[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21441-21450]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 21441]]

 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 417, BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE 
                           REFORM ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 283 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 283

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 417) to amend the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 to reform the financing of campaigns for 
     elections for Federal office, and for other purposes. The 
     first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be 
     subject to amendment. All points of order against the 
     amendments printed in the report are waived except that the 
     adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
     constitute the conclusion of consideration of the bill for 
     amendment. The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may: 
     (1) postpone until a time during further consideration in the 
     Committee of the Whole a request for a recorded vote on any 
     amendment; and (2) reduce to five minutes the minimum time 
     for electronic voting on any postponed question that follows 
     another electronic vote without intervening business, 
     provided that the minimum time for electronic voting on the 
     first in any series of questions shall be 15 minutes. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the 
customary 30 minutes to my very good friend, the gentleman from Dallas, 
TX (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may 
consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is 
for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 is a fair rule which provides for 
the consideration of H.R. 417, the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999, 
under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate 
divided equally between the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
Committee on House Administration. The rule makes in order 13 
amendments which were printed in the report accompanying this 
resolution. Ten of the amendments are perfecting amendments debatable 
for 10 minutes each. After the disposition of those amendments, the 
rule makes in order three substitutes by the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) which are debatable for 40 
minutes each. The Doolittle and Hutchinson substitutes were reported 
without recommendation by the Committee on House Administration and the 
Thomas substitute was favorably reported.
  The rule waives all points of order against these amendments except 
that the adoption of an amendment in the nature of a substitute shall 
constitute the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment 
which, and I will underscore this, Mr. Speaker, is the standard 
amendment process in the House. So this process that we are going to be 
proceeding under will be regular order.
  Mr. Speaker, 26 perfecting amendments and three amendments in the 
nature of a substitute to the Shays-Meehan bill were submitted to the 
Committee on Rules. All three substitutes were made in order. Of the 26 
perfecting amendments, only one was submitted by a Democrat, and that 
amendment was in fact made in order in this rule.
  The rule also permits the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole to 
postpone votes during consideration of the bill and to reduce voting 
time to 5 minutes on a postponed question if the vote follows a 15-
minute vote. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or 
without instructions.
  I would like to commend Speaker Hastert for his very judicious 
handling of what obviously has been a hotly debated issue over the 
years. Earlier this year, he gave his word that the House would 
consider campaign finance reform in September under a fair process. 
Today, the Speaker has again demonstrated his leadership and good faith 
by bringing this measure to the floor under this rule. I also want to 
recognize the hard work of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) 
who held weeks of hearings and reported out four competing proposals. 
His committee did a tremendous job in framing the debate that we will 
have here this afternoon.
  Mr. Speaker, free speech, particularly free political speech, is a 
cherished right enshrined in the first amendment to our Constitution. 
For democracy to flourish, a free people must be able to express their 
political views without government restriction. Our Founding Fathers 
recognized that this is in fact the fundamental precept of democracy. 
Without free political speech, our great American experiment cannot 
continue to thrive into the next millennium.
  I do not believe that the current problems with the campaign system 
are caused by too much political speech. They are caused by the 
outmoded rules and regulations which currently restrict speech. 
Although I commend the authors of the Shays-Meehan bill for their good 
intentions, I believe they are taking the wrong approach. Adding more 
layers of rules and regulations, more bureaucracies and barriers, to an 
already flawed system is not the answer. It is increasingly clear after 
25 years of living with the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 that 
the current Federal campaign laws are fundamentally flawed. Just as the 
current Shays-Meehan proposal is the product of good intentions, the 
Campaign Act which we now live with was also the product of people 
driven to do what was right. It was praised for eliminating the 
possibility of another Watergate, lowering the costs of political 
campaigns and reducing the advantages of incumbency.
  It is ironic that 25 years later, many of the law's same supporters 
are urging Congress to pass another campaign finance reform bill to 
accomplish what the Federal Election Campaign Act has failed to do. 
Limiting the amount of money spent and contributed in Federal campaigns 
will not lead to increased competition. Nor will it cause the influence 
of large contributors to wane or make politicians more accountable to 
their constituents. The Federal Election Campaign Act places limits on 
contributions and expenditures, but since 1974 campaign spending has 
more than tripled in real dollars. Incumbents have enjoyed huge 
advantages raising campaign funds, and they have generally had an 
easier time getting reelected. While history shows that limits do not 
work as advertised, the focus of reform continues to be on new 
contribution restrictions and suspending the free speech rights of 
grassroots organizations and their members. We are even looking at the 
prospect of regulating the use of the Internet and the World Wide Web 
for political purposes. Mr. Speaker, this is not the right way for us 
to go as we try to focus concern for first amendment rights.

[[Page 21442]]

  To reduce the advantages of incumbency, I believe that contribution 
limits should be raised, at least to account for 25 years of inflation, 
and tax credits should be reinstated to encourage more individuals to 
participate in the electoral process. I will be supporting the 
Doolittle substitute which will encourage individuals to exercise their 
free speech rights more effectively, free political candidates from 
their frequent fund-raising activities, and reduce the advantages of 
incumbency. Rather than trying to regulate the Internet, a hopeless 
effort in the long run, I believe 21st century technology should be 
used to increase political openness. I support the establishment of 
electronic filing procedures and requiring that Federal Election 
Commission disclosure information be published on the Internet. With 
information related to political giving freely available in an 
understandable format on the Internet, Americans will no longer need to 
rely on special interests and the media to interpret the Federal 
Election Commission data for them.
  Mr. Speaker, just as free trade encourages vitality in our economic 
markets, I believe free speech fosters a stronger democracy based on 
competition in a free market of ideas. Therefore, I will choose more 
freedom over more regulation.
  This is not an unorthodox rule. It does not stack the deck against 
the Shays-Meehan bill. The rule does not make in order so-called 
``poison pill'' amendments as some have suggested. The fact is this 
rule provides for a debate and amendment process closer to regular 
order than any campaign finance rule that has been debated in the past 
decade. If the proponents of Shays-Meehan have the votes, they will 
prevail.
  Now is the time to cut through the rhetoric and approve this rule so 
that the House may work its will on this issue of campaign finance 
reform. This is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, that demands very 
serious thinking. I urge my colleagues to support the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, on the road to a vote on real campaign finance reform, 
our friends in the Republican Party have set up an ambush. In this 
Congress, the Republican leadership has accommodated supporters of the 
Shays-Meehan campaign finance proposal by scheduling the bill for 
consideration, but appearances can be deceiving.
  First, the rule reported by the Republican majority on the Committee 
on Rules gives opponents of campaign finance reform the opportunity to 
wound the bill by taking pot shots at Shays-Meehan. Then, when the bill 
is down and bleeding, the rule allows opponents to bring out the heavy 
artillery to try and finish it off. This rule may not give Shays-Meehan 
a clean vote. And, Mr. Speaker, unless Members of the House stand up 
and vote against the amendments designed to wound and weaken and 
eventually kill real and meaningful campaign finance reform, the 
Republican majority will once again, through a cynical exploitation of 
the process, stymie the efforts of those Members who are dedicated to 
reforming how Federal campaigns in this country are financed.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 283 makes in order a series of 10 
amendments to Shays-Meehan. This series includes amendments that would, 
in essence, take away the ability of labor unions in this country to 
represent the views of their members in the political process, while 
others would allow individuals to increase their contributions to 
candidates from $1,000 to $3,000. There is even an amendment in this 
mix that puts limits on the campaign of the First Lady in the State of 
New York. These amendments are, by design, intended to seriously maim 
and wound Shays-Meehan.
  The rule then provides for the consideration of three substitutes. 
These substitutes are intended to inflict mortal wounds. Should any one 
of them be adopted, Shays-Meehan will be declared DOA. While we can 
speculate that the first two substitutes, those offered by the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) and the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), will not pass, the third substitute, which 
is a proverbial sheep in wolf's clothing, stands a good chance of 
passing the House and killing Shays-Meehan.
  That substitute, to be offered by the chairman of the Committee on 
House Administration, embodies a number of reforms to the operations of 
the FEC but does not affect the financing of campaigns. The Thomas 
amendment is indeed campaign reform. The problem, Mr. Speaker, is that 
it is not campaign finance reform. The intent here is quite clear and 
very obvious. This rule is designed to ensure that the House will never 
get a straight up-or-down vote on Shays-Meehan.
  All that being said, Mr. Speaker, Democrats are not going to oppose 
this rule, for we know full well if this rule is defeated, that means 
the end of any discussion on the subject of campaign finance for the 
remainder of this Congress. In the last Congress, Shays-Meehan passed 
this body by a vote of 237-186 after the Republican leadership set up a 
series of roadblocks designed to keep the House from getting a vote on 
that bill. We can only hope that a majority in the House remains 
committed to campaign finance reform and will find a way to foil this 
ambush of the only proposal that fits that description.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to reject the amendments made in 
order in this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1315

