bill, we will even the playing field. We will
ensure that people of limited means can come together and send powerful
policy messages to their elected officials. The Shays-Meehan will also
make our campaign system more transparent.
In my last election a group called Citizens for Better Medicare ran
hundreds of TV ads on prescription drug coverage. The problem was that
no one knew that these Citizens for Better Medicare were actually
pharmaceutical companies. Once Shays-Meehan is signed into law,
corporations and large donors will not be able to hide behind these
misleading shell groups.
I urge all of my colleagues in this House to vote for real campaign
finance reform and pass Shays-Meehan into law.
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, I rise in strong support of this rule and
in strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill.
I represent a district north of the Golden Gate bridge right across
from San Francisco with an 85 percent voter turnout. My constituents,
the people I serve, care about a fair campaign process where their
involvement counts. They want to ensure that the men and the women who
are elected to head our government are truly accountable to their
constituents, not special interests. They support the Shays-Meehan bill
because they want big money influence out of the election process.
My constituents want to give our children a democratic election
system that they will believe they can be part of, and without real
reform, Mr. Speaker, we are telling our kids and young voters that only
wealthy contributors have a voice in the political process.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule and for Shays-
Meehan.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Flake).
Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. In case you
wonder why the big media outlets, NBC, CBS, ABC and others, are such
big supporters of the Shays-Meehan bill, it is not very tough to figure
out they will be the only ones left standing, the only ones left able
to speak within the 60 days before the election.
{time} 1830
And if my colleagues think for a minute these media corporations or
these corporations that own media outlets are not biased or that they
do not have an axe to grind here in Washington, consider for a minute:
Microsoft Corporation, which owns MSNBC, $2,311,926 in soft money last
year, or in the last cycle, $820,000 in hard money from their PAC. They
spent nearly $5 million lobbying the Congress in 1999. Go down the
list: Walt Disney, which owns ABC, over $1 million in soft money,
$283,000 in hard money, and spent nearly $3.5 million lobbying the
Congress in 1999.
Now, these corporations will be able to speak 60 days before the
election. Unlike interest groups or unlike individuals or others, they
are allowed to speak. They are allowed to say whatever they want, as
they should be. But if we are going to curtail the speech of others,
then why not at least require disclosure on the part of the large
corporate media outlets?
Should Shays-Meehan be the base bill, I have an amendment that I will
offer which would require such disclosure. We cannot stand and say that
we want campaign finance reform that is so unbalanced. And I say those
who want campaign finance reform should want to apply it equally across
the board.
Of course, that is not what this is really about. This is about
showing our constituents that we really care about campaign finance
reform. I think it is a sham, and I would urge rejection of the rule
and rejection of the bill.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Texas for yielding me this time.
I support the rule. Opponents of campaign finance reform are
spreading erroneous information about Shays-Meehan. The opponents say
Shays-Meehan violates the first amendment because it prohibits free
speech. In order to reach this conclusion, one must assume money equals
speech. Therefore, the rich man's wallet overwhelms the poor man's soap
box. Not so in America.
Shays-Meehan simply says that special interest television commercials
must play by the same rules as Federal candidates. Corporate dollars,
union dues, and unlimited dollars from wealthy individuals are
prohibited, but groups are allowed to purchase and run television so
long as they disclose the hard-dollar contributions.
I urge my colleagues to support Shays-Meehan. It protects our first
amendment rights. It protects our democracy.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
(Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. LEVIN. The basic issue before us is not free speech, but the cost
to democracy of opening the floodgates to big money. Soft money,
unregulated, undisclosed, was originally intended to help parties
register and get out the vote. Instead, it is turning political parties
into exchangers of money for so-called issue ads. It is swamping the
voice of the citizen. It is corroding the legislative process. It has
been said that money is the mother's milk of politics. Instead, big
money is becoming its poison.
Look, Shays-Meehan prohibits soft money except in a circumscribed
instance. Only in this case, when it relates to registering and getting
out the vote. Only in those cases, returning soft money to its original
purpose.
I say vote for Shays-Meehan. It is originally what was intended by
soft money. It is real reform of the political process.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
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 in support of the rule.
Granny Dee did something very innovative, and she is here tonight in
this Chamber. She walked across America for 14 months in support of her
dream,
[[Page H263]]
campaign finance reform. Tomorrow, we will have an opportunity to give
her and other Americans her dream, by passing meaningful reform. The
President says he will sign it. The Senate has passed it. All we need
to do is keep the poison pill amendments off of it.
Now, Enron was known as a very innovative company. That was their
claim to fame before we found out they were really a house of cards.
Well, the Enron end game has got to be passing campaign finance reform.
It is time for Congress to do something very innovative: to restore
public faith in the political system by banning soft money and creating
more competitive elections.
This is our Enron end game. Let us pass campaign finance reform and
send it to the President for his signature.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and belatedly apologize for the fact that I think this was a
debate he introduced a few months ago, and we are finally debating it,
I think under a very fair rule. It gives both sides the opportunity to
present their case.
