[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13097-13106]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 2356, BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN REFORM 
                              ACT OF 2001

  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I 
call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 188

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 2356) to amend the Federal Election Campaign 
     Act of 1971 to provide bipartisan campaign reform. The first 
     reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of 
     order against consideration of the bill are waived. General 
     debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not exceed one 
     hour equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
     ranking minority member of the Committee on House 
     Administration. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall 
     be in order except those printed in the report of the 
     Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution. Each 
     amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the 
     report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the 
     report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 
     the time specified in the report equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
     subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand 
     for division of the question in the House or in the Committee 
     of the Whole. All points of order against the amendments 
     printed in the report are waived. At the conclusion of 
     consideration of the bill for amendment the Committee shall 
     rise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as 
     may have been adopted. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to 
     final passage without intervening motion except one motion to 
     recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. After passage of H.R. 2356, it shall be in order to 
     consider in the House S. 27. All points of order against the 
     Senate bill and against its consideration are waived. It 
     shall be in order to move to strike all after the enacting 
     clause of the Senate bill and to insert in lieu thereof the 
     provisions of H.R. 2356 as passed by the House. All points of 
     order against that motion are waived. If the motion is 
     adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, then it 
     shall be in order to move that the House insist on its 
     amendment to S. 27 and request a conference with the Senate 
     thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from

[[Page 13098]]

New York (Mr. Reynolds) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the 
ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself 
such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, 
all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 188 is a fair, structured rule that 
provides for the consideration of H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign 
Reform Act of 2001. I would like to point out that this is not an 
unorthodox rule; rather, this rule is what is known as ``regular 
order.''
  The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided 
between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee 
on House Administration. The rule makes in order 20 amendments that 
were printed in the report accompanying the resolution. In addition to 
the full consideration of these amendments, the rule makes in order two 
substitutes, one offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Doolittle), which is debatable for 30 minutes, and the other offered by 
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn), which is debatable for 60 minutes.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill, as well as all points of order against the amendments.
  After passage of H.R. 2356, the rule provides that it shall be in 
order to consider in the House Senate 27. It waives all points of order 
against the Senate bill and against its consideration.
  The rule makes in order a motion to strike all after the enacting 
clause of the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof provisions of H.R. 
2356 as passed by the House. Furthermore, the rule waives all points of 
order against the motion to strike and insert. Additionally, the rule 
provides that if the motion to strike and insert is adopted and the 
Senate bill, as amended, is passed, it shall be in order to move that 
the House insist on its amendment and request a conference with the 
Senate thereon.
  Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without 
instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, before we begin what is certain to be a very passionate 
debate, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert), the Speaker of the House, on his efforts to bring this issue 
before us today. The Speaker pledged a fair, open, and timely debate on 
this measure and, as has been the hallmark of his leadership, today has 
made good on that commitment. I would also like to acknowledge the 
great strides that have been made to ensure that this rule be made as 
fair as possible and to ensure a healthy debate on this important 
issue. As this rule was developed, the committee honored numerous 
requests from the gentleman from Connecticut to ensure a proper and 
complete debate. In short, we are here today because the Speaker has 
facilitated a fair and open process.
  Additionally, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his 
fair bipartisan handling of this matter. The willingness of both the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Hastert) to accommodate all parties involved by supporting alternative 
measures and open debate is a true testament to their leadership on 
this measure. I thank both the gentlemen.
  Mr. Speaker, I have had the unique opportunity to hear testimony on 
this issue from all sides, both as a member of the Committee on House 
Administration and as a member of the Committee on Rules. I have 
witnessed firsthand the process that has brought us to this day, and I 
stand here before my colleagues proud of both the process and the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, when we peel back the layers of debate on the issue 
before us today, when we remove the emotion and the hyperbole, when we 
separate the rhetoric from the reality, there is a fundamental question 
before this Congress today: how far will this Congress go in 
restricting the rights of the American people, whether individually or 
collectively, to participate in their political process? It is ironic 
that as this Congress and this country have achieved so much 
economically and socially by breaking down government regulation and 
intrusion, there are those who would have us impose excessive 
restrictions and undue burdens on the most basic of all human rights: 
the right of free speech. That we can improve our current campaign 
finance system is something upon which we can all agree, but to do so 
by destroying the very fabric of this Nation's political system is not 
an improvement, nor is it reform.
  There are a number of important issues that we face in our shared 
desire to improve and reform campaign finance in these United States. 
Most important, we must ensure that we encourage rather than stifle 
citizen involvement in their political process.
  The freedom to express one's views in the form of political speech is 
one of the inherent rights that this Nation was founded upon. 
Government restrictions which would limit that speech strike at the 
very core of our rights and liberties as Americans.
  We should recognize, too, the freedom of political parties to 
encourage voter enrollment and participation. A vibrant party system 
has been and must continue to promote the free flow of ideas and debate 
that have shaped this Nation over the past 225 years.
  By definition, Webster's dictionary says that ``reform'' means ``to 
make or become better.'' What we do today must ensure that our campaign 
finance system does become better, and it can only become better if we 
recognize that curbing expensive campaigns should not come at the 
expense of political liberties. That is why I urge support of this rule 
and the support of the Ney-Wynn bill.
  While neither the Shays-Meehan nor the Ney-Wynn bill bans so-called 
``soft money,'' Ney-Wynn at least ensures that such expenditures are 
used for party activities such as voter registration, getting out the 
vote, overhead, and fund-raising expenses. Such a provision will ensure 
that candidates cannot circumvent set limits, while ensuring a 
continued vibrant party system. Ney-Wynn also contains broader 
reporting requirements. People have a right to know who is supporting 
candidates for political office, and under the Ney-Wynn bill they will 
have that information quickly and completely. Further, Ney-Wynn does 
more to restrict the influences of special interest groups.