  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell), my very good friend.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Chairman of the Committee on 
Rules, my good friend from California, for yielding this time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me begin with a note of gratitude to the Speaker of 
the House. Last year we tried to get this bill up for a vote, and it 
took a discharge petition, with Republicans and Democrats together, to 
make it happen. That was under a different Speaker. This Speaker, by 
contrast, promised that we would have a vote on the floor in September. 
He has fulfilled that promise without being forced to by a discharge 
petition. There were many skeptics who said that it was a subterfuge; 
they were wrong. He deserves to be honored for keeping his word.
  On the merits, as I see the rule, and I intend to support the rule, 
it allows a fair discussion of Shays-Meehan and legitimate alternatives 
that colleagues wish to put forward. I intend to be supporting Shays-
Meehan throughout today's debate. I intend not to be agreeing to 
amendments that would kill Shays-Meehan. But other people have their 
reasonable attitudes about their own approach, and it is simply fair to 
allow them to present their alternatives. There is nothing unfair in a 
rule that allows this House to debate alternatives.
  I am going to use the remainder of my time just to identify one very 
important thing we will do today, when we pass Shays-Meehan.
  A television ad that was run in the last campaign stated:

       Head Start, student loans, toxic clean up, extra police 
     protected in the budget agreement, but the President stood 
     firm. The President's plan: Politics must wait, balance the 
     budget, reform welfare.

  Almost the identical words appeared in a similar ad, the first one, 
however, by the DNC with soft money on May 31, 1996; the second, by the 
Clinton campaign, on June 2, 1996.
  What we have today is a huge loophole in campaign finance. We run the 
exact same ads almost, but we run them as soft money ads through a 
political party, and anybody can contribute any amount of money to 
finance those ads.
  Mr. Speaker, if we intend to have a system that limits how much 
people can influence the system to prevent corruption, then we must not 
allow a loophole as large as this whereby we can run almost exactly the 
same ads and have them excused because it is soft money rather than 
hard.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the author of the legislation.

[[Page 21443]]


  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding this time to me.
  Members of the House have a unique opportunity today to make a real 
difference and to pass campaign finance reform, legislation that is 
long overdue.
  As my colleagues know, we have had lots of disagreements between 
Democrats and Republicans about how to determine tax policy, what to do 
with the surplus, a patients' bill of rights, education reform and what 
to do to improve education across our country. Finally today we have an 
issue that Democrats and Republicans can agree on.
  There were 50 to 60 Republicans who supported this legislation in the 
last Congress. We got 251 votes from Members of this House in the last 
Congress. This is our opportunity today to pass real comprehensive 
campaign finance reform, to make soft money illegal, illegal because it 
is a loophole that came out of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1974 
and has had a corrupting influence on presidential elections in this 
country.
  Mr. Speaker, it is not good enough to just stand up and have hearings 
and spend millions of dollars talking about the abuses in the last 
campaign and then do nothing about it. It is just not good enough to 
have hearings and create an environment where Democrats attack 
Republicans, Republicans attack Democrats, on the abuses in the last 
campaign and then do nothing about it. Today is the day. Today is the 
day when the votes are going to be counted and we are going to 
determine who is for campaign finance reform and who is not.
  During the course of this debate there are a number of what we call 
``poison pill amendments,'' amendments that are designed to do nothing 
but kill this unique coalition that has been established. I urge the 
Members of this House to see through these amendments and recognize 
them for what they are, nothing more than an attempt by the opponents 
of campaign finance reform to kill this legislation.
  Let us kill these amendments, and let us pass comprehensive campaign 
finance reform today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), my good friend, and neighbor and classmate.
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Speaker, certainly I rise in strong support of this 
bill that is finally bringing Shays-Meehan to the floor, and I might 
say better late than never. Neverthless, I do express appreciation to 
the Speaker for fulfilling his promise that we conduct this debate.
  I do think that without question, as already has been stated here, 
the American people believe that we have a rigged and corrupt system, 
and perhaps with good reason, but we have a good opportunity today to 
really put that behind us and vote this reform. This will put us on the 
road to reestablishing our credibility.
  I must say that with the campaign costs skyrocketing candidates and 
incumbents, as the American people have seen, find themselves devoting 
more and more time and energy to fund-raising and the reach and 
influence of special interests has grown out of control, and as a 
consequence, people do believe that their elected officials are bought 
and paid for; and it is at the core, I believe, of the voter cynicism 
that is leading Americans to drop out of our political system and the 
political process of our democracy.
  We have here today the opportunity, without question, to address one 
of the most corrupt, corrosive developments in our system, the 
explosion of soft money; and that is what we are about today. If we do 
nothing else, we must lay the foundation and take this giant step for 
correcting this problem and ban soft money. It will not do everything, 
but it will be the foundation and a giant step forward, and we must do 
it.
  The American people are cynical; they are disgusted. Let us take this 
first giant step to restoring faith in our democratic process. Support 
the rule, and support Shays-Meehan, the soft money ban, outright. It is 
a strong ban, a hard ban, on soft money.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule and would like to begin 
my remarks this afternoon by saying: ``better late than never.
  I have been part of a bipartisan group of Members who have been 
seeking a full and a fair debate on campaign finance reform.
  We should have had this debate last Spring.
  As a result, America will be forced to witness another general 
election conducted under rules the American people think are rigged and 
corrupt.
  But we are finally having it now and I thank the Speaker for 
fulfilling his promise to conduct this debate.
  Mr. Speaker, the lack of fundamental change in our campaign finance 
reform is one of Congress' most significant failings. Clearly, our 
campaign finance system is out of control. The signs of impending 
disaster dominate the headlines every day. Campaign costs are 
skyrocketing. Candidates, incumbents and challengers alike, find 
themselves devoting more time and more energy to fundraising. The reach 
and influence of special interests continue to grow. As a consequence, 
many people believe elections are ``bought'' by those organizations 
with the most money! And is at the core of voters cynicism leading to 
Americans dropping out of the political process of our democracy.
  Without question the most corrosive recent development has been the 
explosion of so-called ``soft money''--donations from wealthy 
corporations, labor unions and individuals to the major parties.
  Of course, there are many critically important issues that we will 
examine during the course of this debate--the so-called paycheck 
protection amendment, issue ads, independent expenditures, and others.
  But if we do nothing else--let's ban soft money. My Colleagues--soft 
money was at the heart of each and every one of the scandals of the 
last Presidential campaign today--nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, White 
House coffees, alleged contributions from the Chinese military to the 
DNC, and more.
  The American people are cynical and disgusted. They should be.
  Support the rule. Then, to ban soft money outright, support Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Levin).
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, 20 years ago in Buckley versus Valeo, the 
Supreme Court said, and I quote, ``To the extent that large 
contributions are given to secure political quid pro quos from current 
and potential officeholders, the integrity of our system of 
representative democracy is undermined. Of equal concern is the danger 
of actual quid pro quo arrangements and the impact of the appearance of 
corruption stemming from public awareness of the opportunities for 
abuse inherent in a regime of large individual financial 
contributions.''
  Twenty years ago the main problem was unlimited individual 
contributions going for undisguised campaign ads. Today the problem is 
different. It is unlimited contributions from individuals and groups 
going for campaign ads that are disguised transparently as issue ads.
  So this is the real question. Will it take a Teapot Dome scandal to 
get action under this dome on campaign finance reform?
  The Annenberg study says the abuse of sham issue ads is growing. I 
read for my colleagues this campaign ad from last year:
  ``Linda Smith on education: I have decided the U.S. Department of 
Education is not necessary. That explains why Smith cosponsored a bill 
to eliminate the Department of Education, voted to cut Head Start and 
student loans, voted against testing standards to make schools 
accountable. Linda Smith even voted to slash safe and drug-free schools 
in half. Linda Smith puts her narrow political agenda ahead of our 
schools. Tell her to stop voting against kids.''
  If the words had been used ``defeat Linda Smith,'' under our campaign 
laws, instead of the word ``tell'' which was used, that was clearly a 
campaign ad. Games played with language using the word ``tell'' instead 
of the word ``defeat'' should not thwart the law.
  Corruption by money of the democratic process is not freedom.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker), my good friend.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend for yielding this time to 
me.

