[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21450-21465]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



             BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM ACT OF 1999

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). Pursuant to House Resolution 
283 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of 
the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the 
bill, H.R. 417.

                              {time}  1420


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the 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, with Mr. Hobson in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the rule, the bill is considered as having 
been read the first time.
  Under the rule, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) be permitted to control 11 
minutes of my time and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) be 
permitted to control 9 minutes of my time during the general debate.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, what would

[[Page 21451]]

then be the time division? The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) would 
remain with how many minutes?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, that would leave 10 minutes.
  Mr. THOMAS. Eleven, nine, and ten.
  Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
Florida?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas).
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, as we enter into this debate, I do think it is 
important to listen to ourselves. The chairman of the Committee on 
Rules made reference to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) in 
terms of this particular vote being the most important vote to occur in 
this society since the Civil War. That statement is just silly. But I 
am much more concerned about statements made such as, ``The American 
people believe we have a rigged and corrupt system.'' Or ``Elected 
officials have been bought and paid for.''
  To the degree that those are presented as factual statements, I can 
assure my colleagues, any evidence that would prove that I would love 
to have it in my possession. The Federal Election Commission would love 
to have it. I believe these are basically rhetorical comments about 
what they believe to be the situation.
  Well, I can assure my colleagues, if that is going to be the level of 
debate, if anybody disagrees with the Shays-Meehan supporters, they are 
therefore corrupt or that if they believe firmly that substantive 
differences offered in substitutes are not honestly represented, then I 
think we are going to have characterized on the floor of the House one 
of the fundamental problems we have in the area of campaign reform and 
that is some people believe that what they are advocating is not only 
perfect, but truth, that simply by positing it, everyone else in the 
system is somehow less than they are if they do not agree with it.
  One of the things I think we need to establish at the beginning of 
this debate is that people can honestly differ and not be sinister, not 
be corrupt, not try to rig the system. Frankly, I think the supporters 
of Shays-Meehan have to get over hurdle number one, and that is go back 
to the definitive Supreme Court case dealing with this era of campaign 
reform and explain to many of us why Shays-Meehan is not simply, 
absolutely, flat-out unconstitutional.
  Because back in 1976, the court said, ``We agree that, in order to 
preserve the provision against invalidation on vagueness grounds, that 
the Federal Election Campaign Act definition must be construed to apply 
only to expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate 
the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal 
office.''
  The courts have held to that position consistently. All one has to do 
is look at some recent cases. Only go back to 1988. Shays-Meehan 
section 201 is unconstitutional based upon the decision in the Right to 
Life of Duchess County versus the FEC. Section 206 of Shays-Meehan is 
patently unconstitutional in the 1999 decision FEC versus the Christian 
Coalition.
  We are going to be talking about money spent in the system, and they 
are just absolutely concerned about ``soft money.'' Well, then, why do 
they not focus on the need to change the hard money provisions? Those 
were set back in the 1970s. This year in Nixon versus Shrink Wrap, in 
the 8th Circuit Court, overturned Missouri's $1,000 contribution limit 
as being so low that it impaired free speech.
  I think it is fairly ironic that, when we look at this legislation, 
the question I think we really ought to address is whether or not the 
supporters of Shays-Meehan have a problem with other Members of the 
House of Representatives duly elected presenting their position and 
their constituents' position or whether or not they have a problem with 
the Supreme Court of the United States that somehow stubbornly believes 
that the First Amendment requires some degree of privilege; and that 
rather than follow the slippery slope of it sounds like, it may be, it 
appears to be, it ought to be campaign speech, the court very rightly 
bright-lined the test, express advocacy.
  My colleagues can shop around it, they can sneak around it, but we 
will deny people the freedom of speech only if it is express advocacy.
  Frankly, in many sections of the Shays-Meehan bill, it tromps all 
over, it tramps all over people's individual First Amendment freedoms. 
There is no question that, if this legislation became law, major 
sections of Shays-Meehan would be declared unconstitutional. We have 
gone down this route before. Let us not go down it again. Let us talk 
about passing legislation that can actually become law and begin to 
make changes.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not think the debate here today is about whether 
the system here is broken. I think, fortunately, that debate is over. 
This system is broken. This system is rancid. It needs repair.
  I do not think the debate here today is about constitutionality. We 
know, those of us who proudly support Shays-Meehan, that we are about 
to pass a constitutional bill.
  But let me set forth some facts here. In the 1991-1992 election 
cycle, $86 million in soft money was raised and spent by both political 
parties. By 1996, that number had exploded to $260 million. In next 
year's election cycle, it appears that may reach an unprecedented level 
of $500 to $750 million.
  This is a system out of control. This is an example of excess. 
Control is moving further and further away from people and more and 
more in the hands of special interests. Those are the facts.
  The same problem is developing with respect to the sham issue ads. 
The argument that we are having to debate here on the floor of the 
House of Representatives is whether people in this country who have 
special interests before Congress should have a right to anonymous 
political advertising. These groups on the right and left are so 
ashamed of their ads, they are unwilling to put their names on it.
  As a result, the voters are disenfranchised because they are misled, 
they are deceived, they do not know whose voice they are hearing that 
is telling them how to vote for a particular candidate.
  These are the merits we are going to defeat today. We need to defeat 
amendments like the Doolittle amendment that are designed to gut this 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) who, from the day that 
he set foot in this Chamber, has been for responsible campaign reform.
  Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
for yielding me this time, and I thank him for his leadership on this 
issue, who has been very mainstream and careful about his approach to 
it.
  The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) mentioned the Nixon case 
in Missouri that it set contribution limits of $1,000, and the 8th 
Circuit Court of Appeals said that that is too onerous and set that 
aside. Now that is going to be at the United States Supreme Court 
level, but it raises a problem.
  The Supreme Court has said that contribution limits are 
constitutional, that it is certainly fair and reasonable for this body 
to determine that there is an appearance of impropriety or concern 
about the appearance of corruption and, therefore, we can set 
contribution limits. But we know that we set those in 1974.
  Since then, they have been eroded by inflation to the value is only 
$300 today. So now the courts are taking a fresh look at this and 
saying, are those contributions limits constitutional in today's 
atmosphere and in today's economy?
  So I think that it is important that we protect the role of the 
individual by having contribution limits but at the same time making 
sure they are indexed for inflation so that they do not continue to 
erode.

[[Page 21452]]

  During this debate, we will be offering the Hutchinson substitute 
sponsored by many of my former freshmen colleagues. In that, we are the 
only proposal that actually increases the role of the individual by 
indexing limits to the rate of inflation. I think that is real 
progress. It will assure the constitutionality of the limits that we 
place in terms of contributions.

                              {time}  1430

  My good friend from Florida (Mr. Davis) who has been such an ally in 
understanding the need for reform, and I agree with him, there is the 
need for reform in our society; but he mentioned that we should be 
ashamed of anonymous ads out there.
  If we go back to Thomas Payne and ask him about anonymous 
pamphleteering, he would say that is a basic freedom that we have. We 
put out information, and I think every group, they should be able to 
identify who they are and how much money they are spending. I think 
that is relevant information for the American public. But what is 
wrong, and this is proposed in the Shays-Meehan bill, is that we go 
into their contributor list, we go in and say, who gave to you, and 
restrict how much these groups can raise and where they get their money 
and make sure they disclose it.
  The NAACP challenged this one time and said that we do not want to 
disclose our contributor list because they could be intimidated, during 
the civil rights era. The United States Supreme Court said, that is 
right, we cannot disclose the donors to a group like that.
  Let us do not erode that freedom that we have by going in and saying 
that we want to disclose the contributors to every group that is out 
there.
  So the bill that we are offering that will be in the debate 
accomplishes the main objectives of banning soft money to the federal 
parties.
  Secondly, it increases information to the public, but it does not 
trounce upon the Constitution of the United States.
  As candidates, we do not like criticism and ads ran against us. But 
does our discomfort justify restraining the freedom of others? I think 
the answer is no.
  The Hutchinson substitute does not trounce upon the Constitution. It 
provides strong, reasonable reform that can pass this body, that can go 
to the Senate and have a better chance of capturing the vote. I believe 
that is the direction that we should go. I compliment all of my 
colleagues that have been moving toward reform and showing the American 
people that we can accomplish this in the United States Congress.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Foley).
  Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me thank, first of all, the author of 
the bill and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for their 
leadership on this issue.
  We dealt with this in the Florida legislature back in 1992. We 
reduced the amount of money that PACs and individuals could give. And 
everybody said at that time Armageddon. It will not work.
  My colleagues, let me just tell all those listening: the Republican 
party actually won. They are in control of the House, the Senate, and 
the Governor's mansion. So our party should not fear this issue. 
Because I think the voters recognize there is a significant problem in 
politics today, and it is called money. Money influences politics.
  This is not unreasonable. This does not limit free speech. This is 
not Armageddon, political suicide, unilateral disarmament. I think we 
are fighting a war rather than a sensible discussion on campaign 
finance reform.
  So I urge all of my colleagues as they are listening today to think 
about the average individual.
  Yes, I have heard from my side of the aisle that people at town hall 
meetings do not bring up campaign finance reform. Of course they would 
not. Why would they? They want to know what is happening on crime, 
education, health care, things that matter to their lives. But if we 
ask them one stand-alone question, Do you think campaign finance 
influence politics? they would give us a resounding ``yes.''
  Let us fix the system. Shays-Meehan does it. I am proud to support 
it.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney), a leader in the effort to pass meaningful 
campaign finance reform.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support for 
the bipartisan Shays-Meehan bill.
  I would first like to commend the authors of the bill, the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays), for their extraordinary consistent leadership. They have worked 
selflessly along with a bipartisan coalition.
  The American people strongly believe that money should play less of a 
role in American politics, that candidates should be elected on the 
strength of their ideas and not the depths of their war chests.
  Campaign finance reform is not just about one issue. It is about 
every issue that Congress considers: gun safety, patients' bill of 
rights, minimum wage. And the American people know it.
  Shays-Meehan will significantly reduce the role of special interests 
and money in American politics. Let us show the American people that 
our Government is not for sale, that our elections are not auctions to 
the highest spender. Vote for Shays-Meehan and campaign finance reform.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) talked 
about campaign war chests. Those are basically hard money. They are, in 
fact, totally hard money, not soft money. Sometimes we get carried away 
with our rhetoric. She is referring to something which is not at issue 
in this bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter.)
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Thomas) for yielding me the time.
  Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is far afield from my committee 
assignments; but I think I, like every Member of the House, must focus 
on this issue because it is of fundamental importance to the American 
political system.
  The way that we conduct our affairs here, what we do and what we do 
not do, is so often related to campaign finance issues. More 
importantly, I think, much beyond that is the fact that the citizens' 
perception of the relationship between campaign finance and the way 
their elected representatives vote and perform is very negative. They 
have a view that the current campaign finance system causes us to fail 
to act in their interest.
  That is causing a corrosive effect upon our system. We need to deal 
with it. Both parties know that we need to have campaign finance 
reform. Neither, however, is willing to give up the particular special 
advantages that that party has in the current system or process.
  Now, back in the last Congress in which I served in the minority, we 
had, I believe, a very extensive, thorough task force effort to begin 
to focus on what changes were needed in campaign finance reform. It is 
the basis of much of the legislation that I have introduced or 
cosponsored over the years.
  Our failure to reduce the disproportionate impact of money in 
elective politics is, my friends, having a corrosive effect upon the 
American political process. It contributes to suspicion and skepticism 
among our citizens. Furthermore, there is more than enough blame to go 
around for both parties.
  I would like to focus just on two elements here. First, I would say, 
with respect to the Shays-Meehan bill, I think that, unfortunately, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is right that some aspects of 
that legislation are indeed unconstitutional. But what disappoints me 
about our two colleagues who have introduced this legislation is that 
they have ignored the action of the House twice now on the subject of 
campaign contributions from noncitizens and from people that are not 
U.S. nationals.
  This House has expressed itself, saying that the elections, 
specifically the