                              {time}  1400

  Political parties will be restricted from fund-raising and spending 
soft money while special interests would still be allowed to spend 
funds in virtually unlimited amounts, increasing, rather than 
curtailing, their influence over the electoral process.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a solid reason why the Ney-Wynn bill has 
enjoyed a growing bipartisan support over these past few weeks. That is 
because it is better, more responsible legislation that, as Webster 
defines, reforms our campaign finance system by making it better.
  Mr. Speaker, let me once again remind my colleagues that our business 
here today is being conducted under regular order. This fair, standard 
rule is before this body because of the tireless efforts of both the 
gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Ohio 
(Chairman Ney).
  Let us proceed with open debate on both the bill and its amendment. I 
urge my colleagues to support this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has brought us a rule that is 
the height of cynical political maneuvering, and the rule itself is, 
quite frankly, one of the most stupid proposals I have seen in my 23 
years in this institution.
  I want to look at the cynical maneuvering, first. We all know that 
the Republican leadership wants to defeat

[[Page 13099]]

Shays-Meehan. There are, of course, Democrats who have some 
reservations about Shays-Meehan also, but these Democrats also believe 
in fundamental fairness, and that Shays-Meehan should have a clean, 
legitimate shot on the floor.
  The Republican leadership has written a rule that everyone knows may 
well lose. If we assume that this rule is about cynicism, then what the 
Republican leadership has done is to present a rule to the House that 
they know will fail, and then they will refuse to reconvene the 
Committee on Rules to draft another rule.
  They will refuse to schedule campaign finance reform for debate and 
simply explain it away by saying campaign finance reform is dead 
because the House refused to pass a rule to bring it up. This is, of 
course, the equivalent of killing your parents and then throwing 
yourself on the mercy of the court because you are an orphan.
  Why do I say that this rule is likely to lose? Experience. It is a 
repeat of a rule that the then Democratic leadership fashioned in 1981 
during the debate on the first Reagan budget. In 1981, the Democratic 
leadership refused to give the Republican alternative, the now infamous 
Gramm-Latta substitute, a straight up-or-down vote. Rather, the 
Democratic leadership broke Gramm-Latta into pieces, requiring a series 
of votes on its provisions, thinking that that was the way to kill it.
  Well, surprise, that rule was rejected by the House. Let me repeat, 
the House rejected that rule as fundamentally unfair to the minority. 
Now, 20 years later, the Republican leadership has constructed a rule 
that divides Shays-Meehan into 13 separate amendments.
  Sound familiar? Maybe not, because no one in the current Republican 
leadership was in Congress in 1981. But I find it hard to believe they 
and their staff can be totally ignorant of history, and that they all 
have to know that there is a very good chance this rule will be 
defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, one might have to conclude that this is a cynical way to 
go about achieving their real objective, which is, of course, to kill 
Shays-Meehan.
  Let us look at how incredibly dumb this rule is. It seems to have 
been written in such a way as to help the strategic objective of 
killing Shays-Meehan. I would suggest the way this rule is written that 
it might have the exact opposite effect.
  There are a number of Members on both sides of the aisle who have 
legitimate and sincere concerns about Shays-Meehan. In the event this 
rule actually passes, the heavy-handed and cynical maneuvering on the 
part of the Republican leadership may well drive some of the opponents 
of Shays-Meehan right into the Shays-Meehan camp.
  If that is the case, then the Republican leadership will have 
orchestrated their own defeat, the proverbial snatching of defeat from 
the jaws of victory.
  There are legitimate issues involved in a discussion of the merits of 
the two main alternatives, Shays-Meehan and Ney-Wynn. I, for one, am 
concerned that the absolute prohibition in Shays-Meehan on the right of 
Members of Congress to raise non-Federal funds for State and local 
political parties to conduct voter registration and get-out-the-vote 
activities will weaken the political process and neuter Members of 
