[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.

                          ____________________