[[Page 21453]]

campaign contributions process leading up to it, should be reserved for 
citizens and U.S. nationals, like those from American Samoa for 
example.
  When these two distinguished colleagues said they made minor 
adjustments in the legislation they reintroduced in this Congress, they 
specifically did not do what the House had instructed them to do by a 
wide majority vote: restrict contributions to Federal campaigns to U.S. 
citizens and U.S. voters. And we know that the American people expect 
that prohibition is or should be law. This is a loophole that became 
very apparent in the course of the last presidential campaign, and we 
have a responsibility to deal with that issue.
  The charges against the Bereuter-Wicker amendment are not true. I 
will show in the course of the debates on the Wicker-Bereuter amendment 
that, in fact, the arguments against it are not valid, or are not 
procedurally correct.
  I also want to say, as a representative from a State that has a low 
population, that citizens of our State are very disturbed about the 
fact that in recent elections in our State more than half of the money 
to elect a U.S. senator has come from outside the State. Indeed, in one 
of our races, over half the money came in from the State of California. 
In a recent open-seat election in the State of South Dakota, the most 
expensive Senate race per capita in history was from that constituency. 
Indeed the greatest proportion of money came in from other states. This 
is resented by the citizens of that state. It is not a proper approach. 
We need to limit the majority of the amount of money coming into House 
races and Senate races to contributions from citizens of those 
congressional districts and the respective states.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Bereuter-Wicker amendment and the 
Calvert amendment.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).
  Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, as I was thinking about campaign 
finance reform last night, I also thought a little bit about the 
football game. Just imagine the headlines if teams started contributing 
to referees based on how that referee called their games. Sports fans 
everywhere would be absolutely outraged.
  But our democracy is in the exact same quandary. Every Member of this 
chamber knows that millions of dollars can flow in and out of campaigns 
from soft money sources depending on how we call the game in Congress.
  As a result, the family checkbook is playing a smaller role in our 
democracy. Special interests are gaining more influence than ever over 
who is in office, what they support, and what types of bills this 
Congress passes. Frankly, this is not what democracy is all about.
  I realize that money and campaigns are impossible to totally 
separate, but a fair and open campaign finance system can exist if we 
support the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. We have the 
opportunity to do that today. Please do not support the poison pill 
amendments. Please support the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform 
bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has remaining versus the three 
that are dividing up the other time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 17\3/4\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) has 7\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) has 8 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).
  Mr. RAMSTAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise as a cosponsor and strong supporter of the 
bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.
  The American people want us to be honest and fair, to play by the 
rules. That is why we need to eliminate soft money, which is clearly 
the biggest cancer on our political system, a cancer that has 
undermined people's trust in the system and many elected officials.
  Soft money is not honest. It is obviously a way to circumvent 
campaign contribution limits. Soft money raises at least the perception 
of undue influence on elections and candidates. It is time to ban soft 
money and erase the suspicion that Washington is for sale to the 
highest bidder.
  Also, Mr. Chairman, the so-called issue advocacy ads in many cases 
are nothing more than a sham, and we all know it. They are a way to 
avoid accountability and a way to avoid contribution limits. In short, 
they do not play by the rules, either.
  Let us do the right thing today for the American people. Let us 
restore trust and accountability in our political process. I urge my 
colleagues to resist the poison pill amendments and pass the clean 
Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps) who, when she got elected in the last 
session, the very first bill when she got elected to take the place of 
her husband in the Congress was a sign-on to the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the authors of all the bills before us 
today. There are some good provisions in the various substitutes being 
offered, but that is what those bills are, a substitute for the real 
thing, a substitute for real reform.
  Every major reform organization in this country agrees that the 
Shays-Meehan bill is the one bill which can restore integrity to our 
campaign finance system. It is the only proposal that deals with the 
two biggest problems in our federal elections, soft money and sham 
issue ads.
  It is unfortunate that here we are again discussing the merits of 
Shays-Meehan versus other proposals. A year ago we debated many of 
these same proposals, and we passed Shays-Meehan by a vote of 252 to 
179.
  The House has already decided that Shays-Meehan is the bill we want 
to send to the Senate. None of these substitutes deal with the problem 
of sham issue ads, which allow powerful interest groups to pour 
unlimited, unregulated dollars, often from unknown sources, into our 
campaigns.

                              {time}  1445

  These ads clearly advocate the election or defeat of a particular 
candidate but are not subject to present campaign finance regulations.
  Last year, as was mentioned, I endured four grueling elections and 
watched as wave after wave of attack ads flooded my district under the 
guise of informing voters. These ads distorted both my record and the 
record of my opponent.
  The Shays-Meehan bill effectively ends the misuse of issue 
advertising. It does so by requiring all ads which clearly urge the 
support or defeat of a candidate in a Federal election to be treated 
like what they are, political ads.
  Let us restore the public's trust in our political system. We need to 
pass the Shays-Meehan bill and send it to the Senate today.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I would remind the gentlewoman that the Supreme Court has said that 
expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the 
election or defeat of a clearly identifiable candidate, and that only.
  The statement she just made proves that Shays-Meehan is 
unconstitutional.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's comments. It 
also proves that Shays-Meehan is nothing more than incumbent 
protection.
  Mr. Chairman, it continues to amaze me that Members of Congress, 
newspapers and ``senior scholars'' continue

[[Page 21454]]

to advocate limiting free speech and prohibiting citizens from 
criticizing government officials and incumbents in the name of 
``campaign reform.''
  The first amendment, America's premier political reform, was not 
written for pornographers or flag burners. It was drafted to allow 
citizens to petition and criticize their government. But Shays-Meehan 
would stifle free speech and end criticism of elected officials at 
critical stages of the election process.
  Make no mistake about it. Shays-Meehan guts the first amendment, 
threatens citizen participation in the political process, and ends the 
ability of citizen groups to educate the public unless they file 
bureaucratic paperwork with the Federal Government. All things 
considered, this is the mother of all government regulation, because it 
attempts to control the political process and limits freedom just to 
protect incumbents.
  The Shays-Meehan bill will erect a Byzantine set of laws and over 275 
new government regulations that will gag citizens' speech. These 
attacks on issue advocacy through statute and regulation have 
repeatedly been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and 
other lower Federal courts. The high Court has always viewed issue 
advocacy as a form of speech that deserves the very highest degree of 
protection under the first amendment. That Court has not only been 
supportive of issue advocacy, it is untroubled by the fact that issue 
advertisements may influence the outcome of elections.
  In Buckley v. Valeo, the Justices stated, and I quote, ``the first 
amendment denies government the power to determine that spending to 
promote one's political views is wasteful, excessive or unwise.''
  The Court continues to state that it is the people, individually and 
collectively, some people call them special interests, but they are 
people, they are American citizens, individually and collectively in 
associations and committees who should retain control of the debate.
  Some try to argue that free speech is not an issue here. But the free 
speech implications of the legislation are very clear. For example, 
Shays-Meehan supporter and House minority leader Richard Gephardt has 
said that we cannot have both freedom of speech and healthy campaigns 
in a healthy democracy.
  Mr. Chairman, we must have both. Freedom and reform are not mutually 
exclusive principles. Shays-Meehan gives us neither. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no'' against Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, my good friends and colleagues seem to 
have thought that the Supreme Court ended its jurisprudence with 
Buckley v. Valeo in 1976. Ten years later, the Supreme Court ruled in 
FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, and I quote:

       The fact that this message is marginally less direct than 
     ``Vote for Smith'' does not change its essential nature. The 
     Edition goes beyond issue discussion to express electoral 
     advocacy. The disclaimer of endorsement cannot negate this 
     fact. . . . The ``Special Edition'' thus falls squarely 
     within [the law] . . . for it represents express advocacy of 
     the election of particular candidates. . . . 479 U.S. 238, 
     249-250 (1986).

  Even though it did not say the magic words ``Vote for Smith.''
  And also as the Supreme Court said 10 years after Buckley v. Valeo, 
and I quote,

       We have consistently held that restrictions on 
     contributions require less compelling justification than 
     restrictions on independent spending. 479 U.S. 238, 259-260 
     (1986).

  In Shays-Meehan, we have a restriction that contributions raised 
outside of the $1,000 per person maximum, cannot show up in the funds 
that go for express advocacy television advertising. It is a 
restriction on the source of our money. On these two constitutional 
points, let us not make a mistake referring to Buckley v. Valeo as the 
last word.
  I conclude with these two points. The Supreme Court said you can 
control contributions much more freely than you can control 
expenditure. The other side only quotes that it is hard to impose 
restrictions on expenditure. And, secondly, in FEC v. Massachusetts 
Citizens for Life, the Supreme Court said, it is the content, the 
effect, not the magic words. The words kill, the spirit giveth life.
  Vote for Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Washington (Mr. Baird).
  Mr. BAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise today as president of the freshman 
class and as a strong supporter of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance 
reform bill.
  We need to get back to some common sense and to what folks are 
thinking back in their homes. When they watch their TV set and they see 
the unlimited independent expenditures and the so-called issue advocacy 
ads, when they open their mailbox and vicious propaganda comes spewing 
out, they know in their hearts that something is desperately wrong with 
the current system.
  If we ask our voters a couple of questions, we know what the answers 
should be: Do you want your elected representatives to spend more time 
on the phone begging for dollars or more time with their constituents 
and studying issues? Do you want unlimited amounts of external money 
from untraceable sources to influence the outcome of your election or 
do you want the character and the knowledge and the ability of the 
candidates in competition to influence the outcome of the election? Do 
you want the legislative process to be skewed by big dollars or to be 
determined by the merits of the argument? That is what is at stake 
here. It is that simple.
  Shays-Meehan may not be perfect, but it is pretty darn good, and it 
is the best we have had coming down the pipe in a long time. The 
American people know in their hearts it is time to fix this system. As 
President of the freshman class, I urge my colleagues to support Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Levin), a leader in our effort to pass campaign 
finance reform.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I read earlier an ad in a Senate race from 
the State of Washington paid for by the Democratic Party. Now an ad 
from the Republican Party in Kentucky in a Senate race.
  Voice: ``We all know Scotty Baesler voted to export thousands of 
Kentucky jobs to Mexico, what with that NAFTA trade deal.''
  Voice of Mexican actor: ``Muchas gracias, Senor Baesler.''
  Voice: ``But he also voted to give China special trade privileges, 
even though they're shutting out Kentucky-made products.''
  In Chinese: ``Thank you, Scotty Baesler.''
  ``And now he wants,'' the voice says, ``to give U.S. tax dollars to 
the U.N.''
  In a multiple foreign language voice or voices, ``Thank you, Scotty 
Baesler.''
  And then in writing on the screen, ``Tell Scotty Baesler to start 
putting Kentucky first.''
  If it had said ``defeat Scotty Baesler'' it's under Federal 
regulations. Because that one word is left out, although the whole 
atmosphere of that ad is a campaign ad, it falls outside of Federal 
regulations. Express advocacy is the test and that is express advocacy, 
that ad.
  No one is accusing opponents of Shays-Meehan of being corrupt. They 
are defending a corrupting system. Sure the public does not run up and 
say to us, ``Vote for Shays-Meehan.'' And one reason is because they 
are cynical that this Congress will ever act. It is time for us to 
respond to that cynicism. It is time for us to act. Vote for Shays-
Meehan.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute and 10 seconds to the 
distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of this legislation, 
and I want to extend my special thanks to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). We came into the Congress together. He has 
been a great colleague. If we had paid attention to him on campaign 
finance reform and independent counsel, this country would be in 
eminently better shape.