Congress. Members will not be able to play a meaningful role in voter 
turnout efforts in their home districts, and will become largely 
irrelevant to their own political parties.
  The Ney-Wynn bill does not contain this provision, and it is 
important for Members to think very carefully about this issue if we 
get to the point where we might actually vote on the legislation.
  However, because of this incredibly dumb rule and the cynical 
maneuvering on the part of the Republican leadership, we may never get 
to that point. On the other hand, if this rule is, by some chance, 
passed, the debate on this issue will be in such a highly charged 
atmosphere that it may well be impossible to have a rational discussion 
on the fundamental issues involved. This will be a sad day for the 
democratic process in this institution and in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule should be defeated. The Republican leadership 
needs to be shamed into bringing back a new rule that is fair to the 
House, fair to the proponents of both bills, and fair to the American 
people.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, I have not been in Congress for 22 years, like the 
gentleman from Texas, but I do know the difference between right and 
wrong. I think the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) knows the 
difference between right and wrong.
  What we recognize about this rule is that this is an honest up-or-
down vote. Yesterday in the Committee on Rules the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) asked for his bill, and got what he asked for. 
He received it. That was his bill. We did not gut the bill. We are not 
putting any amendments against the bill. He gets his bill exactly the 
way that he said in the Committee on Rules he wanted it. He gets all 12 
or 13 amendments.
  Where I come from in Texas, you vote for what you are for and you 
vote against what you do not like. The fact of the matter is that this 
is an honest attempt to give our colleague, who is a Republican, the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), exactly what he asked for in 
the Committee on Rules.
  We are not hiding anything. We are not making it more difficult. We 
are simply giving him exactly what he wanted. I have lots of 
legislation on which I would love to have the same opportunity that we 
are extending to our colleague.
  The fact of the matter is that in the Committee on Rules, it was the 
Democrats who sit on the Committee on Rules that did the beating up of 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), that did the beating up of 
Shays-Meehan. They said that it had virtually no reason to be on the 
floor of the House of Representatives. It has no reason to take the 
time that we are spending on it.
  The Republican leadership, not only the gentleman from Illinois 
(Speaker Hastert) and the gentlemen from Texas, Mr. Armey and Mr. 
DeLay, but also our committee chairman, the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Dreier), have taken the time to schedule this vote to give the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) exactly what he asked for 
yesterday, and to make sure we have a full debate. I think it is not 
only fair and honest, but it is the right thing to do for our 
colleagues.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding time to me.
  I am the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration. As 
such, I participated in the markup of these two pieces of legislation, 
the Shays-Meehan legislation, which has in the past had 252 votes each 
time it was offered for passage on the floor of this House, and the 
Ney-Wynn bill, which is a new bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sessions). At the markup, which was held on June 28, it was my 
understanding, and I believe the understanding of the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan), that the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays), and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Meehan) would have the opportunity, between June 28 and yesterday, to 
perfect their legislation, to present that perfected legislation to the 
Committee on Rules, and to have those pieces of legislation presented 
to the floor for consideration with such further amendments as others 
might have.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that was our understanding. I tell my friend, 
the gentleman from Texas, as a result, I did not offer any amendment. 
The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) nor any other Member offered any 
amendments. Why? Because it was the understanding of all 10 of us, in 
my opinion,