[[Page 21444]]

  Mr. Speaker, I will vote for this rule of course, but against final 
passage of Shays-Meehan. Let me make one thing clear at the outset of 
this debate. There is no public clamor for this legislation. I have 
been in almost every corner of my 24-county district during the last 
month, and not once did a single citizen bring up the issue of our 
campaign finance laws. No, the hue and cry for this bill is occurring 
inside the Beltway of Washington D.C. largely by those who would 
receive a special advantage by this proposed tilting of the playing 
field.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proudest of this House when it works in a 
bipartisan manner, but this is not what we will have today. There may 
be high-sounding tones in the media about the winds of reform, but for 
its liberal advocates this bill is really about party politics, and 
here is why. The big labor bosses use the forced dues of their union 
members to further their political goals, and that usually means 
support only for Democrats. This bill would do nothing to stop that 
practice.
  Shays-Meehan takes no action to limit another of the most significant 
abuses of the liberal labor bosses, and that is the in-kind, unreported 
use of union employees for get-out-the-vote, organization efforts, and 
other political activities. These actions benefit one party exclusively 
and, frankly, are beyond the scope of anything we can do as a Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, this debate should be about freedom of speech, freedom 
of expression, the first amendment to the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Look at this diagram, Mr. Speaker. We should shudder to contemplate 
the arcane, complex, Rube Goldberg limitations on American expression 
which are contained in this bill. This is the convoluted process that 
the courts and the FEC, candidates and citizens will have to go through 
in order to make sure their advocacy is permissible under Shays-Meehan.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I have friends on both sides of the aisle who 
legitimately believe that there is too much money in campaigns today, 
and I will admit that there is a certain nostalgia for the one-on-one 
campaigns of yesteryear; but this bill, Shays-Meehan, does not get us 
there. When I was a youth growing up in Mississippi, there was always a 
huge crowd around the court square on a Saturday morning. A candidate 
could come into town with a loud speaker on top of his station wagon 
and get his point across to a large percentage of the voters. But those 
days are over. We live in the days of malls and cable TV with 99 
channels, the Internet, not to mention radio, direct mail and the print 
media. Those are the methods we use in the United States of America to 
convey information today, and it costs money to buy that form of 
advertising.
  Freedom of speech is worthless if no one can hear it. The truth is 
that it takes funds to amplify our political discourse to a level which 
reaches the public.
  Mr. Speaker, there are solutions out there to rectify the most 
unpleasant aspects of campaigning and raising funds to do so, but that 
will not occur today. It will not occur as long as one political party 
believes it can achieve a significant and unfair advantage under the 
guise of reform.
  I urge passage of the rule and defeat of Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I rise reluctantly to support 
this rule because it remains the only way that we will get real 
campaign finance reform on the floor for a vote. The underlying Shays-
Meehan bill is strong, bipartisan legislation that deserves the support 
of every Member of this House. It is the only bill that shuts down the 
soft money system and reins in the phony issue ads; but in order to get 
to Shays-Meehan, this rules forces us to navigate a minefield of poison 
pills, killer amendments and substitutes introduced by many Members who 
have absolutely no intention of voting for the underlying bill.
  The most dangerous of these is the Thomas substitute. It would 
strengthen the FEC, a cause I have long championed. Along with my 
colleague, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), we introduced an 
amendment that would incorporate the Thomas substitute as a perfecting 
amendment, as many of us did with the commission bill of the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Franks) and others last year. But, Mr. Speaker, 
this was rejected.
  I urge my colleagues, vote for the rule, against all substitutes, all 
killer amendments, and for campaign finance reform.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the lead author of the campaign finance reform 
bill which brought us to this point.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time 
to me, and I thank this Congress for debating this issue.
  This is legislation that clearly has bipartisan support. It is a team 
effort, and it has probably been one of the more satisfying activities 
that I have been involved in.