[[Page 21455]]

  The American people want us to pass this. Why? Because they want to 
believe in their government, in the institution of the Congress. We 
continue to do less and less on this issue, and their faith in their 
government, in this institution of the Congress, in this place that is 
supposed to be the House of the people, they believe in less and less. 
Why? Because they know that money has more and more and more to do with 
the decisions that come out of this place.
  The House of Representatives can distinguish itself by doing the 
right thing for the American people. Do we not try to engage our 
constituents to participate in our campaigns? They are doing so less 
and less. They are engaging less and less because they know that money 
has more and more to do with what goes on here.
  Today, this vote can inject more confidence in the system. We should 
comport ourselves the way our Founding Fathers and Mothers would. Pass 
this needed legislation.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman).
  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Shays-
Meehan measure.
  Mr. Chairman, this legislation will close the soft money loophole 
which currently allows unlimited, regulated funds from corporations, 
labor unions, and wealthy individuals to be funneled into to Federal 
election campaigns. In addition, it will clarify that it is illegal to 
raise any money--hard or soft--from foreigners or on government 
property.
  As a member of the Government Reform Committee which has been 
investigating the alleged campaign abuses of the 1996 Presidential 
election, it has become obvious that it is the soft money system, the 
illegal raising of foreign money, and the illegal fundraising on 
government property that was the source of most of the alleged abuses 
and the principal device by which our current election laws were 
evaded.
  By supporting Shays-Meehan this Congress can outlaw practices that 
the White House helped to prefect during the 1996 election cycle to 
make certain that they never can happen again.
  I regret that Congress has been unable to approve or even consider an 
meaningful campaign reform measure until now, However, I am gratified 
and I look forward to the consideration of real campaign finance 
reform.
  It is important that we effectively restore public confidence in our 
political system by eliminating the current protection for special 
interests, and address the growing problem of ``soft money''.
  Accordingly, although I am disappointed that this legislation fails 
to limit PAC contributions, I support the Shays-Meehan reform measure 
since it is the only measure that will provide real campaign finance 
reform by banning soft money and clarifying the illegal fundraising of 
foreign funds.
  Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Meehan Bill.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, we are now at the heart of the substantive debate and 
the general debate for a bill that makes significant progress to 
improve the current system. Since 1991, I have either been a candidate 
for election or reelection to the U.S. House of Representatives and 
filed the necessary paperwork. All the money that I raise and spend is 
regulated by the Federal Government. Should we in any way restrict what 
a candidate who files, who puts their life on the line and their body 
in the arena, so to speak, should they ever be restricted in what they 
say, whenever, however or whoever they talk about? Absolutely not. But 
we are going to talk about today whether or not these outside groups 
who call themselves citizens for motherhood and apple pie should live 
under the same rules that I do as a candidate, or that you might as a 
candidate.
  Candidates should be able to speak and groups should be able to speak 
and we should all come under the same rules so the American people have 
some accountability to look to on who they are and who is pulling their 
strings.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), a leader in our effort to pass campaign 
finance reform in a bipartisan way.

                              {time}  1500

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding this time to me.
  I rise in strong support of the Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform 
bill. We need to restore public confidence and accountability to our 
federal election system, and Shays-Meehan will advance these goals most 
effectively and forthrightly.
  In addition to a ban on soft money, the bill closes one of the 
biggest loopholes in our current system of campaign finance laws by 
simply imposing the same rules, the same standards of public reporting, 
on groups that fund issue ads as we impose on candidates.
  In recent elections we have watched special interest money go to 
campaign issue ads in congressional elections across the country. One 
study shows that between 275 and 340 million special interest dollars 
were spent on these ads in the 1997 to 1998 election cycle, yet no 
citizen could find out who contributed those dollars spent on these 
ads, though they can find out every dollar, who contributed every 
dollar to any candidate running in a federal election.
  Shays-Meehan will simply clamp down on these special interest 
dollars, Mr. Chairman, and I urge support for this important election 
reform.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner).
  Mr. TURNER. Mr. Chairman, the time has come to take the for-sale sign 
off the door of the United States Congress. The public's trust and 
confidence in government has been seriously eroded by a system that 
allows big money to have too much influence on the political process.
  Mr. Chairman, we currently have a broken system of campaign finance. 
There are two ways to give, hard money which honors the intent of the 
law to limit contributions and disclose the source, and the other way, 
soft money, which skirts the law and allows unlimited amounts to be 
given from undisclosed sources. No wonder most Americans no longer 
believe government to be of, by, and for the people; and the problem is 
getting worse.
  In the 1992 cycle there was $86 million raised in soft money, in 1996 
it climbed to $262 million, and in 2000 it is estimated to be $500 
million or more; and no one benefits from the corrupting influence of 
soft money. The donors do not like the constant pressure or the shake-
down to donate soft money, the political candidates do not like to be 
ambushed by soft money, and most importantly, the citizens of this 
Nation do not like the influence of soft money.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  I find it amazing that the First Amendment protections are now called 
a loophole. Perhaps it is a good idea that we are just voting on 
campaign reform because, if the Bill of Rights was on the floor, I 
would fear for its continued support.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Doolittle), someone who has been an active participant in terms of 
making sure that the First Amendment is defended.
  Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this 
time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I find it fascinating to hear these same canned 
speeches given again and again identifying the so-called problem as a 
lack of adequate regulation. These people that are bringing to us today 
Shays-Meehan, it is these very same people and their philosophy which 
created this very problem. But for their regulation, we would never 
have heard of soft money.
  Does anyone remember a few years ago? I certainly do because it was 
an issue in my campaign in 1990 and in 1992. Then the focus of their 
attack was hard money and the form of PACs, the political action 
committees, another spawn of the regulation that they gave us. This 
does not work, and it will never work, and Shays-Meehan is trying to 
tighten the screws a little further and put more limitations over

[[Page 21456]]

here and box people in over there, and it will not work.
  The Supreme Court recognized that years ago in the Buckley case. I 
will just quote from it. It said it ``would naively underestimate the 
ingenuity and resourcefulness of persons and groups desiring to buy 
influence to believe that they would have much difficulty devising 
expenditures that skirted the restriction on express advocacy of 
election or defeat but nevertheless benefited the candidates' 
campaign.''
  The Supreme Court anticipated this very clearly, and obviously the 
profusion of soft money has fulfilled what they anticipated.
  But they did not write the statute, the Congress did. It is their 
limits on hard dollars that have never been adjusted, that have been 
eroded by two- thirds the purchasing power of the dollar that has given 
rise to soft money.
  Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with soft money. It is the 
constitutional rights of groups to engage in political debate and in 
free speech. That is not a loophole. But big-government liberals like 
Senator Bradley, for example, has repeatedly talked about this problem 
of involvement in the political process as keeping ants out of the 
kitchen. Do my colleagues know what we do with ants that are in the 
kitchen? We wipe them out, and that is what Senator Bradley and Vice 
President Gore and all the other big-government thinkers would like to 
do to Americans' precious right to engage in unfettered political 
speech, the very thing the First Amendment was designed to protect.
  Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and 
Senator McCain and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and Mr. 
Finegold and Senator Bradley and a host of others have come forth with 
bills designed to do exactly that, to abridge our precious, God-given 
freedom of speech.
  It would be a nightmare to pass a law that placed in doubt whatever 
political communication we had. It would be a complete disaster, such 
as the Shays-Meehan bill does, to make it in doubt whether what is 
being said falls within what is permissible because it is subject to a 
totality test or reasonableness test. Indeed, this will severely crimp 
political debate at the very time when people most want to get 
information, and in this information-weary age, when people tune out 
from politics just about the whole time except just before the 
election, Shays-Meehan kicks in and severely restricts what kinds of 
communications can go on.
  I would just call to everyone's attention, and I have distributed 
here a great editorial especially for people who think of themselves as 
conservatives or Republicans called Campaign Finance Charade. This 
article details why this whole scheme of regulation is really designed 
to disadvantage conservative ideas and to advantage left wing ideas. 
That is what the present regulation we have was designed to do, and it 
worked great for 20 years.
  Mr. Chairman, this is a charade. Big-government regulation does not 
work anywhere. We know that. And it certainly does not work in 
campaigns. If it did work, we would not be having this debate today 
because everything would be fine in this country, and the fact of the 
matter is it has become a Rube Goldberg network of complication that 
will only be worse and made more complicated by Shays-Meehan. I urge 
defeat of that proposal and passage of the one proposal that takes us 
in the other direction, which is H.R. 1922.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is right. This is about not 
buying elections. It is about making sure that that cannot happen in a 
democratic form of government and making sure that everyone plays by 
the same rules. It does not restrict speech. It provides for all the 
speech my colleagues want under the campaign laws.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Campbell).
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, in 1978 the Supreme Court upheld limits 
on how much individuals could contribute. In that opinion which has 
been cited so often, Buckley versus Valeo, the Court also dealt with 
the $5,000 limit on how much PACs could give; and the court upheld 
that, too. They said if they did not uphold it, we would have just the 
possibility of subterfuge, because the same individual could give to 
the PAC, and then the 1,000 limit would mean nothing.
  The Supreme Court in that case cited by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
DeLay), and the other good friends who have spoken against Shays-
Meehan, says, ``Rather than undermining freedom of association, the 
basic provision enhances the opportunity of bona fide groups to 
participate in the election process. . . .''
  So today we go the next step to avoid the evasion of these limits 
through soft money and through advertisment where the exact same words 
as in a candidate's ad are said, but they do not exactly say ``vote 
for.'' Then there is no limit. We must close the loophole. If the 
Supreme Court upheld the limitation of 1,000 per individual, 5,000 per 
PAC, and an absolute ban on corporations and unions, surely they would 
uphold a limitation on as huge an end-run as soft money constitutes.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  The previous speaker, the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) 
talked about Bradley and Gore and all of these government centrists, 
liberals. Let me cite from an opinion in McIntyre versus Ohio Board of 
Elections by a couple of real regulators, Justice Scalia and Rehnquist. 
The First Amendment provides that the Government may not prohibit the 
expression of an idea. The disclosure law here by contrast forbids the 
expression of no idea, but merely requires identification of the 
speaker when the idea is uttered in the electoral context. That is 
Scalia and Rehnquist.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. 
Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, for some reason this debate always moves me 
to use literary reference to illustrate my point. Last Congress I 
relied on Dr. Seuss and his work, The Cat in the Hat. This year, as I 
contemplated this upcoming argument, I was struck by the similarities 
between the continuing debate here in this House on campaign finance 
reform and a story by Edgar Allen Poe, the Telltale Heart. In that 
short story, Poe tells of a dastardly murder in which the murderer is 
undone by the fact that the victim's heart continues to beat after the 
terrible deed is done and the body has been dismembered and hidden. In 
this excerpt that I wish to share with my colleagues the murderer is 
being questioned by the police. Observe his tactics as he tries to 
shift attention away from his own guilt.
  ``No doubt I now grew very pale, but I talked more fluently and with 
a heightened voice. Yet the sound increased. What could I do? I gasped 
for breath, and yet the officers heard it not. I talked more quickly, 
more vehemently, but the noise steadily increased. I arose and argued 
about trifles in a high key and with violent gesticulations, but the 
noise steadily increased. I paced the floor to and fro with heavy 
strides as if excited to fury by the observations of the men, but the 
noise steadily increased. I foamed, I raved, I swore, but it grew 
louder and louder and louder, and the men chatted pleasantly and 
smiled. Was it possible they heard not? All mighty God, they have 
heard, they suspected, they knew.''
  Mr. Chairman, opponents of Shays-Meehan have successfully killed this 
bill in the past, but each time its heart has lived on. This year 
opponents will try again, but just like in the tell tale heart, no 
matter how loud the voices grow, no matter how vigorously the arguments 
are made, the heart of reform will keep beating, and it will condemn 
those who seek to do it violation.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I certainly was not a lit major in college, but my 
recollection of Edgar Allen Poe's The Telltale Heart, was that the 
heart beating was in his head, that in fact it was a dream, it was a 
myth. It was not reality, and I think the gentlewoman's point is 
excellent if, in fact, that is the case that