[[Page 13100]]

that the bills would be perfected in the 10 days between June 28 and 
July 8 or 9 or 10.
  That was not done. What the gentleman suggests is a fair process is 
to divide up into 14 different sections the perfections of the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) sought, and therefore try to fight each one 
of those 14 different times.
  I frankly think that is not fair. Why is it not fair? Because, as the 
gentleman from Texas, the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, has 
put forward, it is a rule which does not comport with what the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to offer as their base bill.
  Mr. Speaker, on the substance of this, the American public in my 
opinion is very concerned about the amount of money in politics. 
Rightly or wrongly, and I cast aspersions on no one in this House, 
rightly or wrongly, the American public believes that the gargantuan 
amounts of money that flow into Washington, into State Capitals, into 
local county seats as political contributions, hard or soft money, and 
that is a somewhat esoteric distinction that the public does not make, 
but it is an important one, because one is limited and one is not, they 
believe this is an important issue. They want to see it considered on 
its merits, not by procedural dissection, which is essentially what has 
occurred here.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a little bit of blurry history or 
rewriting history. I certainly was not here in 1981, as my colleague, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) was not, either. But as I 
recall, there was a minority substitute to a majority bill that the 
rule affected that the leadership lost, and the minority had a 
victorious day. In those days, the Republicans were the minority.
  But when we look at today, I have been here today in both the 
Committee on House Administration and on the Committee on Rules. It was 
my understanding that on Wednesday evening, at the insistence of the 
sponsor of Shays-Meehan that we hold a markup before the July district 
work period, that was scheduled for Thursday before we left.
  On Wednesday at 8 p.m. it was agreed upon by both the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Ney), who had to produce his bill, and the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that he would produce his bill, and at 8 
o'clock we would have the bill so the House, the entire House, 435 
Members, would have the opportunity to learn what was in both bills.
  That was because the Shays-Meehan bill that I knew as a State 
legislator watching the debate of this great body is now so much 
different than it was back then.
  I am a fan of the 1957 T-Bird. It changed so much in the sixties, 
when I owned a sixties T-Bird, and in the seventies, in the eighties, 
and in the nineties, so the T-Bird today that is made reference to no 
longer looks like the 1957 Thunderbird. So you would have to be 
clarifying exactly what year of Thunderbirds you were referring to if 
you were an admirer.
  In Shays-Meehan, this bill before us today is nothing like the Shays-
Meehan bill that was constructed years ago and has been debated in this 
House in previous years. It is substantially different.
  On the Committee on Rules, I have the opportunity to see managers' 
technical amendments on a frequent occasion. This bill, when we look at 
what happened with the Committee on Rules, we granted every single 
request, 12, of the Shays-Meehan bill. Whether they were technical or 
they were absolute critical changes that were made in the bill that 
would not be classified a manager's amendment, we gave it to the Shays-
Meehan request.
  Just as the Speaker said today, this week, we will have the debate on 
Shays-Meehan and any other amendments on campaign finance reform. It is 
here today. So the bill introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut 
(Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) reported 
by the Committee on House Administration will be debated in its 
entirety. As a matter of fact, they filed after the deadline, 4\1/2\ 
hours late, these 12 amendments, which were actually put in the rule so 
they could be debated today in its entirety.
  However, when we begin to look at special privileges for any Members, 
that becomes a political concept of what the Committee on Rules is, in 
fairness. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is not the manager 
of the campaign finance bill, it is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), 
the Chair of the Committee on House Administration.
  The en bloc amendment has been inaccurately referred to as the 
manager's amendment. The fact is that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman 
Ney) is the manager of this legislation, so the amendment requested by 
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is not a manager's amendment.
  Anyway, whether one is a freshman, a sophomore, as I, or a junior 
member of the Committee on Rules on the majority side, as its most 
senior Members know, an en bloc amendment has been inaccurately 
referred to as a manager's amendment in this legislation, and that an 
amendment en bloc is a clustering of individual amendments.
  Mr. Speaker, each and every amendment requested by Shays-Meehan is in 
this rule, to be debated openly and fairly in this House.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. 
Pryce), from the Committee on Rules.
  Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, the work of the Committee on Rules is never done. We 
work hard and we work late into the evening trying to fine-tune some of 
the most controversial issues that this House ever faces.

                              {time}  1415

  And, indeed, that is exactly what we did last night.
  My friend, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), came to our 
committee and he made his presentation; and he was passionate, as he 
always is, because he believes in this. And to a large extent, I do as 
well. This has been his cause, and he has fought it very well.
  So I am very surprised today by all the fanfare over this manager's 
amendment, because the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) did not 
even mention this manager's amendment in his presentation to the 
Committee on Rules until I brought it up. At that time he said, oh yes, 
and he explained it briefly, and left us on the committee with the 
distinct impression that as long as his provisions were included in 
some way, it was okay to divide it up. Indeed, his words were: ``There 
are about 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 12 changes, one or two are 
technical, some are substantive, but this is an amendment that gets our 
bill in a form that we are most comfortable defending. And so, 
obviously, we like it. Some people have said you might like to divide 
them up into pieces; however, you decide.''
  He told the Committee on Rules, you decide. And so we did. We felt 
that to divide this up and allow examination of these substantive 
changes was the right and fair thing to do. So for all of us who have 
worked so hard to get this bill here today, for everyone who has done 
so much, no matter where you stand on it, do not kill this rule. Today 
is the day. Have we not waited long enough?
  There is nothing unfair about this rule. And if it is defeated, I 
hope that this country understands who defeated it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Hastings), a member of the committee.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. It will be very clear that it will be the 
Republican majority that defeats the rule, if it does go down.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose this silly rule. This rule 
provides the American people with a limited opportunity to debate this 
important issue. It is a rule that was written by the Republican 
leadership that fears the will

[[Page 13101]]