                              {time}  1330

  I just want to say that I disagree strongly with the gentleman from 
Mississippi talking about it being one party. It is not about one 
party, and it is not about freedom of speech because we retain freedom 
of speech. It is about ending corrupt politics. That is what it is 
about.
  It has been against the law since 1907 for corporate treasury money 
to be used in campaigns, but it happens. It has been against laws since 
1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns, but it is happening. 
It has been against the laws since 1974 for foreign nationals to 
contribute to campaigns but they are, and they are because of two 
loopholes: Soft money, the unlimited sums of money from individuals, 
corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups; and the sham 
issue ads which are truly campaign ads.
  We do not prevent those ads for money. We just call them campaign 
ads. What that means is, out goes the corporate treasury money, the 
union dues money, and the foreign national money. That is what this 
debate is about. It is about having a fair system, where everyone has a 
right to speak out, and where we enforce the 1907 law, the 1947, law 
and the 1974 law.
  I would want to just end by saying this is a fair rule, but it is a 
fair rule that gives the opponents of our legislation seven shots to 
kill us as amendments and three shots to kill us through substitutes. 
It is still a fair rule. It is a rule, though, that does not allow for 
one amendment, and that is the Thomas amendment. We wanted it as a 
perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute because it is a very 
good piece of legislation, but it is process, not reform, in our 
judgment.
  So I salute sincerely the chairman of the Committee on Rules for 
making sure we have a debate that will not go on for months, giving us 
time limits, letting us know what is coming, and I thank him for doing 
it; and I thank our Speaker for living up to his word.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maine 
(Mr. Allen).
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of this rule, in 
strong support of the Shays-Meehan bill, and in opposition to the 
poison pill amendments. Today's votes present clear choices. If one is 
a Member of this House and they like spending more and more of their 
time raising money, vote for the poison pills; but if they prefer 
working on issues important to their constituents, support Shays-
Meehan.
  If one works for a corporation or a labor union and they like getting 
hit up for soft money donations again and again, support the status 
quo; but if they prefer to invest money in their own organization, 
support Shays-Meehan.
  If one is a TV viewer and they like endless streams of deceptive 
anonymous issue ads in election years, oppose reform; but if one 
prefers honest and less frequent ads, support Shays-Meehan.
  If one is an American and likes their voice being drowned out by 
special interests, big money, support the DeLay-Doolittle coalition; 
but if one wants a

[[Page 21445]]

greater say in how our laws are made, support Shays-Meehan.
  I urge approval of the rule, defeat of the poison pill amendments and 
passage of the underlying legislation.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend, the gentleman 
from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of the rule and I do rise in 
support of Shays-Meehan and in opposition to the amendments. There has 
been a lot of fussing over the rule here today. I do not think there is 
anything unexpected there. That is what the majority of the majority 
parties wants, to have a certain limited circumstance. I think, in 
fact, the Committee on Rules and the leadership deserves credit for 
letting us vote on this at all; and because there has been so much 
attention paid to it, I think we all know exactly what we have to do on 
the individual votes under this particular rule so I do not think that 
is a problem.
  I hope that all of us will support it.
  I hope everybody will consider very carefully what we are doing here. 
It should concern every one of us that there are corporations, there 
are labor unions, there are organizations out there which are 
contributing to the political parties in soft money a quarter million 
and more, perhaps something less than that. And if anyone believes they 
are doing it because they believe in good government, I would tell them 
to look at the underlying legislation that those groups are interested 
in.
  The bottom line is that I think we need to do something about it. I 
am for individual contributions. I am for complete disclosure of all 
contributions and all expenditures which are made. I think we have to 
limit the special issue groups so that is obviously not in order. And I 
think Shays-Meehan would do it, and I would encourage all of us to do 
it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Forbes).
  Mr. FORBES. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I think it 
is clear in this body last year we made it known that a majority of the 
Members here believe, as the public does, that we have a need for 
campaign finance reform.
  The people have lost faith in the current system, a system that 
should be of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people 
wonder actually, does it belong to the people?
  The current system really makes it impossible for people who want to 
give voice to their issues to get into electoral office. They feel shut 
out. We need Shays-Meehan so that we can restore confidence in our 
electoral system and make this great democracy even greater.
  Today we have a chance to change all of that. We can restore faith in 
this political system breathing democracy by passing Shays-Meehan. The 
proposed amendments only cloud the main issue, and the substitutes 
unfortunately seek to gut it. We need to send a clean bill to the 
Senate and represent the change that Americans want, starting here in 
the House.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the author of one of the key substitutes.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule being offered today. I 
believe it is fair. It will allow a broad-ranging debate on campaign 
finance reform. The rule makes in order four major alternatives, one of 
which is the substitute that I have offered, along with the gentleman 
from Kansas (Mr. Moran), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady). It is the Campaign Integrity Act which does three things that I 
think are very important.
  One, it bans soft money to the national parties which is the most 
significant problem that we have on our scene.
  Second, it empowers individuals in our system by increasing the 
information that is available to them through more disclosure.
  Third, it raises the individual contribution limits to prevent the 
value of the small contributor from being eroded through rising 
inflation. Ours is the only substitute that does that.
  As my colleagues examine which alternative is the right one to 
support, we should all ask a couple of questions.
  First of all, what fixes the most significant problems?
  Second, what can realistically get passed in the Senate?
  Third, what is consistent with the Constitution?
  I believe that is the framework for the debate as we engage in this 
under the rule.
  The Hutchinson-Moran-Hill-Brady-Hulshof substitute accomplishes all 
three of these objectives. So I believe it is a fair rule that is being 
offered today.
  The question has been raised, does the public support reform? I 
believe that they do. In fact, I believe the reform is more intense in 
the body politic in America than it is in this body, because we know 
the script; we know what is going to happen, and we know the Senate is 
not going to consider the same bill that they considered the last time.
  So I think the public is wiser. They support reform, but they want 
good reform and they are willing to debate the substance of each 
proposal.
  Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 15 said, why has government been 
instituted at all?
  The answer is, because the passions of men will not conform to the 
dictates of reason and justice without constraint.
  I believe that defines the debate on campaign finance reform, that 
reason and justice demands this type of reform and the rule will 
support that.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining; the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost), 19\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, if we sweep campaign finance reform under 
the rug, what legacy will we be leaving our children? Political 
mistrust, apathy? Or today, will we take a giant step forward in 
reforming a political system and leaving a system that our children can 
be proud of?
  Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker. The American people want campaign 
finance reform. They want it now.
  The American people are weary of the glaring abuses and outrageous 
sums of money spent on political campaigns. The American people believe 
big money is destroying our political systems.
  Campaign reform is not a Democratic or Republican problem. It is a 
Democratic and Republican responsibility.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to come to this House floor and honestly 
address campaign finance reform. Let us do it and let us do it once and 
for all. Let us vote yes on Shays-Meehan. Let us vote no on all poison 
pill amendments.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Tierney).
  Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I respectfully depart from some of my colleagues here 
who think that this rule is a fair rule. I suggest that this rule is, 
in effect, a somewhat hidden attempt to kill the only campaign finance 
reform proposal that probably has a chance of passing this year. We 
know that because last year when it was presented, it passed by 252 
votes to 179. It had 61 Republicans on it. It was, in fact, a 
bipartisan effort. This year, instead of showing a willingness to 
either take a stand and be counted on the issue of banning unregulated 
soft money donations to parties, of regulating phony issue ads on 
television, and imposing new fund-raising disclosure rules, some are 
trying to use the rules, I believe, to obfuscate the issue, take 10 
swipes either killing it with a poison pill or killing it by