[[Page 21457]]

she is making, that in fact there was no true heartbeat. There is no 
true problem here.
  Let me also say that my friend from California (Mr. Campbell) 
complaining that we use Buckley versus Valeo in the support for soft 
money just used it for hard money, and I would love to ask the 
gentleman if the Dow Jones average was about 800 in 1978, and of course 
it is about 10 times that amount now, would he support an increase in 
hard dollar amounts?
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. THOMAS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Chairman, I would indeed be pleased to include an 
increase in hard dollar amounts as part of a comprehensive package that 
bans soft money. Would the gentleman from California?
  Mr. THOMAS. I would tell the gentleman at every opportunity to place 
that in Shays-Meehan and did not do it. It certainly would be more 
attractive if it was a fair, even-handed approach to dealing with 
dollars in the system instead of what amounts to a choking down of 
available dollars.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Brady).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my mom came to visit over the Labor 
Day weekend to see our new baby boy, and I told her that in my second 
term I still pinch myself every day that I have the opportunity to 
serve in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is such a privilege, but 
one of my fears is that we are drifting away from a citizen Congress, a 
citizen Congress that our Founding Fathers and Mothers envisioned for 
us.
  The cost of an open competitive campaign for Congress these days is 
just a little less than a million dollars, and it is doubling about 
every 4 years or so.
  My fear is that there are a lot of good people in my community who 
will never raise their hands to run for Congress because they do not 
have a million dollars. They do not even know where they can find a 
million dollars laying around. I do not think the very wealthy can make 
great decisions for us. It is just that for a representative democracy 
like ours, I do not want to wake up some day and find out that a lot of 
good people who would make great decisions in Congress cannot ever run 
because of the cost factor.
  I want to return to a citizen Congress. That is why I am a cosponsor 
with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) of the Campaign 
Integrity Act we are voting on today.
  First, common sense tells us new campaign laws will not do a whole 
lot if we do not first enforce the ones we have on our books. That is 
why I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman, 
has a bill today that ought to become the law of the land.
  Secondly, any campaign finance ought to preserve free speech. We 
ought to encourage the people to be involved in this process. This is 
their country. They ought to be speaking out strongly for it.
  So today, I predict that Shays-Meehan will pass by a comfortable 
margin as it did last year, and I predict that it will die the same 
predictable public death it did last year in the Senate, for good 
reasons. It is constitutionally flawed. It will not pass the Senate. It 
will not pass constitutional muster.
  So here is my message to the Senate. When Shays-Meehan dies, as it 
will again, look at the Hutchinson bill. If we are serious about real 
reform, if we are serious about closing the soft money loophole, if we 
are serious about preserving free speech but letting people know more 
about who is financing us and pushing us back into our districts and 
communities to raise money rather than up here in Washington, the 
Hutchinson bill is real reform. It is constitutionally very sound. It 
makes good sense; and, more importantly, the reason we need to pass 
that bill is that I am convinced the reason people do not talk about 
campaign finance more, it does not show up in the polls, is not that 
people do not want it but they have just given up hope that Congress 
will do something about it that we will actually do something to make 
life a little tougher for us up here and a little more grass-roots 
oriented back home. The Hutchinson bill does that. It is very important 
for America. I think it is very important to give hope to people to 
pass this bill.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, it is a great honor to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from the State of Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the 
senior Member of the House of Representatives who has had more 
experience with respect to this issue than any other Member, and 
cumulatively perhaps more than most of us elected.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues are listening to the 
people out there because if there is one thing to be heard, people 
think that the system is corrupt, that it is being further corrupted by 
money, that it is being corrupted to the point where Congress will do 
nothing except profit from this money.
  I think it is time we do something. Let us restore the confidence of 
the American people to government, to this establishment, and to each 
of us. We are the system, and all of us are being hurt by this system.
  I spent, the first election I ran, $19,000. I have spent since then 
in certain elections over a million dollars. That is far too much. It 
is unjustifiable. It is unnecessary. It denies deserving, good 
candidates an opportunity to participate in the system; and, on top of 
that, it brings a bad smell to the election process of this country.
  Just a little while back, we spent something like $85 million in the 
1997-1998 election cycle. More recently, we have spent as much as $193 
million. This time, we are going to spend $500 million in that. That is 
a grotesque excess, and it is something which does neither credit nor 
does it build confidence in us or in the system.
  I would urge my colleagues to support Shays-Meehan. It is the way to 
clean up the system and restore the confidence of the people.
  I would also like to thank all of the Members on both sides of the 
aisle who have put partisanship aside and are truly interested in 
cleaning up the campaign financing process which has been corrupted, 
most notably by soft money.
  This is not a partisan issue. Our national political party committees 
raised $193.2 million in soft money during the 1997-1998 election 
cycle, more than double the $85.3 million they raised during the last 
non-presidential cycle in 1993-1994. This increase is astounding and 
there are no signs that this trend will subside unless we act together 
today to stop this corruption of our election process.
  I believe that those of us who benefit from the campaign system can 
not possibly agree on all the needed reforms. An independent commission 
must be created to thoroughly review the system and make 
recommendations to Congress regarding necessary changes. I am pleased 
to report that Shays-Meehan includes a provisions establishing such a 
commission.
  Shays-Meehan is a good bill; it is a thorough bill; it is a 
bipartisan bill; and it is a bill that we passed last year and should 
pass again this year. As such, I urge my colleagues to once again vote 
in favor of Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Metcalf).
  Mr. METCALF. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to pass 
campaign finance legislation. Shays-Meehan is the real campaign reform 
that can become law. Unfortunately, some amendments and substitute 
bills are being offered today by people opposed to Shays-Meehan because 
they hope that these measures will kill the bill.
  We cannot afford to make changes that have the potential to split off 
key voting blocks and thus sink the only chance for real reform this 
year.
  Soft money is of special concern. By closing the soft money loophole, 
we restore the faith of our citizens in our political process.
  I am confident that we will enact real and honest campaign finance 
reform today.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer), co-chair of one of our largest centrist caucuses, 
cochairman of the New Democrats.

[[Page 21458]]


  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Chairman, one of our preeminent Supreme Court 
justices wrote that, and I will paraphrase him, that if one does not 
have access to millionaires or if one is not a millionaire, they might 
as well not run for political office.
  Alexander Hamilton pointed at this great body and said, here, sir, 
the people govern, the people.
  We hear loud and clear from the people today that they think the 
current system is dominated with dialing for dollars, negative 
advertising, and polsters.
  The Shays-Meehan bill takes some modest steps to clean this system up 
and restore some of the trust and confidence by looking at and 
regulating soft money, or sewer money, and slamming the lid on the 
amount of soft money that comes into campaigns and trying to get some 
parameters around the issue ads, or the attack and the sham ads, that 
dominate TV today.
  So many of the American people want to turn their TV sets off and not 
pay any attention to the elections. Vote for Shays-Meehan for 
responsible and modest campaign finance reform.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time each of 
us has remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 5\1/4\ 
minutes. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2\1/4\ minutes. 
The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 4\1/4\ minutes. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts has 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).
  Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, everybody has a different perspective on this; but one 
thing that I do know is that there is a very simple break in the track 
and that is some people here in this body view government as coercive 
and that if it grows, it will basically destroy freedom.
  Other people view that, no, it is not coercive. Leave it alone. Let 
it grow. It is not going to impact us one way or the other.
  I am a conservative. I fall into that first camp, and if someone 
views the government as coercive, it seems to me logical to say that 
they would want to limit one's ability to control the leaders of 
government that would affect its ability to coerce others to do other 
things. Tamaraz, when asked by Senator Thompson, why did you give all 
the money that you gave, his response was, because it worked.
  If we look at Bernard Schwartz, who was brought up with the 
technology transfer with China, we can see a clear correlation between 
money spent and results.
  So it would seem to me perfect logic to say I am a conservative, I 
want to limit government, and I want to limit people's ability to pull 
the levers of government.
  We can see this, for instance, again, with the sugar subsidy. If we 
look at, for instance, the sugar subsidy program, it is a perfect 
example of how a small group is able to coerce the wheels, the 
machinery of government, to their own gain because that program takes a 
billion dollars a year in the form of higher sugar prices for all of us 
as consumers and it distributes it to about 60 domestic sugar 
producers.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), someone who has a very personal message to convey.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, many Americans believe that our campaigns 
are too long and too negative. Well, my campaign for the Fourth 
District of Kansas election in 2000 started today.
  Today, the unions, the Washington union bosses, are purchasing 
television time to run ads against me this very day, almost 15 months 
out. Too long, too negative, false and misleading ads.
  Now, it started with money taken by mandatory union dues and then it 
filtered its way into the Washington union bosses coffers, their 
pockets. Then from there it is sent, without the permission of the 
employees, to support issues that in most cases a majority of the union 
members oppose.
  Thomas Jefferson said to compel a man to furnish contributions of 
money for the propagations of opinions which he does not believe is 
sinful and tyrannical; and yet, that is exactly what is happening 
today.
  Campaign ads that are purchased today by the Washington union bosses 
will not be publicly disclosed. There will be no permission granted 
from the employees who contributed these funds, and there will be no 
public record; money taken without consent, spent on issues not 
reported, without any public disclosure, starting a campaign about 15 
months from now.
  Well, what is there in this piece of legislation that is before us 
that is going to prevent such injustice? What is there in Shays-Meehan 
that is going to correct this problem? There is nothing in here. There 
is no public disclosure. There are no limits on what these union bosses 
can say. There is nothing that they can do.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman, since it has been 
against the law since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns 
and they are able to get around it through two features, one, soft 
money and sham issue ads, why would the gentleman not want to end those 
two loopholes?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. The money that is taken to run these ads comes 
involuntarily from union dues.
  Mr. SHAYS. It is against the law.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Well, currently there is a Beck decision which has been 
supported by the Supreme Court, but it is not enforced by the Clinton 
administration and yet there is nothing in the legislation of the 
gentleman that helps us to enforce the Beck decision.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I would say to the 
gentlemen he is an honest and good man and when he knows the facts, he 
should be voting for this bill because it has been against the law 
since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns; 1907, for 
corporations to be used in campaigns, and both happened because of soft 
money and sham issue ads.
  As soon as a sham issue ad is called a campaign ad, one cannot have 
either corporate money or union dues money.
  Given that, why will the gentleman not support the bill?
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.
  Mr. TIAHRT. I would say that these ads have run in the past against 
me and they will be running very nearly in the future, and I see 
nothing in the legislation of the gentleman that will prevent them from 
occurring in the future.
  Mr. SHAYS. I would like to reclaim my time and say, the gentleman 
needs to read the bill. The gentleman needs to read the bill. Read the 
bill. The bill is very clear. We ban soft money, and we call the sham 
issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads.