of the American people to have an open and honest debate on campaign 
finance reform.
  If we are to maintain this institution's reputation as a 
representative body, then it is imperative that the American people 
have an opportunity to freely debate this issue here on the floor of 
the House. It appears the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) does 
not understand that when this bill is chopped up like it is, it will 
not have an up or a down vote, which I assure my colleagues, he is not 
in favor of.
  Mr. Speaker, I have another problem with today's debate. I want to 
know why we are even talking about campaign finance reform before we 
are talking about election reform. I would think that after last year's 
travesty of an election, in which it was discovered that thousands of 
Americans nationwide had their right to vote stripped from them, 
Congress would have acted by now.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Keller).
  Mr. KELLER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time, and I rise today in support of the rule as well as in strong 
support of the need for a paycheck protection provision to the campaign 
finance reform bill, and I will tell my colleagues why.
  Banning soft money to the parties does not take the money out of 
politics, it only takes the money out of the parties. For example, 
currently a union such as the AFL-CIO can give $1 million to the 
Democratic party. The Democratic party will then turn around and run 
attack ads against Republicans like me that say, ``Call Rick Keller and 
ask him why he is a bad guy.'' Well, if we ban the soft money to the 
party, we will still see the exact same TV attack ad on the air. The 
only difference will be the little disclaimer at the bottom of the 
screen which will now say, ``Paid for by AFL-CIO,'' as opposed to, 
``Paid for by the Democratic party.''
  Any attempts to ban these ads 60 days before an election is blatantly 
unconstitutional. That is why to be fair and balanced we must also 
couple the ban on soft money with a paycheck protection requirement 
that requires unions to get the written consent of their workers if 
they intend to use part of their union dues for political activities. 
This is critical because fully 40 percent of the union members 
nationwide are Republicans, yet nearly all of their $100 million per 
election year is spent by unions on behalf of liberal Democrats. This 
is blatantly unfair and one-sided.
  But I ask my colleagues not to take my word for it. Listen to what 
Thomas Jefferson, our third President and the author of the Declaration 
of Independence, had to say about this matter. In 1779, Thomas 
Jefferson wrote: ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money 
for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is 
sinful and tyrannical.'' Yet the American worker is forced to do just 
that.
  Finally, President Bush has repeatedly said that paycheck protection 
is an important component to any campaign finance reform bill. We 
should give the President a fair and balanced campaign finance reform 
bill that he can sign into law.
  I support the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, today we have a historic opportunity to 
enact meaningful campaign finance reform. The Senate completed its work 
and passed a bill. The bipartisan Shays-Meehan measure has been twice 
passed by this House in previous Congresses.
  We are on the threshold of bringing real reform to a system that is 
out of control and overrun by big-monied interest. Yet here we are 
debating the merits of a procedural rule that can only be characterized 
as guaranteed to fail. It does not allow the Shays-Meehan bill to be 
considered as a coherent whole. It is disingenuous and unfair.
  This rule allows for 22 amendments designed to eviscerate the Shays-
Meehan legislation; designed to kill the bill. Until we can get a clean 
up or down vote, we might as well tack up a ``for sale'' sign on all of 
our office doors.
  We need to question the overall strategy behind this rule. If Shays-
Meehan does not get defeated on the floor, then the opponents have 
paved the way for it to die in conference with the Senate.
  I urge my colleagues to support genuine reform; that they not be 
afraid of real action. Restore integrity to our political process, 
restore America's faith in its political process. Defeat this rule. 
Support a clean vote on campaign finance reform.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I have the unofficial comments made by my colleague, the gentleman 
from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), last night in the Committee on Rules, 
which I would like to just share with the House as we look at the rule, 
the debate of the rule, with the balance of the time we have left.
  The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said: ``I just want people 
to have a fair and open debate on this process. Even if it disadvantage 
us if we have 200 amendments to go after our bill, I have always 
believed that the debate is healthy. I have always taken the position 
that we could be the substitute or the base bill, as long as ultimately 
you amend whatever is the base bill.
  ``Obviously, if you take up the Ney bill and he takes us down, we 
lost. And then you amend the Ney bill. If we survive, then we amend our 
bill. I have always taken that basic view.
  ``A vote for the Ney bill is a vote against our bill. And if he is 
the base bill and we replace him, then we amend our bill. I have always 
made that assumption.
  ``This manager's amendment, as I referred to it, I reluctantly call 
it the manager's amendment, it sounds ostentatious. I am not sure I 
feel like a manager. But this is an amendment that gets our bill in a 
form that we are most comfortable defending. And so obviously we like 
it. Some people have said you might like to divide them up into pieces; 
however, you decide.''
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).
  Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, what we are talking about is not really 
about technicalities, though there is a manager's amendment that we 
should have been able to offer and, in fact, we will be able to offer, 
because this rule is going down if we do not get an up or down vote on 
campaign finance reform.
  But what this really is about are technicalities designed to kill a 
bill to end this soft money abuse. The United States Senate, in a 
historic vote, voted for a bill we have been working to preconference 
with Members of the other body. We have negotiated over a period of 
time and had a final product at 12 o'clock midnight on Tuesday. The 
Committee on Rules did not meet until Wednesday, sometime around 3 
o'clock. We should have had the opportunity to present to the committee 
and have an up or down vote on the bill that we agreed to. But 
technicalities were being used to try to defeat campaign finance 
reform.
  There is a strong feel across America these unlimited amounts of 
money have to be curtailed. We cannot get a patient's bill of rights 
passed in this body because of the influence of soft money. We cannot 
get Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors because $15.7 
million in soft money are gumming up the works. It becomes difficult to 
get legislation passed to protect our environment when continually soft 
money has played a role in killing that legislation.
  So my colleagues can talk all the technicalities that they want. The 
fact of the matter is, my colleagues will either give us an en bloc 
amendment or we will defeat the rule. Because the American people want 
a vote on Shays-Meehan, and they want that bill to be similar enough to 
the bill passed in the other body so that we can avoid a conference 
committee, where legislation to reform our campaign finance laws have 
historically died, where the Patient's Bill of Rights died, where 
reasonable gun safety measures to protect America's children have died.