When Abraham Lincoln addressed this Chamber during the Civil War,
when we were losing 10,000 Americans a month, he looked at Congress and
said, ``The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy
present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise
with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew,
and then we will save our country.''
I happen to believe what we are going to do tomorrow is about saving
our country and our democracy. It is about enforcing the ban on
corporate treasury money that took place in 1907; it is about enforcing
the ban on union dues money that was passed in 1947; and about making
sure that rich individuals cannot buy elections with the law that
passed in 1974.
I do not know what the prediction outcome will be tomorrow, but I do
know this: we came to this Chamber with a good bill, the Senate took
this bill and changed it slightly; and we have taken the Senate changes
and incorporated them in our bill with the hope and the prayer that
this House will act and pass campaign finance reform and send it back
to the Senate for the President's signature.
I do not know if that will happen. But in order for it to happen, we
have to kill amendments that gut our proposal. We have to kill
amendments that supposedly improve it but break apart the coalition
that we have in the House. And we have to make sure that this bill
ultimately can be passed by the Senate.
I urge my colleagues to pay attention to this debate, to vote their
conscience, and we will all live with the consequences.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire about the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Thornberry). The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Frost) has 6 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, Granny Dee would not have
walked so many miles if she did not believe in campaign finance reform.
The American people believe in campaign finance reform. They want this
process and the members of the elected process, the democratic process,
to be an open book.
Tomorrow, we can show them that we are by voting for campaign finance
reform and not delaying one more moment. This is a complex rule, but it
is a fair rule. It will give us an opportunity to debate many issues. I
know my local broadcast stations are concerned about one particular
issue, impacting on the first amendment. We will be able to debate
that. But what we must do and where we must not fail is fail the
American people and this democratic process.
We have a lot to export to the world, that is, democracy in its
purest sense. The only way we can do so is to support the Shays-Meehan
bill tomorrow, have a vigorous debate, and be optimistic about what we
need to do to show the American people we do believe their voices can
be heard. I ask my colleagues to support Shays-Meehan as well as the
rule.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great delight to my friend from New
york and others who have expressed their opposition to this bill. It is
almost as if my friend from New York would have us do more than what we
are doing. I will be interested in hearing some of the debate tomorrow.
Let me be clear. I support campaign finance reform, because I think
when we have liberal Democrats and some conservative Republicans saying
something is bad, it is probably a good thing. And we will hear a lot
of that tomorrow, not just here in this Chamber but even outside this
Chamber.
Any time we can limit the money that companies like IBM and AFL-CIO
chiefs and union bosses and Enron chiefs give to this process, it is a
good thing for the political process. What is it that we are afraid of,
actually having to campaign? What is it that we are afraid of, actually
having to go home and ask voters to examine and analyze our records? I
submit I am one Congressman not afraid to go home and ask the voters to
analyze my record without the help of some of these huge corporate
dollars, without the help of some of these union dollars. And I hope
the majority of my colleagues will see fit to vote that way tomorrow.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I listened carefully to my friend from Tennessee, and he kind of
wants it both ways. I am never afraid to go home. I go home every
single week to my district in western New York to talk to my voters and
listen to what they have to say, as they send me to Washington. But the
gentleman cannot have it both ways, to where we ban a little bit but we
do not really have a level playing field and we just kind of set up the
rules.
That is why I am a cosponsor of Ney-Wynn, because it is pretty
straightforward. It is pretty straightforward on reform. It is pretty
straightforward on quick and accurate information on what is being
raised and spent.
And I listened to Andy Card, the Chief of Staff to the President,
when he talked about the credentials that he looked for in a bill: a
level playing field, banning soft money on both labor and corporations,
paycheck protection and instantaneous reporting.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, under the Ney bill, how much money could Ken
Lay have contributed, the former chairman of Enron, to the NRC, the
DNC, and all the other parties?
Mr. REYNOLDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would respond that I
would have to get an expert on that; but I can say that under the
Shays-Meehan bill, which the gentleman supports, it could be $30
million to both parties with the State and locals.
Mr. FORD. How much could you give to the national parties, I would
ask my friend from New York?
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman from
New York. Requests must be made for Members to yield. Members may not
get into a dialogue with one another absent such yielding.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered the question of
the gentleman from Tennessee. The Shays-Meehan bill would provide $30
million to both parties at the State and local level. I do not exactly
know what the Ney-Wynn bill would provide in those dollars.
But I can say that the Shays-Meehan bill empowers special interests
to use independent expenditures, which I really consider underground
money, to influence campaigns while silencing average Americans. Most
everyone wants to reform our campaign finance laws, but taking away
first amendment rights and limiting free speech is not the way to do
it.
Mr. CRENSHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
H.R. 3699,
[[Page H264]]
which I introduced to correct a simple clerical error and will not cost
any additional funding. Without the fix my legislation provides,
numerous homeless outreach providers in Northeast Florida will be
subjected to profound and unintended consequences.