                              {time}  1530

  As soon as we call it a campaign ad, we cannot use union dues money. 
We cannot use corporation money.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, this is not corporation money that we are 
talking about.
  Mr. SHAYS. Yes, we are.
  I would like to ask the Chairman how much time I have left.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has one and 
one-quarter minutes remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to indicate that I find it interesting that the gentleman from 
Connecticut will not accept language in his bill banning the use of 
involuntary union members' dues for political purposes, which I think 
is exactly the point that the gentleman from Kansas is making. Not even 
allowing an understanding of the fact that one does not have to 
contribute them and that union dues are being used in that sense.
  The gentleman from Kansas I do not believe has had sufficient time to 
respond, and so I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).

[[Page 21459]]


  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, what the unions have been doing is running 
under the concept of political education activities, these sham ads, as 
the gentleman referred to as sham ads. What I think is an injustice is 
number one, this is money that should not be taken involuntarily. The 
Beck decision, if it was enforced by this administration, would stop 
that problem. The gentleman's legislation does not do that.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is not correct.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I think that is correct.
  The second thing is, somehow I think that we need to have an 
opportunity for me to respond to this. I cannot do that under current 
campaign limits. I need the ability to raise the money in order to 
respond to these ads that are supposedly political education ads, but 
in truth are running to try to undermine my campaign for reelection.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 1\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  I just want to explain to the gentleman that it has been against the 
law since 1907 for corporate treasury money to be used in campaigns and 
since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns. The way they 
do it, the way they go after you, either corporations or unions, is 
through soft money, because it is not called campaign money, and sham 
issue ads, because it is not called campaign money. We abolish both. 
That is the basis, the very center of our bill.
  The gentleman wants to give unions permission in their union dues to 
do it if they agree; we do not even allow it. It has been against the 
law since 1947. And so, sir, it would be an impossibility for those 
advertisements to run against the gentleman if our legislation passed, 
and that is why I am so dumbfounded why the gentleman would oppose it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  There seems to be some confusion. The gentleman from Kansas is 
talking about union money that is spent for ``political education.'' 
There is absolutely no limit on the use of forced union dues for 
registration, turnout, and political education. The advertisements are 
under the guise of educating union members. It is not a campaign ad; it 
is unlimited money for political education.
  The unions have been allowed since the same 1940s to run a committee 
on political education, COPE, the political arm of labor unions. In 
this legislation, COPE is not required to open up its books; it is not 
required to show where and how its money is spent. The gentleman simply 
coddles unions at the expense of other people's ability to know where 
involuntary union dues, coerced by the labor bosses, are being spent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. 
Tiahrt).
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for 
yielding me this time.
  If it has been against the law for the unions to do this, they have 
done it in the past, not only in my district, but across the Nation. If 
it is against the law, then why today are they purchasing time to run 
these ads against me which are, in fact, a sham ad. They are under the 
guise of political education, but they will occur. There is no 
enforcement of the current law. I do not expect even if your law did 
pass, there would be any enforcement by this administration, because it 
does coddle the unions.
  I appreciate the gentleman's conversation.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this is really the crux of the frustration with getting 
campaign finance reform passed. I respect the gentleman from Kansas, 
and the gentleman got up and said that we had a Beck decision, which 
was a court decision that said the unions could not use their union 
dues to go to political advertisements, and then he criticized the 
Clinton administration for not enforcing the Beck decision.
  Well, guess what? The Shays-Meehan legislation codifies the Beck 
decision. It puts it into law. So if we think the Clinton 
administration ought to enforce the Beck decision, then vote for Shays-
Meehan, because we codify the legislation.
  So I think if Members, with all due respect, would look at this 
legislation, they would find that this is not Democratic legislation, 
it is not Republican legislation. It represents both sides sitting down 
and working together, and that is the reason why the Shays-Meehan 
legislation codifies the Beck decision, and that is why the gentleman 
from Kansas should vote for this legislation for fairer elections.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, this debate is getting a little bizarre. As the 
gentleman from Massachusetts well knows, the Beck decision applies to 
nonunion members, to those who are not members of the union. The whole 
point is, the coerced union dues are being spent.
  I appreciate the gentleman's attempt to obfuscate the issue. It is 
union members, not nonunion members.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds.
  The gentleman from Kansas was talking about those monies that go to 
people who are part of a union that go to campaigns and they have a 
right to say, we do not want it to go to those campaigns. That is 
precisely what it is. The gentleman complained about the Clinton 
administration not enforcing the Beck decision, but he should vote for 
Shays-Meehan. Let us make it the law of the land.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).
  Mrs. ROUKEMA. Mr. Chairman, I am in strong support of Shays-Meehan 
and really appreciate this dialogue and this debate that has been going 
on. I strongly support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. Chairman, the rhetoric of this debate is out of control. 
Unconstitutional? This bill is not perfect. Let's remember the facts! 
Soft money is a loophole created to sabotage the constitutional and 
comprehensive reforms of the post Watergate Nixon Era corruption. Now 
we can return to reforms. The lack of fundamental change in our 
campaign finance practice 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.
  But over the next several hours we will hear variations on the same 
theme from opponents of reform. They will say: ``We are not hearing 
from anyone on this issue. The polls give this issue very low priority. 
The American people don't care about campaign finance reform.'' That's 
the refrain we will hear.
  I submit that the American people do care. But they've given up on 
us. Is it any wonder?
  They look at the way this system works--the explosion of soft money, 
fat cats buying access, White House coffees, the Vice-President dialing 
for dollars, foreign contributions, Members and Senators spending every 
waking moment raising cash, attack ad piled upon attack ad piled on top 
of attack ad.
  The American people see a rigged system that serves the self-interest 
of the politicians already in power. They have absolutely no reason to 
believe that there will ever be any real reform. So to them: what's the 
use?
  Perhaps the most corrosive development has been the explosion of so-
called ``soft money''--donations from wealthy corporations, 
individuals, labor organizations and other groups to the major parties. 
These funds are raised and spent outside the reach of federal election 
law and are directly connected to many of the scandalous practices now 
the focus of numerous Congressional investigations
  Of course, there are many critically important issues that we will 
examine during the course of this debate. The Shays-Meehan proposal 
addresses many of them--banning contibutions on federal property, an 
expanded ban on franked mail, the so-called Beck regulations, issue 
ads, new prohibitions on foreign contributions, et cetera.
  But if we do nothing else--let's ban soft money. My colleagues--soft 
money is at the heart of each and every one of these scandals we see in 
the headlines today--nights in the Lincoln Bedroom, White House 
coffees, alleged contributions from the Chinese military to the DNC, 
and more.

[[Page 21460]]

  The Shays-Meehan bill is the only substitute amendment that contains 
a hard ban on soft money.
  The American people are disgusted. They are totally turned off and 
cynical--this cynicism is forcing Americans to drop out of the 
political process that is our democracy.
  Let's ban soft money outright. Support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has 35 
seconds remaining; the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 2\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I think it is 2\1/3\ minutes, frankly.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had 45, but that is okay.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 30 
seconds remaining; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) 
has 35 seconds remaining.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rule I have the right 
to close.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California has the right to close.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my 35 seconds.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
  Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  In closing this debate, let me just say that the whole debate should 
be about restoring the public's faith in our government and their 
trust. Allowing elections to be bought by the highest bidder will not 
restore that trust, and certainly raising campaign contribution limits 
will not restore that trust.
  To those who claim that campaigns in this decade cannot be won on 
just $100, look per contributor, look at what Lawton Chiles did in 
Florida. He was able to win in keeping within campaign finance spending 
limits. The law was reformed there, and he won.
  Let us bring back the people's trust in our Government. Vote against 
this amendment. We need limits, not increases in contribution levels.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 35 
seconds.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, opponents of campaign finance reform have 
told us that we must protect free speech. But when they say free 
speech, they mean big money, because the fact is that the Shays-Meehan 
bill does not ban any type of communication. It merely reins in those 
campaign advertisements that have been masquerading as so-called issue 
advocacy.
  According to the United States Supreme Court, communications that 
expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified 
candidate can be subject to regulation. So the question is not whether 
the Government should regulate campaign advertisement; it already does. 
The real question is whether or not the current test adequately 
identifies campaign advertisement; and for that, there is a simple 
answer: no, it does not. Let us pass Shays-Meehan.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time to 
say one of the difficult things in this debate has been that it is very 
personal to each and every one of us, but it gets frustrating when the 
facts are so clear and someone just cannot see it. The bottom line is 
it is illegal for corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns, 
except through PACs. But there is a loophole, and it is soft money and 
sham issue ads. We ban soft money and we call the sham issue ads what 
they are: campaign ads. As soon as they are campaign ads, out goes the 
corporate and union dues money and all of the big expenditures.
  Mr. Chairman, we need a fair system. We do not limit freedom of 
speech. Everyone has freedom of speech. We live within the guidelines 
of the Supreme Court ruling.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) has 1\3/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Chairman, in November 1991, with 259 Republicans and Democrats 
voting for it, we passed a campaign finance reform bill. It went to the 
Senate and 57 Senators some days later voted to send that bill to 
President Bush. That bill limited the amount of money in campaigns. It 
limited soft money. It provided for campaign finance reform. 
Unfortunately, that bill was vetoed.
  We are now here, some 7 years later, and we have another opportunity 
to do what the American public expects us to do, to make their 
elections as honest and open as we possibly can. Is it difficult? Yes. 
Is it impossible? No. The Shays-Meehan perfect? Obviously not. But it 
is our best opportunity in this Congress to speak out on behalf of the 
American public's desire for clean and fair campaigns.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote for Shays-Meehan, but if 
we are to pass Shays-Meehan, we must also reject those amendments that 
will divide us, divide the consensus for this campaign finance reform 
bill which received just last year 252 votes in favor of it. Reject 
those substitutes, some on merit, some because they are designed 
specifically to defeat Shays-Meehan without giving the opportunity of 
the 435 of us who were sent here by our neighbors to vote on their 
behalf, to ensure that democracy is pursued in an honest fashion in 
this, the last best hope on the face of the Earth. I urge my colleagues 
to vote for Shays-Meehan and against general amendments.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  We just heard a statement that Shays-Meehan is not perfect. Obviously 
it is not, but we have a chance to perfect it.
  We heard during this debate that we thought maybe it would be a good 
idea to raise hard money, given how long it has not been affected, yet 
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), who will have in front of 
us an amendment to raise hard money, has a letter saying ``vote no on 
Whitfield'' signed by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). Are we to believe them 
on paper or believe their words?
  They talked about making sure that labor union money is not involved. 
The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling) has an amendment. They 
are opposed to his amendment. We heard the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. 
Bereuter) complain about the fact that they did not keep in this bill 
something that passed the floor the last time this was in front of us 
in terms of foreign dollars, so now we have a chance to make it 
perfect, at least better than it is.
  We are going through the amendment process. Let us approve the 
amendments they say they have no opposition to, and vote ``no'' on 
Shays-Meehan.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise to declare my strong 
support for the Bipartisan ``Shays-Meehan'' Campaign Finance Reform Act 
of 1999.'' Last year, committed members from both sides of the aisle 
came together to pass the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform Act and 
defeated the many months of complicated parliamentary procedures 
designed to filibuster the bill.
  The fight for campaign finance reform has begun once again. Last 
session the House approved the Shays-Meehan bill by a resounding 252 to 
179 vote with much help from my Republican colleagues. Many of whom 
still support reform. I urge my Republicans colleagues to join us again 
in this stride toward a fairer, more just system of financing 
campaigns.
  The purpose of this Shays-Meehan bill is to cut off the flow of 
unlimited and often undisclosed money into the federal election system. 
To do that--the Shays-Meehan bill closes the two primary loopholes 
through which this money flows into federal campaigns, soft money and 
sham issues.
  This Bill makes four major changes to our campaign financing system: 
(1) It completely eliminates federal soft money, as well as state soft 
money that influences a federal election and increases the aggregate 
hard dollar contribution limit form $25,000 to $30,000; (2) it 
strengthens the definition of ``express advocacy'' to include radio and 
TV ads that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate, run within 
60 days of an election; (3) it requires FEC

