[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 21]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 31262-31263]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      H.R. 2668, STREAMLINING FEC

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. STENY H. HOYER

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 18, 1999

  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, let's lift FEC reform out of legislative 
limbo where it has been for twenty years. Before we leave for the year 
let's pass H.R. 2668, a bill to streamline FEC procedures and improve 
FEC reporting.
  The bill is not controversial--it has broad support on both sides of 
the aisle and it is needed. There is simply no reason not to pass this 
bill today.
  In September I wrote to Speaker Hastert requesting that this bill be 
placed on the suspension calendar. It is a good bill--sponsored by 
House Administration Chair Bill Thomas--and voted unanimously out of 
the House Administration Committee earlier this year.
  The bill contains most of the provisions in the bill introduced 
earlier this year. It was prepared with the support and assistance of 
the six Republican and Democratic FEC Commissioners. In addition to the 
support of the Commission, H.R. 2668 is supported by Members on both 
sides of the aisle.
  It would: Improve disclosure of State activity; make it easier for 
contributors to comply with the law; remove obsolete provisions; and 
broaden candidate's commercial lending options.
  Earlier this year, we voted on this bill on the floor of the House. 
Like almost every one of my Democratic colleagues and a broad group of 
Republicans, I voted against the bill. I voted against FEC reform 
because it would have blocked a vote on the bi-partisan campaign 
finance reform bill sponsored by Reps. Shays and Meehan. FEC reform 
deserves our support on its own merits. It should not continue to be 
used as a pawn in the larger debate.
  In my opinion, FEC reform should not have been a part of that debate. 
That is because--as Chairman Thomas has repeatedly stressed, H.R. 2668 
is not about campaign finance reform--H.R. 2668 is about making the 
routine procedural reforms that are needed over the course of time by 
all agencies.
  Unlike other Executive branch agencies that request and receive 
noncontroversial legislative changes to aid in the efficient and 
effective operation of the agency--changes requested by the FEC simply 
don't happen.

[[Page 31263]]

  For over twenty years, the FEC has annually sent to Congress 
requested statutory changes. And each year--just like in our recent 
campaign finance debate--provisions that are needed and have no real 
opposition become tangled up in our debate about how to ensure the 
integrity of our campaign finance system.
  But this year we can do it differently. We have a solid FEC reform 
bill that combines needed changes into one package. We have bipartisan 
support for the bill.
  If we fail to act it means that the work that we did in the House 
Administration Committee to create this worthwhile bill was just a 
cynical game to defeat comprehensive campaign finance reform. I have 
asked Speaker Hastert to bring H.R. 2668 to the floor on the suspension 
calendar--and I urge him to do so again today. FEC reform standing 
alone is worthwhile. We have the chance to pass it and we should.

                          ____________________