In May 2001, The Emergency Services and Homeless Coalition of
Jacksonville submitted a consolidated Continuum of Care Application to
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requesting a
maximum grant of $3.5 million. The intent of this application,
consistent with HUD's responsibilities under the SuperNOFA program, was
to compete for and obtain funding for a total of 11 Jacksonville
homeless outreach projects.
Due to a technical error in the way the grant was submitted, the full
funding for all 11 projects in Jacksonville was inadvertently granted
to one agency--Liberty Center. Unfortunately, due to an interpretation
of the HUD Reform Act, HUD personnel cannot make the needed corrections
to remedy the technical error--thus requiring this legislative proposal
before us today.
As a result, many of the programs listed on the application will
cease to exist due to a lack of funding. One of these projects, the
``Quest'' program, operated by the Jacksonville Mental Health Resource
Center, requested $293,979 and provides psychiatric medication case
management to approximately 200 clients and case management services to
several hundred others. There are 5 full-time and 2 part-time employees
who will be cut. Without this program, these individuals will not have
continuous case management basis and other public service facilities
will have to deal with these individuals on a crisis basis. This type
of problem will ripple through the region and disrupt years of quality
service to these patients.
Mr. Speaker, without action today, another program, Goodwill
Industries, will be forced to close its Job Options program, a $431,707
renewal in the continuum. Goodwill run out of funding for this project
on February 28, which will result in termination of 9 employees. This
is a job training program which puts homeless or near homeless clients
into paying jobs and off the dole. This past year there were 852
homeless participants enrolled in the program, of which 534 were placed
in employment earning an average of $7.95 per hour. It is a very
effective program and saves substantial government dollars, which would
otherwise have to be spent in support of these clients, were they
unable to obtain jobs.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3699 simply corrects an administrative and clerical
error in a grant application. My legislation corrects a horrible wrong
that would inadvertently de-fund numerous projects. The legislation
simply turns back the clock to the date the eleven members of the
Coalition sat down together and submitted a consolidated Continuum of
Care Application to help Jacksonville's homeless outreach projects. The
bill does not authorize any additional funding; it only restores the
original intent of the Homeless Coalitions Continuum of Care
Application, allowing funding to be restored to all existing projects
and to begin funding for the new projects. The Liberty Center would
keep $459,600 of the grant and the remaining funds of just over $3
million would be dispersed to the other 10 projects in the priority
order they were listed on the grant application.
This legislation will not cost the taxpayers any additional funds,
and it will not change the original grant award amount of $3,484,778.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, Ms. Brown for
joining me as an original cosponsor of this legislation and urge all my
colleagues to support passage of H.R. 3699.
Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, today the House will begin the debate and vote
on proposals to reform the way we finance federal election campaigns in
this country. Some believe this issue rates very low in public concern,
but I believe strongly that the proposals we debate today go to the
very heart of our democracy.
This is a debate about the way we will run our elections, which are
the foundation and a major safeguard of our republic. It is a debate
and a decision about whether every voter will have an equal voice in
deciding our nation's future or whether some interests will always have
special status because their voices are backed by large financial
contributions.
Mr. Speaker, there is nothing wrong with a person providing a
financial contribution to a political candidate or committee. It is
proper that candidates are supported at the grassroots level through
the involvement of friends and neighbors. Each of us is here in large
measure because we enjoy and appreciate such support from a wide range
of Americans who care about our government and are personally committed
to supporting us.
But, there is something wrong with this system when the link between
candidates and the grassroots voter--our neighbors and our friends--is
broken or bent beyond recognition by an avalanche of big money that
comes directly from corporations, labor unions and from a very few,
very wealthy individuals. That is the problem we face today.
Direct political contributions from corporations to individual
candidates were outlawed in 1907, but today corporations give hundreds
of millions of dollars to both parties in the form of ``soft money''
because current federal law has a loophole allowing such contributions
for so-called ``party-building activities.'' This loophole now allows
enormous contributions--some of $1 million in a single check--that go
directly to the political parties rather than individual candidates.
Although giving to political parties may lessen the appearance of
corruption, the average American understands that Enron, big tobacco
companies and other corporations do not give millions of dollars to a
political party just to assure good government.
Mr. Speaker, the choices before the House are clear cut. We can again
pass a bill that provides genuine, effective reform of the current
system--the bill offered by Mr. Shays and Mr. Meehan. Some of the
alternatives before us have the appearance of reform by at least
providing some limits on soft money but they lack real substance
because the limits are so high and so wide that they change very little
in the current situation.
I believe it is essential that the House stand fast on the cause of
campaign finance reform, that we again--for the third time--pass the
Shays-Meehan bill. In doing so, we will end the soft-money chase. We
also will assure that those who engage in campaign advertising that
attacks or promotes candidates must fully disclose the sources of their
funding to the voters.
The decision we make today is perhaps the most important decision
that this Congress will render. The outcome will influence everything
else we do on a vast array of issues and concerns. Mr. Speaker, I urge
my colleagues to pass real reform so that we send a clear message to
the American people that this Congress intends to restore common sense
to our campaign laws.
Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
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. REYNOLDS. 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. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, further
proceedings on this motion will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
____________________