[[Page 21461]]

reports to be filed electronically, and provides for Internet posts of 
this and other disclosure data and (4) it establishes a Commission to 
study further reforms to our campaign systems.
  According to the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of 
Pennsylvania, between $275 and 340 million was spent in broadcast issue 
advocacy in 1997-1998, compared to $135 to $150 million in 1995-1996. 
Mr. Chairman, this statistical information is evidence that Campaign 
Finance Reform is needed.
  Last year a growing number of Campaign Finance Reformist Republicans 
exercised their better judgement and fought against the Republican 
Leadership's attempt to thwart attempts to eliminate soft money that 
influences federal elections. The role of soft money in elections is 
growing exponentially. So far this year, the parties have raised a 
record $55.1 million in soft money--that is 80 percent more than the 
$30.6 million they raised during a comparable period in 1995. I urge my 
Republican colleagues and others to come forth again in support to 
strike a balance for real Campaign Finance Reform.
  If Congress wants to be remembered for improving our nation's 
political system, enhancing our moral quality of life, and building a 
better America, then let's pass real campaign finance reform. Mr. 
Chairman, fellow colleagues, I urge that you vote No on all the poison 
pill amendments and vote Yes on the Shays-Meehan bill.
  Mr. LEACH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of H.R. 417, the Shays/
Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999.
  The bill has flaws, the biggest of which is that it does not go far 
enough. I would have preferred it impose spending limits and greater 
restraints on political action committees--the so-called PACs.
  Never-the-less, Shays/Meehan is a significant and long overdue effort 
at addressing the most pressing ``democratic'' issue facing the nation.
  In a country where process is our most important product, what is 
true for sports is doubly so for politics--how the game is played 
matters.
  Lincoln's government of, by and for the people cannot be one in which 
influence is disproportionately wrought by those with large campaign 
war chests.
  A fitting corollary to Lord Acton's dictum that ``power tends to 
corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely'' is the precept that 
even more corrupting than aspiring to power is the fear of losing it. 
This survivalist instinct, the desire to hang on to power, is the 
principle reason why meaningful campaign finance reform has been so 
difficult to advance.
  The current system is an incumbent-based monopoly that rewards 
accommodation rather than confrontation with special interests. 
Campaign reform is about empowering citizens rather than influence 
peddlers. It is the equivalent of applying the antitrust laws to the 
political parties.
  Without the sort of reforms Shays/Meehan makes, Congress will 
increasingly become a legislative body where the small businessman, the 
farmer, the worker, and the ordinary citizen are only secondarily 
represented.
  The time is long passed to infuse more democracy into our democratic 
system.
  Mr. SHOWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Shays-Meehan Bill, H.R. 417. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 417 and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
   Mr. Chairman, we cannot blame the American people for believing that 
their elected officials might be for sale.
  H.R. 417 would restrict the vast amounts of so-called ``soft money'' 
which allow special interest groups to have unfair influence on our 
electoral process.
  We also need to explore ways to make political campaigns less costly, 
while still allowing candidates to convey their message.
  H.R. 417 would establish an Independent Commission on Campaign 
Finance Reform, and I hope the commission can recommend ways to reduce 
the cost of campaigns.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to restore public trust in their electoral 
process. H.R. 417 is the best way I know to accomplish this.
  Now I want to address remarks to my colleagues who are Pro-Life 
advocates and who, like me, support Shays-Meehan.
  Much has been made about the strong position taken by the National 
Right to Life Committee against Shays-Meehan.
  The NRLC, like some other issue advocacy groups, believes Shays-
Meehan bill would unfairly inhibit their ability to communicate their 
message.
  Pro-Life Members of Congress who support Shays-Meehan have an honest 
disagreement with NRLC about this bill, but we share common ground with 
NRLC about the sanctity of human life.
  I do not quibble with the National Right to Life Committee's position 
on Shays-Meehan.
  However, the NRLC has chosen to ``score'' our votes on Shays-Meehan.
  Simply put, Shays-Meehan is about spending money on political 
campaigns. It is not about protecting human life.
  Defenders of the sanctity of life should be able to have honest 
disagreements from time to time without losing focus on the goal that 
unites us.
  But this ``apples-to-oranges'' linkage of campaign reform to 
protecting human life implies to our constituents that we are less than 
100% committed to the cause of protecting human life when that is 
simply not the case.
  I want my colleagues and the American people to know the plain truth: 
My record in support of human life is clear. I am committed 100% to 
Life, no matter how the NRLC may characterize my record after today's 
votes on campaign reform.
  Indeed, I am proud that my colleagues have recognized my commitment 
to Life my asking me to serve as Democratic Whip of the Pro-Life 
Caucus.
  Although the National Right to Life Committee disagrees with Pro-Life 
members of Congress who support Shays-Meehan, I hope we can have a 
productive relationship with NRLC or anyone else who is willing to 
fight for Life.
  We are all on the same team and we must not let other issues distract 
us from our goal.
  But today, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about restoring public 
confidence in the American electoral process.
  We need to pass Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. BENTSEN, Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 417, the 
Meehan-Shays Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 1999. Mr. 
Speaker, this body has once again been presented with the opportunity 
to implement significant campaign finance reforms. The American people 
have grown weary and cynical of the constant money chase we must engage 
in to run for office. Some try to equate placing restrictions on soft 
money with placing restrictions on free speech, as if money was speech. 
Money talks, all right. But how can the quiet voices and concerns of 
the American people compete with the megaphone of millions in soft 
money that is funneled into campaigns? I would argue that wealthy 
individuals, large corporations and advocacy groups do not have a 
greater right to be heard than average citizens just because they can 
afford to buy chunks of TV advertising time slots. This soft money is 
unregulated, unlimited, and unconscionable. We have to show the 
American people that public policy in not for sale. That's why I 
support the Meehan-Shays legislation. This legislation will regulate 
the flow of soft money to both parties and will close the legal 
loopholes which allow very dubious issue advocacy ads to permeate 
campaigns.
  In addition, the bill provides for the establishment of an 
Independent Commission on Campaign Finance Reform and will protect the 
continued use of voter guides as method to inform voters about their 
Representatives position on important issues. The bill also raises the 
individual campaign contribution level from $25,000 to $30,000 each 
year, and raises the amount individuals may give to state political 
parties from $5,000 to $10,000 each year. Labor unions will be required 
to give ``reasonable notice'' to dues-paying non-members of their right 
to disallow political use of their dues. Electronic filing to the 
Federal Election Committee (FEC) would be required, it is currently 
optional.
  Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, the Majority has decided to ignore the 
will of the American people who want real campaign finance reform and 
is attempting to kill this vital legislation by amendment. The 
amendments and substitutes which we debate today, while well 
intentioned, will do nothing to reform our campaign finance system. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to oppose all amendments and 
substitutes to this legislation.
  Passage of this bill would represent major progress in halting the 
influence of wealthy special interests in government.
  Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chairman, to me, one of the privileges of 
being a Member of the House, is the ability to come here to Washington 
to do the people's work without losing that all-important connection 
with the people who sent us here.
  While we serve to make all of America a better place, our 
constituencies are still small enough that we can put our finger on the 
pulse of the needs and desires of the people back home.
  But a lot of those people back home, unfortunately, don't feel as 
connected to us as they really are, or should be. Like most Americans, 
our constituents believe that most Members of Congress are bound to 
special interests because of campaign contributions, large sums