[[Page 21446]]

substituting suggestions that are unpalatable to most of the Members of 
this Congress.
  In fact, the New York Times, in an editorial on September 13, I 
think, justifiably called these junkyard tactics of 1998. It is 
essentially the same tactics that we saw last year.
  This rule, in a good world, would be defeated; but apparently it is 
going to pass because people fear that without this rule we will have 
no chance at campaign finance reform at all.
  We should have that chance. We should vote for Shays-Meehan without 
all the other shenanigans.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise with little enthusiasm for this rule 
but in great support for the Shays-Meehan proposal.
  Mr. Speaker, I have a picture on the wall of my office that I 
purchased several years ago from a high school art competition in my 
district. It was produced by Jeff Vogelsberg, a student at that time in 
Belleville High School. It is a picture of a car made out of money that 
has lassoed and is towing away the capitol of the United States.
  We have a saying in our language, out of the mouths of babes, which 
really recognizes the pure and perfect insight that children often 
possess, their ability to get to the nub of the issue; and in fact, Mr. 
Speaker, this is how our children see us, how the public sees us. Of 
course, it is the children who will grow up and write the history books 
of the future.
  What do we think they will have to say about us and this Congress? 
How will history portray us? Will this Congress be portrayed as 
supporters of a system with integrity and honor, or one of money that 
is so powerful it can pull the capitol of the United States from its 
very foundations? Support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule 
because it is going to present an opportunity to the House of 
Representatives to vote on the merits of this very important bill that 
I am a cosponsor of, the Shays-Meehan bill.
  It has been suggested earlier, there is not public clamor for us in 
Congress to take up campaign finance reform, and I think that statement 
alone really demonstrates what a problem we have here.
  The public is leaving it to us to figure out the details on how to 
rid this system of its excesses. What they want from us, what the 
public is clamoring for, is simply independent judgment.

                              {time}  1345

  They want control over this political process returned to people. 
They expect us to judge each of the issues that come before us on the 
merits. If they were exposed to what we are exposed to, the incredible 
acceleration in the rate of soft money and sham issue ads pouring into 
the system, overshadowing their individual votes, they would expect us 
to take up this very bill today. We have to be on guard to defeat the 
poison pill amendments.
  The Shays-Meehan bill is not a bill that favors Democrats or 
Republicans, it favors ordinary citizens who want their vote to count. 
We need to defeat the poison pill amendments, we need a straight-up 
vote on Shays-Meehan, we need to return control of our elections of 
this Congress to the people of the United States.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, is the gentleman from Texas prepared to 
yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I would respond to my friend from California 
by saying that we have additional speakers; however, they are not 
currently on the floor. We have Members who have requested the 
opportunity to speak.
  Mr. DREIER. How much time is remaining on both sides, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier) has 9\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has 15\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, does my friend anticipate that he is going 
to fill that entire 15-minute period?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, we have requests for that time, but the 
Members are not currently on the floor. It is our anticipation that we 
would use the time. We had planned to.
  Mr. DREIER. So if I were to move the previous question, would the 
gentleman yield back the balance of his time?
  Mr. FROST. Not at this point, Mr. Speaker, because there are Members 
who are in transit. There are Members who are coming to the floor who 
would like to speak.
  Mr. DREIER. In light of that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks).
  Mr. FRANKS of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support 
of the rule that will help to deliver comprehensive campaign reform to 
the American people.
  Last session, I was one of the authors of a bill to create an 
independent commission that would be empowered to make specific 
proposals that Congress would have been required to act upon. But 
today, the underlying bill before us combines the best of two 
approaches: the independent commission and Shays-Meehan.
  While the old Shays-Meehan legislation addressed some of the most 
corrupting elements of our campaign finance system by banning soft 
money, reforming issue ads and imposing tougher FEC disclosure, it 
failed to address a variety of other legitimate concerns. But now, with 
the independent commission having become part of the Shays-Meehan 
proposal, the bill before us now has an added dimension. The commission 
created by this legislation will provide a means to address those 
issues that continue to breed public mistrust in our campaign finance 
system.
  Today, Congress needs to face a harsh reality. Shays-Meehan, which 
now includes the independent commission, is the only real opportunity 
to deliver to the American people a campaign finance system that they 
can trust. I urge my colleagues to strongly support this rule.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as we rapidly use up our time on this side, 
leaving my friends with 15 minutes on their side, I am happy to yield 1 
minute to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman 
from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) is 
recognized for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for helping us out here.
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, it is great to be loved by both sides here 
today.
  I rise in support of the rule and in great appreciation for the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules who I think has been 
very fair and courteous through this process, and also in great 
appreciation to the Speaker of the House who is proving to all 435 
Members of the House today that he can be trusted to follow through on 
his word; that we would, in fact, this week in September consider the 
issue of campaign finance reform after an overwhelming success last 
year on basically the same decision, and that is, the underlying text 
of Shays-Meehan, which we have before us today.
  Of the four major alternatives that the gentleman from Arkansas laid 
out a few minutes ago, three of them truly address systemic campaign 
reform, that is, the issue of money and influence on the federal 
process. One of those four alternatives, though, frankly, does not 
stack up to the level of significant campaign finance reform as the 
other three. And that one is the Thomas substitute.
  Now, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of the 
Committee on House Administration is a brilliant man in this House; we 
all know that. He understands all of these issues extremely well, but 
what he has offered and the Committee on Rules embraced as a substitute 
really is an amendment, and my colleague, the

[[Page 21447]]

gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), and I appeared before the Committee 
on Rules and asked that that amendment be ruled in order, not as a 
substitute or an alternative to the other three major provisions, but 
as an amendment so that it could be attached to our bill, because 
frankly, there is nothing in it that everybody would not desire as an 
amendment to any of the three major alternatives. Yet, it was chosen as 
a substitute.
  Now, folks out there do not know what this really means, but what 
happens here is if it gets more votes than the rest of the bills, it 
goes forward; the rest stop, dead in their tracks, and therein lies 
somewhat of a gimmick in this whole process of today.
  So there are issues that will be considered as we go through this 
day, and we are grateful for the opportunity that will not be what they 
appear on the surface, because people will be voting against things 
that are perfectly good so that the underlying bill, the Shays-Meehan 
bill, the bill with momentum, the bill that is the most significant 
campaign finance reform legislation to move through this Congress since 
1974 can be considered on its own merits.
  Now, today, as we go through all of this debate, Members are going to 
look for places to hide. I have seen this; this is my fifth year here. 
They look for some way to position themselves so that they can say I am 
for it, but. And the American people should say, the buts must stop 
now. You are for it, you are going to vote for it, you are going to 
move it forward. Soft money is the target. There are a lot of details 
that people will hide behind, but soft money is not defensible in 
today's environment. It is excessive, onerous, egregious, and should be 
removed.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
first thank my friend for his complimentary remarks and then to respond 
to a couple of points that he raised.
  First, what he described as somewhat of a gimmick is, in fact, 
something called regular order. We are proceeding with the regular 
Rules of the House here. And to describe the Thomas substitute as a 
measure which should, in fact, be considered as an amendment and not a 
substitute would be doing a disservice to the chairman of the committee 
which will be managing this legislation as it moves forward, and in 
fact, the Thomas substitute was the only substitute that was favorably 
reported from the Committee on House Administration, so I think it is 
important for us to just clarify the record. Again, under this regular 
order procedure, we are allowing the Members the opportunity to 
consider a wide range of alternatives.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Long Beach, 
California, Mr. Horn.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speaker. Speaker Hastert told us 
in March, we will bring it up in September, and here it is September, 
and it is brought up. He is a person of his word.
  I support the rule; I support Shays-Meehan. The question is, ``Do we 
have the will to get a majority?'' We had it last year; let us get it 
again this year. Will it stop current practices? Will it stop the 
auctioning off of the Lincoln bedroom? The greatest scandal in American 
history was the collection of foreign and domestic money for the 1996 
presidential campaign. Shays-Meehan will stop that.
  The time is now. Twenty-five years ago well-meaning colleagues 
thought that Congress was banning soft money. It turns out they were 
not. They had reform for individual candidates, but they failed when 
corporate money, union money, and very wealthy individuals' money, 
could be laundered through party organization committees of both 
parties and smaller parties. This flow of money was readily welcomed 
and the parties simply became great Automatic Teller Machines that one 
can push in at one end and millions of dollars come out at the other 
end. If we did that as candidates, we would be indicted. The parties 
are not. They had found a huge loophole. Shays-Meehan will end that.
  Mr. Speaker, every right that we have flows to us in the governing of 
this country. We need to really reaffirm it by doing the right thing. 
We need to decide now whether our elections will be governed by law or 
manipulated by loophole. Let us do the right thing. Let us change the 
law. Let us make sure that people have faith in this institution and 
the institutions of government generally. If we do not do it, we will 
continue to see people as doubters about how ethically clean are 
legislators at the local, State, and the national levels. This is the 
chance to clean house. Let's do it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today first to congratulate the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their excellent across-the-aisle, 
bipartisan work in bringing about this legislation. I might say that I 
hope that this bipartisan effort that they have put together with lots 
of Members from both parties is something that we cannot only win with 
today, but have repeated with other bills: the patients' bill of 
rights, education. We ought to be able to find a way to work across 
party lines to get things done for the American people. I want to 
congratulate both of them vociferously for the hard work that they have 
done day in and day out to get us to where we are today.
  I would also like to recognize the work of our Democratic Blue Dogs 
and their discharge petition effort which forced the leadership to take 
our demands for a vote on campaign reform seriously. Because of their 
work, 202 Members of the House signed the discharge petition, urging 
the Republican leadership to bring Shays-Meehan to the floor, and we 
are able to be here today on the floor discussing this because of that 
discharge petition and the work that was done, again, in a bipartisan 
way to get this on the floor.
  The truth is, some of the Republican leaders have done their best to 
prevent this issue from coming to the floor, despite the fact that a 
bipartisan majority of the House wants this vote. And they are still 
trying to kill reform with poison pill amendments and substitute bills. 
I hope that does not succeed. I hope the bipartisan majority for good 
campaign reform prevails.
  This is a very simple issue. A vote for Shays-Meehan today is the 
best way and, in my view, the only way to begin to roll back the 
influence of wealthy special interests in government. It is the only 
way to focus the Congress back to the issues that the people I 
represent care about; to make our politics more responsive to their 
needs and not simply listening to wealthy special interests.
  We have all seen what being bound to big money from special interests 
has done to our present legislative agenda. Republican leaders put the 
needs of powerful lobbyists ahead of average families and their needs. 
They killed gun safety legislation. They have tried to block a real 
patients' bill of rights, and they have refused to take action to make 
prescription drugs affordable to every senior.
  Instead, they have introduced a tax bill which gives a small minority 
of wealthy Americans and corporations an $8 billion tax break which 
threatens the economic growth that is the best I have seen in my 
lifetime. We have gone from a government by the people, for the people 
to a government of lobbyists and special interests.
  By passing Shays-Meehan we take the first major step toward restoring 
the trust of the people in their government, in their House of 
Representatives, and returning us all to the agenda of ordinary 
American families.

                              {time}  1400

  It is time to begin this process. It is time for Shays-Meehan to be 
the law of the land. I ask every Member, Republican and Democratic, 
refuse to vote for the amendments designed to kill this reform, reject 
the Thomas substitute, which will only distract us from what we are 
supposed to be doing, and stand up today for Shays-Meehan, for real 
campaign reform. Return the people's Houses to the people of this great 
country.

[[Page 21448]]