[[Page 13102]]

  We want to avoid that conference committee. So we have preconferenced 
this bill in an effort to build on the progress that was made in the 
other body, in an effort to work with Members in a bipartisan way in 
this body, Republican Members who are willing to take on this issue in 
a leadership role and a bulk of the Democrat party, to see to it we end 
this abuse of the soft money system. It is inexcusable to continue to 
fund political campaigns through unlimited amounts of money.
  I believe tonight, as soon as my colleagues acquiesce on this rule, 
we will be ready to begin that historic debate.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume 
to comment that I am glad my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), addressed the group in the House today, 
because he was not at the Committee on Rules to present his case before 
us as we deliberated over the rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, this has been a very difficult couple of days. I have 
been working with the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) on this 
matter for some time. Some time ago the gentleman from Connecticut, 
speaking on behalf of himself and his cosponsors, came to me and 
requested that they be given a fair shake on this, that they get a 
chance to have their bill heard and have it heard in a timely fashion. 
We have worked on that. Today is the time that the gentleman from 
Connecticut and others have agreed to.
  The gentleman from Connecticut came to me and said, I do not want 
anybody stacking the rule against me, I want to make sure it is a fair 
competition between my bill, which over 2 weeks ago he informed me was 
written. In fact, the gentleman came to me and exercised his 
frustration and impatience that the bill that the committee would put 
up was not yet written when his was already written and ready to go, 
and would I protect his bill so that he could have a straight up and 
down bill, as his bill was, and was written and was ready to go at 
least 2 weeks ago. We assured him that that would happen.
  He subsequently came back and said I want my bill as a base bill, not 
the committee mark. I do not want the conventional thing here, which is 
to put the committee's mark on as the base bill and have mine as a 
substitute. I want mine as the base bill, and let the committee's be a 
substitute. We agreed. We wanted to be fair. We gave him that special 
consideration. So his bill is the base bill.
  And, now, in the last few days, he has come before us and he said I 
want to amend my bill, and I have a demand that I have my amendment in 
the way I would like it. And he said, I have 14 different things I 
would like to do with this bill; 14 different amendments to this bill. 
Six of the 14 are provisions to strike all together provisions in his 
bill that was ready to go 2 weeks ago. Six provisions to strike.
  Now, what does he want to strike? What are those provisions? I think 
we ought to talk about it. Three of those were to clarify provisions 
that he had in his bill, that was ready to go 2 weeks ago. Let us go 
with it. But now we need time, in this 11th hour, to clarify. What are 
those three clarifications? What do they mean?

                              {time}  1430

  I think we ought to know about that. Here is one, for example. What 
does this mean? It says he has one amendment that would increase the 
aggregate limit on individual contributions to $95,000 per cycle, 
including not more than $37,500 per cycle to candidates, and reserving 
$20,000 per cycle for the national party committees.
  Is that soft money, or is that hard money? What individuals are we 
talking about? I think we ought to talk about that amendment.
  Our complaint is that I do not get these 14 amendments. Incidentally, 
I might mention, Mr. Speaker, 145 amendments were submitted to the 
Committee on Rules. The Committee on Rules accepted 20 amendments. 
Fourteen of the 20 amendments that were accepted were amendments of the 
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). Here is a fellow who has gotten 
his bill that just 2 weeks ago was ready to go as the base bill, and 
now he needs 14 amendments to his own bill.
  When was the last time we saw anybody in this House come to the House 
with their bill and need 14 amendments to their own bill, 14 separate 
amendments to their bill? Also, if I do not get them, I am not being 
treated fair.
  I am a little concerned about that concept of fairness. Fourteen of 
the 20 were given to the author of the bill himself, to amend his own 
bill, that just 2 weeks ago was ready to go, 14 substantive amendments.
  What we have is a person who got the bill on the floor when he wanted 
it on the floor, got the bill that he wrote that was ready to go as the 
base bill ahead of consideration of the committee's bill, who has been 
given the opportunity to have 14 out of the 20 amendments made 
available to amend his own bill on the floor, who is now complaining 
that we are not being fair with this Committee on Rules.
  What more could the Rules Committee have done? Who else got that much 
consideration on any bill at any time? It is not fair.
  Then further, not being satisfied to just complain that the Committee 
on Rules is an unfair committee of our colleagues, we have an attack on 
the Speaker himself from the New York Times, not a disinterested party.
  The New York Times that knows very well their institutional influence 
over elections will be enhanced by the Shays-Meehan version of the bill 
more so than the committee mark. The New York Times says the Speaker 
balkanizes a bill he opposes against the sponsors' wishes, and he calls 
it an arrogant abuse of power.
  The Speaker has put the bill that was ready to go 2 weeks ago through 
the Rules Committee on the floor as a base bill. The Speaker has said 
we are going to allow 20 people to offer 20 amendments to that bill in 
a timely, orderly fashion. Fourteen of the 20 amendments are given to 
the author of the bill himself, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker, let me spare myself this embarrassment. I pledge to you 
right now, should at any time ever in the future of my service in the 
Congress of the United States I have the honor and the privilege of 
having the Committee on Rules make my bill in order as the base bill, 
ahead of the committee's bill, I will not embarrass myself by asking 
for 16 amendments to rewrite my bill, and further insist that the 16 
amendments be made together as one lump-sum amendment not to be 
examined, not to be dissected, not to be understood, not to be debated, 
but just an ad hoc rewrite at the moment on the floor.
  I will try to the very best of my ability, when I say my bill is 
ready to go, to be satisfied, to have my bill ready to go and not need 
to amend it with 16 amendments.
  To further save myself the embarrassment, Mr. Speaker, let me pledge 
right now that should at any time ever in the future of my life as a 
legislator I have a Committee on Rules that is generous enough to give 
me, out of 145 requests, 14 of the 20 requests that are honored as 
amendments to my own bill, I will save myself the indignity of 
protesting the unfairness of it all.
  Let me say to the New York Times, give me a break. What more do they 
want in the name of fairness?
  Here is the deal. We have those people who had a bill passed in the 
Senate, who have decided that their bill does not need to be subjected 
to a normal legislative process, which is to be conferenced with a 
similar bill from the House, that which happens with virtually every 
piece of legislation ever legislated in the history of this body, a 
normal conference process, that believes that they will be cheated if 
they do not get their exact Senate bill passed in the House.
  That is unreasonable, uninformed and arrogant. To say that I am being 
subjected to unfairness when I am asked to go through a normal 
legislative process is arrogant.