[[Page 21462]]

of money generated by corporations, labor unions and political action 
committees, and as an investigation of President Clinton's 1996 
campaign fundraising has shown, even foreign nationals.
  For most of us, the belief of our constituents may in reality only be 
a perception, but the perception holds strong and affects all of us. It 
is high time we do something to erase this perception and implement the 
first campaign finance reforms America has seen since 1974.
  Americans need to be reassured that their elected leaders serve to 
represent their best interests, not the whims of some special 
interests. Our constituents must have absolute confidence in the 
fairness of our political process and loopholes in the current rules 
must be closed for good.
  We can restore credibility and faith in the political process by 
passing H.R. 417, the Shays-Meehan Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform 
Act, of which I am proud to be an original cosponsor.
  H.R. 417 makes four major changes to our campaign financing system:
  H.R. 417 bans soft money: Shays-Meehan completely eliminates Federal 
soft money, as well as state soft money that influences a Federal 
election.
  H.R. 417 recognizes sham issue ads for what they really are: campaign 
ads. Under Shays-Meehan, within 60 days of an election only legal, 
``hard'' dollars could be used for radio and TV ads that refer to a 
clearly identified Federal candidate run; furthermore, any 
communication, run at any time, that contains unambiguous and 
unmistakable support for or opposition to a clearly identified Federal 
candidate must be paid for with ``hard'' dollars.
  H.R. 417 improves Federal Election Commission (FEC) disclosure and 
enforcement. Shays-Meehan requires FEC reports to be filed 
electronically, and provides for Internet posting of this and other 
disclosure data.
  H.R. 417 establishes a Commission to study further reforms to our 
campaign finance system.
  In addition, Shays-Meehan reforms also clarifies that it is illegal 
to raise not only hard money--but soft money as well--from foreign 
nationals or to raise money on government property; expands the ban on 
unsolicited ``franked'' mass mailings from the current three months 
before a general election to six months; bans coordinated party 
contributions to candidates who spend more than $50,000 in personal 
funds on their own campaigns; establishes a clearinghouse of 
information within the FEC and strengthens FEC enforcement as well as 
the penalties for violating the foreign money ban. Shays-Meehan also 
clearly exempts educational voter guides.
  Mr. Chairman, today both of our political parties are guilty of 
working in a system that is more ``loophole than law.''
  In the words of my friend, the gentleman from Connecticut who 
continues to be the driving force behind the reform move in the House, 
``If we allow the status quo to continue, and stand by as . . . 
interest groups are shaken down by the political parties, the cherished 
ideals that bind our national identity--free elections; one person, one 
vote--become meaningless.''
  Mr. Chairman, let us show all Americans that their one vote is not 
meaningless, and that their active involvement in our political process 
is more valuable to us than any dollar amount could ever be.
  As the New York Times concluded in its editorial yesterday, today 
``the House faces a test of its Members' sincerity and of whether it is 
listening to the public instead of special interest donors.''
  Who will we listen to, Mr. Chairman? To me, it's clear. I urge my 
colleagues to pass H.R. 417.
  Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Shays-Meehan 
legislation. I commend the sponsors for their efforts to clean up our 
broken campaign finance system, and I believe they are sincere in their 
efforts.
  However, while the Shays-Meehan bill makes some needed changes, it 
fails to go far enough in addressing what I believe are real problems 
with our current campaign finance system. Shays-Meehan fails to address 
the underlying problems of special interest influence, foreign 
influence and built-in incumbent advantages that plague our current 
system. Moreover, soft money provision, while well-intentioned, raise 
serious Constitutional concerns. Most seriously, the bill does nothing 
to address the problem posed by special interest PACs, which contribute 
overwhelmingly to incumbents and discourage individuals from getting 
involved in the political process.
  During the last Congress, I introduced campaign finance legislation 
containing limitations and increased disclosure for soft money, and 
other key provisions that go further than the Shays-Meehan bill. Among 
other features, the Restoring Trust in Government Act would have: 
banned the activities of special interest Political Action Committees 
(PACs); required 60% of campaign funds to be raided within a House 
candidate's district or a Senate candidate's state; clearly prohibited 
contributions by non-citizens; limited the ``bundling'' of campaign 
contributions; and completely banned taxpayer-financed unsolicited mass 
mailings by Members of Congress.
  I believe these are all common sense changes that deserve 
consideration in the context of campaign finance reform.
  Mr. Chairman, ultimately, I believe is virtually impossible for even 
the best intentioned incumbent Members of Congress to make truly 
sensible changes to the campaign finance system that helped them to get 
elected. That's why I would support the establishment of an independent 
commission--with a majority of members coming from outside of 
government--to study the problems of our current campaign financing 
system and make recommendations for reform within a very specific 
timeline. These recommendations would then be submitted to Congress for 
a simple yes or no vote, similar to the way we handled the difficult 
issue of base closures.
  I know commissions have a checkered history in Washington, but they 
can work if they are given the opportunity. I know from my own 
experience as co-chairman of the National Commission on Restructuring 
the IRS, which recommended a successful package of IRS reforms that 
ultimately passed Congress and were signed into law. I would also add 
that, if we had taken the step of establishing a nonpartisan campaign 
finance commission when we had the chance last year, we would be 
considering a nonpartisan commission's report today, instead of 
essentially the same Shays-Meehan legislation that failed to pass the 
Senate last year.
  If we're really serious about campaign finance reform, I believe we 
have no choice but to take it out of the political process entirely. I 
hope, when we next consider campaign finance reform, we will have the 
courage to support real campaign finance reform that can be enacted 
into law.
  Mr. PAUL. Mr. Chairman, campaign finance reform is once again being 
painted as the solution to political corruption in Washington. Indeed, 
political corruption is a problem, but today's reformers hardly offer a 
solution. The real problem is that government has too much influence 
over our economy and lives, creating a tremendous incentive to protect 
one's own interests by `investing' in politicians. The problem is not a 
lack of federal laws, or rules regulating campaign spending, therefore 
more laws won't help. We hardly suffer from too much freedom. Any 
effort to solve the campaign finance problem with more laws will only 
make things worse by further undermining the principles of liberty and 
private property ownership.
  The reformers are sincere in their effort to curtail special interest 
influence on government, but this cannot be done while ignoring the 
control government has assumed over our lives and economy. Current 
reforms address only the symptoms while the root cause of the problem 
is ignored. Since reform efforts involve regulating political speech 
through control of political money, personal liberty is compromised. 
Tough enforcement of spending rules will merely drive the influence 
underground since the stakes are too high and much is to be gained by 
exerting influence over government--legal or not. The more open and 
legal campaign expenditures are, with disclosure, the easier it is for 
voters to know who's buying influence from whom.
  There's tremendous incentive for every special interest group to 
influence government. Every individual, bank or corporation that does 
business with government invests plenty in influencing government. 
Lobbyists spend over a hundred million dollars per month trying to 
influence Congress. Taxpayers dollars are endlessly spent by 
bureaucrats in their effort to convince Congress to protect their own 
empires. Government has tremendous influence over the economy, and 
financial markets through interest rate controls, contracts, 
regulations, loans, and grants. Corporations and others are `forced' to 
participate in the process out of greed as well as self-defense--since 
that's the way the system works. Equalizing competition and balancing 
power such as between labor and business is a common practice. As long 
as this system remains in place, the incentive to buy influence will 
continue.
  Many reformers recognize this and either like the system or believe 
that it's futile to bring about changes and argue that curtailing 
influence is the only option left even if it involves compromising the 
liberty of political speech through regulating political money.
  It's naive to believe stricter rules will make a difference. If 
enough honorable men and women served in Congress and resisted the 
temptation to be influenced by any special interest group, of course 
this whole discussion

[[Page 21463]]

would be unnecessary. Because Members do yield to the pressure, the 
reformers believe that more rules regulating political speech will 
solve the problem.
  The reformers argue that it's only the fault of those trying to 
influence government and not the fault of the Members who yield to the 
pressure or the system that generates the abuse. This allows Members of 
Congress to avoid assuming responsibility for their own acts and 
instead places the blame on those who exert pressure on Congress 
through the political process which is a basic right bestowed on all 
Americans. The reformer's argument is ``stop us before we succumb to 
the special interest groups.''
  Politicians unable to accept this responsibility clamor for a system 
that diminishes the need for politicians to persuade individuals and 
groups to donate money to their campaign. Instead of persuasion they 
endorse coercing taxpayers to finance campaigns.
  This only changes the special interest groups that control government 
policy. Instead of voluntary groups making their own decisions with 
their own money, politicians and bureaucrats dictate how political 
campaigns will be financed. Not only will politicians and bureaucrats 
gain influence over elections, other nondeservers will benefit. 
Clearly, incumbents will greatly benefit by more controls over campaign 
spending--a benefit to which the reformers will never admit.
  The media becomes a big winner. Their influence grows as private 
money is regulated. It becomes more difficult to refute media 
propaganda,both print and electronic, when directed against a candidate 
if funds are limited. Campaigns are more likely to reflect the 
conventional wisdom and candidates will strive to avoid media attacks 
by accommodating their views.
  The wealthy gain a significant edge since it's clear candidates can 
spend unlimited personal funds in elections. This is a big boost for 
the independently wealthy candidates over the average challenger who 
needs to raise and spend large funds to compete.
  Celebrities will gain even a greater benefit than they already enjoy. 
Celebrity status is money in the bank and by limiting the resources to 
counter-balance this advantage, works against the non-celebrity who 
might be an issue-oriented challenger.
  This current reform effort ignores the legitimate and moral 
``political action committees'' that exist only for good reasons and do 
not ask for any special benefit from government. The immoral 
``political action committees'' that work only to rip-off the taxpayers 
by getting benefits from government may deserve our condemnation but 
not the heavy hand of government anxious to control this group along 
with all the others. The reformers see no difference between the two 
and are willing to violate all personal liberty. Since more regulating 
doesn't address the basic problem of influential government, now out of 
control, neither groups deserves more coercive government rules. All 
the rules in the world can't prevent members from yielding to political 
pressure of the groups that donate to their campaigns. Regulation 
cannot instill character.
  Additionally, the legislative debate over campaign finance reform has 
seemingly focused upon the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of 
speech, as interpreted and applied by the courts. The constitutional 
issues, however, are not limited to the First Amendment. To the 
contrary, pursuant to their oaths of office, members of Congress have 
an independent duty to determine the constitutionality of legislation 
before it and to decide, before ever reaching the First Amendment, 
whether they have been vested by the Constitution with any authority, 
at all, to regulate federal election campaigns. Congress has no 
authority except that which is ``granted'' in the Constitution. Thus, 
the threshold question concerning H.R. 417 is whether the Constitution 
has conferred upon Congress any authority to regular federal election 
campaigns. The authority to regulate such campaigns is not found among 
any enumerated power conferred upon Congress.
  More regulation of political speech through control of private money, 
without addressing the subject of influential government only drives 
the money underground, further giving a select group an advantage over 
the honest candidate who only wants smaller government.
  True reform is not possible without changing the role of government, 
which now exists to regulate, tax, subsidize, and show preferential 
treatment. Only changing the nature of government will eliminate the 
motive for so many to invest so much in the political process. But we 
should not make a bad situation worse by passing more bad laws.
  Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to join me in 
supporting H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 
1999, and to oppose all of the cynical ``poison pill'' amendments that 
have been introduced to undermine support for this important 
legislation. H.R. 417 contains a number of essential reforms to our 
federal system of financial elections in our political system.
  Mr. Chairman, I commend our distinguished colleagues, my friend Mr. 
Christopher Shays of Connecticut and Mr. Martin Meehan of 
Massachusetts, for introducing this extremely important bill.
  The most significant provision of the Campaign Finance Reform Act 
would effectively ban unregulated ``soft money'' from our political 
process, abolishing once and for all this legal loophole through which 
hundreds of millions of dollars are poured into our national electoral 
process every election cycle. Soft money has made a mockery of our 
existing campaign finance laws, which are permitting big money 
interests to exert a massively disproportionate influence upon the 
selection of our nation's president, as well as congressman and 
senators. This is wrong and it must be stopped.
  The Campaign Finance Reform Act would also regulate sham issue ads, 
which are truly campaign expenditures. The use of such ``issue ads'' is 
a gaping hole in our election laws. This law would improve the 
disclosure and enforcement capabilities of the Federal Election 
Commission, and it would establish an independent commission to study 
further reforms that may be needed in order to help us make future 
necessary changes in our campaign finance system.
  Mr. Chairman, this same legislation was adopted by the House of 
Representatives during the 105th Congress with the overwhelming support 
of the American people. Despite the popular demand for reform, those 
members who are defending our hopelessly flawed campaign finance system 
continue to use ``Delay'' and obstruction tactics to undermine the 
prospects for the passage of H.R. 417. These opponents of comprehensive 
reform--unfortunately with the backing of the Republican leadership--
are sponsoring seven ``poison pill'' amendments to divide the coalition 
supporting the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act. I urge my 
colleagues to reject these transparent gimmicks and to vote to restore 
American citizens' trust in the ``People's House.'' Our constituents 
deserve as much.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit an editorial from this morning's Washington 
Post which, I believe, effectively sets forth the strong case for the 
passage of H.R. 417. I urge all of my colleagues to give attention to 
this very thoughtful opinion.