  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the ranking member of the committee of 
jurisdiction.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and urge 
its passage. What did he say? What kind of doublespeak is this? Is he 
speaking out of both sides of his mouth? I will leave it for the 
Members to determine, and I will discuss this rule and why I think it 
ought to be passed, and why I think it is an unfortunate rule in that 
context.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a disease infecting American politics today. 
That disease is cynicism--cynicism toward our public institutions and 
our public officials.
  The symptoms are plain to see: civic disengagement, voter apathy, 
detachment, disaffection, and erosion of trust. In my view, this 
cynicism is inextricably linked to our current campaign finance system.
  In the 1996 presidential election cycle, less than one-tenth of 1 
percent of Americans contributed the maximum $1,000 per election for 
any candidate, according to the Advocacy Group on Public Campaigns. 
Yet, Americans cannot help but be awe-struck by the so-called soft 
money contributions pouring into our politics. In the 1996 election 
cycle, the two major parties raised $260 million in soft money. The 
same group predicts this figure will explode to $750 million in this 
cycle.
  Today, Mr. Speaker, we have a rare opportunity to attack this 
cynicism before it hardens into a more debilitating contempt. We also 
can show the American people that we indeed can work together in a 
bipartisan manner.
  Just 13 months ago this House overwhelmingly passed the Shays-Meehan 
campaign finance reform bill, 252 to 179, 61 Republicans, 190 
Democrats. There is no reason that we cannot pass this important 
measure by even a larger margin today.
  As we all know, Shays-Meehan would chip away at this cynicism by 
banning soft money contributions. In addition, it would regulate issue 
advertising that is clearly aimed at electing or defeating a specific 
candidate.
  While I am hopeful that we will pass Shays-Meehan once again, I am 
mindful that the path to victory is treacherous. That is because the 
rule governing today's debate in my view is designed to do one thing 
only, to kill Shays-Meehan. That is why I said at the beginning that I 
rise in opposition to this rule but urge its support, because I fear if 
it goes down, we will not have the opportunity to consider Shays-
Meehan.
  Here is what the Washington Post said about the 10 amendments made in 
order by this rule: ``They were written and chosen either to vitiate 
the Shays-Meehan bill, or to poison it for Democrats who might then 
take the lead in killing it. Perhaps even worse, this rule pits 
noncontroversial Federal Election Commission reform, the Thomas 
substitute, against Shays-Meehan.'' If the Thomas substitute receives 
more votes than Shays-Meehan, the latter, of course, dies, and we will 
never even get to vote on it.
  The substitute on FEC reform is not nor was it ever intended to be 
campaign finance reform. I ought to know. The Thomas substitute we will 
consider under this rule incorporates many of the provisions that I 
sponsored in H.R. 1818. But make no mistake, FEC reform is not campaign 
finance reform. FEC reform should have been on a suspension calendar or 
made as an amendment to Shays-Meehan. It was not. It was not because if 
it is adopted, it will automatically kill Shays-Meehan.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the Thomas substitute, which I 
support, but I support Shays-Meehan today, and we can support Thomas 
tomorrow.
  I should note, too, that not one of our four committee hearings this 
summer, not one, was focused on FEC reform. Frankly, as best I can 
tell, their only real purpose was to try to discredit Shays-Meehan.
  Finally, despite the fact that this is an unfair rule, as I said at 
the outset, I urge my colleagues to adopt it, to adopt it so that we 
can consider legislation critical to trying to allay the cynicism of 
which I have spoken.
  Rules, of course, are not always fair, but there is no reason we 
cannot overcome the obstruction in our path, pass the bipartisan Shays-
Meehan bill, and chip away at the cynicism toward American politics 
that exists today. I urge my colleagues to reject the poison pill 
amendments, to reject the Thomas substitute so we can adopt it on 
another day, to leave standing Shays-Meehan, and to vote in a 
bipartisan, overwhelming fashion to tell the American public that we 
are in fact, as our leader has said, going to return this House to the 
people.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to put this debate into a little perspective. 
When the United States became independent, when our Constitution was 
adopted, there were many skeptics who said that our new system of 
government would not last, a republican form of government, a 
democratic form of government. There had been many republics and 
democracies in the past and in antiquity, in Middle Ages, but they had 
not lasted. They all, every single one of them, degenerated into 
oligarchies or autocracies. Skeptics said this new democratic republic 
would not last, either.
  There have been two greatest tests of our democratic system. In the 
Civil War, because of slavery, Lincoln quite correctly characterized it 
as a test of whether a government of the people, by the people, and for 
the people could survive.
  Now we face a second great test, the increasing domination of our 
politics by big money. People are cynical, and rightly so. They believe 
that their participation, their voices, cannot count against the power 
of big money, and recent experience says they are right.
  We all know the power of the HMOs, the pharmaceutical companies. We 
watched this Congress pass a $50 billion giveaway to big tobacco 
companies. We gave away, not sold, not rented, gave away a $70 billion 
spectrum to the broadcasting companies. Why? Because of the power of 
big money.
  That power has corrupted both major political parties, and if we do 
not stop it, if we do not take this step, Shays-Meehan is the first 
step towards shopping it, when the histories are written, they will say 
the United States had a good 200-, 250-year run with democracy, and 
then it degenerated into an oligarchy and not a democratic system.
  We must begin to stop it now. We must pass Shays-Meehan. We must 
reject the trickery and the conniving of the Republican leadership in 
putting all these procedural obstructions in its path. If we want 
democratic government to survive into the next millenium, this is the 
time to start saying so today.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to my very good 
friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).
  Mr. GREENWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding time to 
me, and I thank him, as well as the Speaker, for his fairness in 
allowing us to bring this to the floor today.
  Mr. Speaker, the issue of how we finance our campaigns overshadows 
and undermines every other issue we debate in this Capitol. It distorts 
our policy with regard to the national defense of our Nation, it 
distorts and skews our policy with regard to health care, it distorts 
and skews our policy with regard to environmental protection.
  Reasonable men and women of this Chamber, friends of mine who come to 
the floor and argue otherwise, they will argue that when unions or 
corporations contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars in soft money 
to the parties, that in fact that has no effect whatsoever on the 
policy that proceeds from this House.
  I do not believe that, but reasonable people can differ. What is 
clear, though, is that the fact that there is this question before us 
undermines public confidence in democracy, and the public's confidence 
in our institutions of democracy is too important, far too important to 
act in any way but to err on the side of prudence.

[[Page 21449]]