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 14, 1999]

                     Yes to Campaign Finance Reform

       The House has what ought to be an easy vote today--``yes'' 
     on campaign finance reform. The bill the reluctant Republican 
     leadership has finally brought to the floor passed by a vote 
     of 252 to 179 in the last Congress. Most of the same members 
     are back. The need is, if anything, greater; they have no 
     reason to renege.
       The modest measure, by Reps. Christopher Shays and Martin 
     Meehan, seeks to halt only the most egregious of the fund-
     raising abuses that flourished in the last campaign. It would 
     bar the use of the national party organizations to raise and 
     spend, on behalf of their candidates, ``soft that the 
     candidates are forbidden by law to raise and spend 
     themselves.'' It seeks to limit the use of other, nominally 
     independent organizations to raise and spend such money in 
     the form of ``issue ads'' as well.
       The leadership, having been forced by threat of a discharge 
     petition to let the bill on the floor, has sprinkled 
     obstacles in its path. Ten amendments will be in order. They 
     were carefully written to sound innocuous while either 
     weakening the bill or poisoning it for Democrats who might 
     then relieve the Republicans of responsibility by taking the 
     lead in voting no. One purports to defend voter guides but, 
     as written, would likely make all issue ads unassailable. 
     One, of dubious constitutionality, would require candidates 
     to raise half their contributions in their home states; its 
     adoption would likely drive Democrats from low-income 
     districts to reject the entire bill. Everyone understands 
     this. The amendments should be voted down, as should the 
     three substitutes that will then also be in order. They too 
     are weaker than the bill. One, by Rep. Bill Thomas, is a 
     deliberate nullity, the theory being that no one will bother 
     to vote against. But if any of these passes, the underlying 
     bill is dead. That too is well understood.
       The bill that passed last year was deflected by the 
     Republican leadership in the Senate. This one faces similar 
     resistance. It is a subject that, more than any other, causes 
     hypocrisy to flower. The president, whose flagrant 
     circumvention of the law in 1996 helped prompt the 
     legislation, now takes the lead in supporting it. The 
     Republicans, meanwhile, having spent the better part of the 
     last Congress rightly denouncing his behavior, now block the 
     bill that would outlaw it; they, it turns out, are the ones 
     who profit most from

[[Page 21464]]

     the system they deplore. The parties are raising far more 
     soft money in this cycle than they did in the last. The 
     campaign finance law has pretty well ceased to exist, except 
     on paper. Shays-Meehan would begin to restore it. That's what 
     this vote is about.

  Mr. LARSON. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (H.R. 417). First, I would like to 
commend my colleagues, Representatives Christopher Shays and Martin T. 
Meehan, for the extraordinary amount of hard work they put forth to 
bring this bill before us today. It is a testament to their diligence 
and tenacity that they have successfully defeated the obstacles that 
have been placed in the way of this important legislation.
  I believe that it is time to change the nature of today's political 
campaigns. Working people are losing their voice in the political 
process, and losing faith in their officials because their vote is 
being drowned in a sea of negative attack ads. These reforms would 
tighten the campaign finance laws to keep outside groups from running 
sham ads, and reduce the impact of obscure, faceless groups and their 
money on our elections. I believe that this bill is a bipartisan effort 
to restore faith in our Government, which is why it is one of the first 
bills I co-sponsored.
  I have been in politics for many years and I know that too much money 
is spent in political campaigns, and real people are losing their voice 
in elections. We need to bring campaigns back to the basics so that big 
money influences are put in check, and unregulated ``soft'' money is 
taken out of politics.
  Many people are distrustful of the political process, and rightfully 
so. They don't vote in elections because major outside groups and 
parties have too much leverage. This reform bill is a bipartisan effort 
to restore faith in our Government and open up the political system. 
This measure aggressively targets the big money in politics and brings 
campaigns back to the people. These reforms are responsible, logical, 
and best of all, workable within our current system. Therefore, Mr. 
Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Shays-Meehan bill and 
vote against the many ``poison-pill'' amendments that have been allowed 
to be offered today.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, today, the House of Representatives 
decides whether elections will continue to be controlled by a wealthy 
and powerful elite, or whether a significant curb on their hold over 
the American political process will be put in place.
  H.R. 417, the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance reform bill will help to 
give elections back to the people by curbing the influence of the 
moneyed interests.
  Do not be fooled by the amendments offered today. They are intended 
to gut the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform bill. The rules of 
today's debate were designed to undermine real campaign finance reform 
with a series of poor substitutes.
  The real test of whether this House supports campaign finance reform 
or thwarts it is this: we must defeat all substitute amendments and 
poison pill amendments, and then we must pass Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, let's concentrate on constituent 
interests, not special interests.
  As the great political reporter Theodore White wrote, ``the flood of 
money that gushes into politics today is a pollution of democracy.'' I 
haven't accepted PAC contributions since I first ran for the Michigan 
state senate in 1982. Although I knew I would always vote the way I 
felt was right regardless of who donated to my campaign, I also knew 
that it was equally important that my constituents had no doubts about 
how much PAC lobbyists might be influencing my decisions.
  I have reintroduced my bill from the 105th Congress, the PAC 
Limitation Act, which would do the following:
  Ban PACs from donating to individual Congressional campaigns.
  Require that Congressional candidates raise 50% or more of their 
contributions from individual donors who reside within their district.
  Limit how much and how often individuals can make soft money 
contributions to political party organizations.
  Require that TV, radio and cable stations report the placement of 
issue ads so that there will be full disclosure.
  Require labor organizations to obtain the written permission of 
members before using any dues or fees for political purposes.
  Special interests with their organized lobbying and their millions of 
dollars of PAC persusion money have gained undue influence in Congress. 
It is time to start dismantling that influence.
  This legislation moves the process ahead.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to help restore the trust of the 
American people. I am a cosponsor of H.R. 417, the Bipartisan Campaign 
Finance Reform Act, and urge my colleagues to pass this legislation 
today. I also urge my colleagues to reject any and all poison pill 
amendments intended to destroy the underlying bill.
  As a first-time candidate for public office, I saw from a private 
citizen's perspective the need to reform our country's campaign finance 
system. I believe very strongly in this issue--we need to overhaul the 
way that campaigns are financed in America. Shortly after coming to 
Congress, I signed a letter with many of my freshman colleagues urging 
swift consideration and passage of the Shays-Meehan legislation. There 
are numerous cracks in our current campaign finance system, many of 
which create a complex web that ultimately discourage public 
participation. I believe that Shays-Meehan will help empower the 
American people and rebuild some of the trust that has been eroded by 
our campaign finance process.
  While it is not perfect, Shays-Meehan takes important steps toward 
restoring the public's faith in government. It makes a number of 
serious reforms to bring more sunshine into the process, including 
banning soft money contributions and imposing restrictions on so-called 
``issue ads.'' Moreover, the Shays-Meehan bill will encourage other 
important and sensible reforms, such as requiring electronic filing of 
FEC reports and the disclosure of candidate information in campaign 
advertisements.
  Opponents of the Shays-Meehan legislation believe there should be 
more special interest money in politics, not less. Opponents also raise 
objections to individual provisions wholly because they believe parts 
of H.R. 417 would jeopardize their own individual election or weaken 
their party. I believe that the time has come to serve the interests of 
the Americans people, focus on reducing the influence of special 
interests in our political system, and improve the campaign finance 
system in our country. Congress belongs to the people.
  Unfortunately, in a recent poll, over half of all Americans did not 
believe Abraham Lincoln's statement that America is a government ``of, 
by, and for the people.'' Every member of this body should be humbled 
by this finding, and every member of this body should vote for Shays-
Meehan. I urge all my colleagues to vote for the Bipartisan Campaign 
Finance Reform Act and restore the public trust.
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Chairman, in the 1996 presidential campaign, our nation 
witnessed the most scandalous money chase since the glory days of the 
big-city bosses and the robber barons. The question we now face is 
whether we have the will to clean up and toughen our laws or whether we 
will just accept practices like auctioning off the Lincoln bedroom or 
allowing foreign governments and corporations to pump money into our 
political campaigns.
  The time for campaign reform is now. I support H.R. 417, the Shays-
Meehan legislation for comprehensive reform of our campaign finance 
laws.
  The Shays-Meehan bill bans political parties and Federal officials 
from raising or spending any so-called ``soft'' money. Congress thought 
it had banned ``soft money'' decades ago. In our democracy, we must not 
permit unlimited, unregulated contributions directly from corporations, 
unions or wealthy individuals. If a candidate took soft money today, 
that candidate would be indicted. But the loophole is that party 
committees have become giant money laundromats that collect and cleanse 
this otherwise-illegal money. Our legislation stops this game.
  The bill also ends sham issue-ads. These TV ads rip a candidate to 
shreds and then ask: ``Let him know what you think.'' Since the ad 
never explicitly says ``vote against so-and-so'' the current law says 
these are ``educational issue ads'' and not campaign ads. That is 
baloney. These ads are purely political and often the most vicious. 
They should be forced to abide by the same rules that bind every 
candidate--full disclosure of all contributions. That is what our bill 
requires.
  This is sound and sensible legislation. Let's pass it. Let's send it 
to the Senate, which must give it the time and attention it deserves 
this year. Honest campaigns and elections are the most basic safeguard 
of a democracy. Every right that we have flows from the right to decide 
who will govern us. We need to decide now whether our elections will be 
governed by law or manipulated by loophole.

                              {time}  1545

  The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to review an 
agreement that we have made about the way we proceed with the amendment 
in the voting.
  The CHAIRMAN. The Chair does not understand the gentleman's 
statement.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of 
order for 1 minute.

[[Page 21465]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  Mr. MEEHAN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, I would ask 
the gentleman what this is going to be.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MEEHAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, what I was going to do is inform the House 
and Members the procedure we are going to be following through the 
amending process and the substitution process so Members can plan for 
the rest of the evening.
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from 
California?
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) is 
recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, there has been an agreement among us that 
we are now going into the amendment process to H.R. 417, following 
general debate. There are 10 amendments. Each is to be considered for 
10 minutes.
  We have agreed that we will deal with five at a time and then ask for 
a vote. That would be a 15-minute vote followed by four five-minute 
votes. Then we would take the second block of five amendments, and then 
have a vote of 15 and then four 5s. Then we would move through the 
substitutes. Each of those have 40 minutes, with a vote following each 
substitute, which would, of course, then require a 15-minute vote for 
those.
  So after five amendments there will be a block of voting, and then at 
the end of the next five amendments there would be a block of voting.
  Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Hobson, Chairman of the Committee 
of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that 
Committee, having had under consideration 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, had 
come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________