  Mr. Speaker, the standard for conduct in public office is not simply 
for public officials to avoid conflicts of interest. It is for us to 
avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest. Clearly, indisputably, 
the current system creates at least the appearance of conflict of 
interest, conflicts of interest between what is in the best interest of 
the American people and what is in the interest of those who donate 
such large sums to the parties.
  Shays-Meehan allows us to transcend that conflict of interest. I urge 
its support.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Vento).
  Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, this is a bad rule and a bad deal, but it is 
the only option we will get in this Republican controlled House.
  The effort here is to try and defeat, and if not to defeat to 
undercut, any positive step to make a downpayment upon true campaign 
finance reform. The Republican leadership does not want to enact 
campaign reform. Their transparent behavior and actions speak louder 
than words, the Republican postponement of the Shays-Meehan bill so it 
will not likely reform the 2000 election cycle late in this session, 
and even then to float so many amendments, such wood decoys, as to 
distract and shoot down true campaign finance reform.
  Today, hopefully, the House and the American public, will let them 
know it's not duck season, will avoid falling into this public 
relations trap and demand reform which will ensure the empowerment of 
voters.
  Pass Shays-Meehan. Restore credibility. Empower voters, not just the 
special interests in this cycle. Restore confidence to the American 
public. Elections are at the core of our democracy. We need to take 
this step and pay an installment in terms of campaign reform.
  Mr. Speaker, today the Majority leadership is trying to turn the old 
saying, ``If it quacks like a duck, if it walks like a duck, it must be 
a duck'' on its head. Under that strategy, they hope to put out enough 
wooden decoys to distract our attention and the attention of the 
American people. With such waddling around and a cacophony of quacking 
on campaign reform, they hope that they will be able to distract, to 
decoy the House from voting for a responsible change in our campaign 
laws and to avoid public accountability for their actions to block real 
campaign reform.
  Mr. Chairman, that strategy will not work. The Members of this House, 
are working on a bipartisan basis for positive change within the limits 
of the Constitution. The American people know that today's system of 
political campaigns and how we fund them is broken. The American voter 
also knows that we have to enact meaningful reforms to return our 
political process to free our political process from the perception and 
reality of special interest control and empower the public interest as 
vital to a democracy.
  The essence of this debate is returning our political process to the 
American people; clarifying the election process as inviolate and 
making certain that the people have a restored sense of control through 
their participation; making certain that their vote makes a difference. 
As campaign spending has skyrocketed and campaigns have come to rely 
more and more on paid media, paid phoners and paid consultants, the 
growing disillusionment of the American public has been evidenced by 
declining numbers at the voting booth across the nation. A simple 
review of the Federal Elections Commission compilation of national 
voting turnout reflect a steady erosion in turnout over the past 30 
years. In 1960, over 63 percent of the U.S. voting age population 
voted. In the last Presidential election, only 49 percent eligible 
citizens actually voted. For non-presidential years, the percentage of 
voting age population who actually voted dropped by an alarming 11 
percent.
  There is no need to explore in great depth, the causes for voter 
drop-off. Legions of political scientists have debated this matter in 
academic circles for over the past decade. And we, the practitioners of 
politics, also have our own preconceptions of what has brought about 
the decline in voter turn-out. For too many voters political campaigns 
have become too slick and too negative. The result, the voter just 
disengages from political campaigns.
  Unfortunately, most of the options before us do nothing or too little 
to address the totality of this problem. Instead these proposals are 
new schemes designed to sidetrack this Body; to subvert the goal of 
campaign finance reform; and to embed in law special advantages and 
special interest control. In particular, I would like to draw my 
Colleagues' attention to the amendment to be offered by the Member from 
Pennsylvania, Mr. Goodling. This amendment, masquerading as ``campaign 
reform'', in reality targets one segment of our society, labor unions, 
and gags them from communicating with the membership. This amendment 
ignores the fact that unions today are prohibited from using union dues 
in federal political campaigns and that individuals cannot be forced to 
pay funds that will be used for political purposes. This Shays Meehan 
legislation in fact treats unions the same as everyone else by clocking 
the use of ``soft money'' and closing the ``express advocacy'' 
loophole. Perhaps that is the problem with this legislation, it is too 
fair. It treats Democrats and Republicans, labor and business, the NRA 
lobby and gun safety groups alike. The opponents of this bill would 
rather have a bill that tilts the process in their direction. The 
inherent balance of Shays Meehan is the correct way to go, not an 
approach that gives an advantage to any group.
  By approving the Shays-Meehan bill, Congress will be taking the first 
positive step in campaign finance reforms in decades. This legislation 
will certainly not eliminate all problems. This bill will not stop 
negative campaigning. Nor does it bring all campaign spending under 
control. The Shays-Meehan bill will, hopefully, be the first step in 
restoring some sanity to our campaign process. By eliminating the 
infusion of ``soft money'' into campaigns and closing the ``issue 
advocacy'' loophole, we are taking important positive steps to regain 
control and public accountability into our political base. This 
foundation will hopefully lead to further positive legislation to 
restore the rightful role of the American people in our political 
process. Critics say it will not work because of the courts or that the 
only way to go is public financing. The fact remains that this bill 
addresses serious loopholes and presents a common ground basis to act 
today.
  To restore the role of the people and to return campaigns to a debate 
on issues, not sound bites, we must defeat the distracting phony decoy 
ducks that the Republican leadership and other anti-reform groups have 
floated and pass the Shays-Meehan bill today, as installment payment to 
restoring voter confidence and credibility to the federal election 
process now not later.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I feel very strongly about the need to reform the system 
that finances our elections on political parties. Far too much of the 
time of this Chamber is devoted to fund-raising. We as Members know it, 
and so do our constituents. It is not surprising that the current 
system has led to a serious erosion of public confidence in the 
democratic process.
  Also, we know that all too often the policy has been shaped by 
campaign contributions. One needs look no further than what we have 
seen with the tobacco industry over time. The most egregious example I 
have seen since I have been in Congress was the $50 billion tax break 
for the cigarette manufacturers slipped into the 1997 tax reform 
legislation unannounced.
  This campaign finance legislation, authored by the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan), does not just improve our terribly flawed system. More 
important, it will break a logjam that has prevented reform.
  It will show the American people we can deliver something that is 
good for the political process and good for America. It will help us 
clean up the political process and make other reforms easier and more 
likely. It will help us exercise the bipartisan collaborative reform 
tendencies that can have a huge impact on the people's business in this 
Congress and beyond.
  I urge a rejection of the poison pill amendments, and to pass Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to 
close.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important that campaign finance reform come to the 
floor and be voted on. For that reason, we will not oppose this rule, 
even

[[Page 21450]]

though this is an unfair rule, an unusual rule, and a rule structured 
by the majority to provide the maximum opportunity for mischief and the 
maximum opportunity to deny the House a direct vote on Shays-Meehan.
  This is not a good rule. This is not a fair rule. But the minority 
has no choice but to permit the process to go forward and attempt to 
frustrate the majority's mischief by uniting our side with Members on 
the other side who want true campaign finance reform.
  We will support Shays-Meehan. We reluctantly agree that this rule 
should go forward so the debate may begin.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I am happy, even though it is reluctant, to have the 
support of Members of the minority for this rule. But I have to tell 
the Members that they should be enthusiastically supporting it.
  Why? Because it is in fact a very fair and balanced rule. In fact, 
the degree of fairness is greater than what it was when my friends on 
the other side gave when they were in the majority.

                              {time}  1415

  This is something called regular order. Now, our regular order, in 
fact, says that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), as chairman 
of the Committee on Administration, has allowed to move forward the one 
substitute that was reported favorably from his committee and have that 
considered as a substitute. We have also chosen to make two other 
substitutes in order.
  As I said in my opening remarks, 26 amendments were submitted to the 
Committee on Rules. Of those, we have made in order 13. One amendment 
was offered by a Democrat, and that amendment was made in order. So my 
Democratic colleagues have had every amendment that they submitted to 
the Committee on Rules made in order under this measure.
  So it is a very fair rule. It is what is known as regular order. 
There is no poison pill involved in here. We are following regular 
order, which is exactly what Speaker Hastert said when he stood in this 
well on the opening day of the 106th Congress. So I urge my colleagues 
to support the rule.
  I will say that I am one who does believe very, very strongly in the 
importance of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I think 
that the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is right on target in 
trying to provide a wide array of information to the American people as 
they look at the prospect of choosing their leaders.
  The issue of campaign finance reform is important. It is important 
for us to make sure that we do everything that we can to protect and 
nurture that First Amendment to the Constitution. That is the reason 
that I am supportive of the Doolittle substitute, and I will be 
supporting the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) in his effort.
  I know there has been a lot of talk about what the level of public 
interest is in this issue, and clearly there are some people who want 
to spend a lot of time focused on it. I do not think that we should be 
legislating based solely on what is the highest rated poll item. But I 
will say this, the issue of campaign finance reform is not quite as 
important as some of my colleagues have said.
  When the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) talked about this being 
such an important issue, a decisive issue, as we juxtapose it to the 
Civil War, it seems to me that there are a wide range of important 
things that have taken place betwixt the Civil War and today, ranking 
all the way from the Second World War to the civil rights legislation, 
which was very, very important for our country. As the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas) has just reminded me, we had a man who walked 
on the moon 3 decades ago. So there are lots of things that are 
important.
  We are, because of the level of interest that exists in this body, 
proceeding with consideration of this campaign finance reform measure 
under regular order, and I look forward to a free-flowing and 
stimulating debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________