[[Page 13103]]

  Mr. Speaker, this Committee on Rules is a decent, honorable 
committee. They have been fair and just. They have been considerate. 
The Speaker is a decent, honorable man, who has bent over backwards to 
be generous to the advocates of the Shays-Meehan bill. He does not 
deserve this kind of diatribe. I regret there are people in our body 
who are so small.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ARMEY. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, am I correct that the gentleman from Texas, 
speaking on behalf of the Speaker, is in support of Shays-Meehan; or is 
the gentleman against Shays-Meehan?
  Mr. ARMEY. Mr. Speaker, I am in support of responsible campaign 
finance reform that does respect the first amendment rights of the 
American people and does not trespass against freedom of speech; and I 
am not confident that Shays-Meehan is done as well as the committee 
mark. But on the debate of the rule, do not tell me that I am being 
treated unfairly when I have been given 14 separate opportunities to 
amend my own bill. That is unreasonable. That is arrogant.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Roemer).
  Mr. ROEMER. Mr. Speaker, today we have an extremely important vote 
for this body, a vote that counts instead of a vote that can be passed 
off and characterized as it does not make a difference.
  Today papers all across the country screamed that the Republican 
Party raises record amounts of money, and the Democratic Party raises 
record amounts of money. All this big money hurts the little person. It 
hurts the little person's voice to be able to participate in this 
election process.
  Mr. Speaker, I would hope that we would defeat this rule as written 
because this rule not only dissects and bisects the Shays-Meehan 
language that should have been a manager's amendment to perfect this 
bill, but it is an unfair rule. Republicans and Democrats should bring 
this rule down so we can get legitimate debate on the other matters.
  Mr. Speaker, the House centrist coalition of five Democrats and five 
Republicans strongly supports Shays-Meehan; I hope we vote for that 
bill at the end of the day.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Horn).
  Mr. HORN. Mr. Speaker, if we are serious about campaign finance 
reform, this is our one chance. Some of the party leaders in both 
parties do not want reform, and I think we have seen examples of it 
during this debate. They do not want reform. They would be delighted 
for us to turn down the rule. That is exactly what they are waiting 
for.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been a longtime helper with Shays-Meehan, and the 
money providers who work for each party is what some of these party 
people are simply working on.
  Vote for the rule. It is the one chance we have to make real reform 
happen. Those who do not vote for this rule will play right into the 
hands of those who want no reform. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I stand in strong opposition to this rule. 
In fact, it amazes me that we would even consider such a convoluted 
attempt to sabotage true campaign finance reform.
  Mr. Speaker, I represent a district that has an 83 to 85 percent 
voter turnout. So my colleagues know that the people I work for care 
very much about our Nation. They care about our Constitution, and they 
care about the campaign process.
  Mr. Speaker, my constituents and people all over this Nation want 
campaign finance reform like the Shays-Meehan bill that will take big 
money out of the process. And like all people, they want young people 
in particular to feel that they belong to the process, that they want 
to be involved, that they are proud to be voters, that they are proud 
to be part of the democratic process.
  The people I represent in Marin and Sonoma Counties know that our 
democracy depends on getting everybody involved in our electoral 
system. We must defeat this bill so we can start over.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, when I first came to this House in a special 
election 3 years ago, my first official act after being sworn in was to 
sign on to the Shays-Meehan bill. It was one of the proudest moments of 
my career. Today is one of the darkest days I have ever experienced in 
this Chamber.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule, passed in the dead of night, is unfair. It is 
undemocratic. It is a cynical parliamentary ploy aimed at stopping a 
straight up-or-down vote on the Shays-Meehan bill as a whole.
  The American people will not stand for this. They want to see 
democracy restored. They want us to reform a campaign finance system 
that is awash in unregulated soft money and dominated by special 
interests.
  Mr. Speaker, let us defeat this rule and have a fair and honest 
debate on the merits of the Shays-Meehan bill. By defeating the rule we 
can reassure all Americans that our cherished democracy is not for 
sale.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, rarely are there times that one vote can 
fundamentally turn the tide of political history. I think today is such 
a moment. Our generation of political leadership can shape a new 
future, a future which will be free from the influence of unregulated 
and unlimited contributions.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that we must make it a relic of the past where 
every issue we consider and every issue we ignore, from health care 
reform to energy policy, is determined by the clout of one special 
interest or another, and where the Congress has become more a 
marionette than a Legislature.
  Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that less than half of the people of 
our Nation turn out on election days? Weak substitutes allowing soft 
money and third-party advertising to continue will only foster a 
disconnect between the people and those who represent them.
  I do not like the push to raise the limits for hard dollars because I 
think this debate is about limiting the influence of money and politics 
and not increasing it. But this issue is larger than what my concerns 
are. We should go back to what our Founders both dreamed about and 
built when they founded the greatest democracy in the history of the 
world. We should reform the system. We should defeat this rule, and we 
should adopt real, meaningful campaign finance reform.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, when I was growing up there was a kid on my 
street that was not very good at any games we played. He was so bad 
that he would oftentimes not get a chance to play after his team would 
lose. But because he owned the football and the basketball that we had, 
or we played with, he oftentimes got a chance to play. The gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. LaTourette) is laughing. He may know what I am talking 
about a little bit. It seems to me we have reached a point here in the 
Congress where there are some players on the other side of the aisle 
who simply are not as good as some of the players on this side of the 
aisle.
  In this instance, we have a bill called Shays-Meehan, which is 
superior to theirs. So my friend, the distinguished majority leader, 
has come to the floor and suggested to us all that the way in which we 
are proceeding with this legislation, the way in which my friends, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts

[[Page 13104]]

(Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), went 
before the committee somehow or another surprised him.
  This is the same United States Congress that kept us here until 4 in 
the morning to vote on a $1.3 trillion budget, in the wee hours of the 
morning; the same United States Congress that kept us here until 7 in 
the morning to vote on a budget. Shame on you, Mr. Leader. Thank you, 
New York Times.
  We ought to be thankful that Shays-Meehan will eventually get an up 
or down vote and will eventually ban soft money. Mr. Leader, bring the 
ball back. Let the rest of us play. You have a bad bill, but America 
wants meaningful campaign finance reform.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Pelosi).
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, every person in this body takes an oath of office to 
protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all 
enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no greater enemy to our 
Constitution, indeed to our democracy, than the role of money in the 
political process today. Those of us who take this oath of office to 
serve in Congress serve in Washington, D.C., a city that was built on a 
swamp. Two centuries later, it is back to being a swamp, a political 
swamp.
  Today, we have the opportunity to drain the swamp and change the 
political landscape of political fund-raising in our country. We have 
an opportunity to empower the people. How many people have been turned 
off by the political process because of the role of big money? How many 
people fear that the Speaker's gavel is an auctioneer's gavel, not the 
gavel of the people? How many people decide not to run for office 
because of the role money plays?
  Today, we have an opportunity to send a message to the American 
people that their role in the political process is important, in 
supporting candidates or in being candidates. We have an opportunity to 
clean up our act. And indeed we have a responsibility to do so. I have 
great confidence that if we pass the Shays-Meehan bill and when we pass 
the Shays-Meehan bill, we will clear the way for a new way in America 
in terms of political involvement. We have the creativity, we have the 
experience, we have the issues, we have the interest on the part of the 
American people which will be reawakened to involve them more fully in 
a government of the people, by the people, and for the people.
  I urge my colleagues to take advantage of this historic opportunity 
and support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very 
much for yielding me this time. My applause is to Shays-Meehan and to 
Ney and Wynn for engaging us in a debate that should be worthy of what 
the Founding Fathers thought that America was all about, democracy. But 
I will say to my dear and distinguished colleague, I am embarrassed. I 
am embarrassed that we would take the Shays-Meehan legislative 
initiative as we would take any other and totally implode it so that a 
reasonable debate could not be had up or down on this legislative 
initiative.
  I am reminded of the telling of such an act some years ago when we 
were in the majority and we decided to play politics with a budget 
bill. It was wrong and we lost on the rule. So I stand here today 
saying, I am disappointed that the amendments that I had that dealt 
with the empowerment, ensuring that ethnic and racial minorities would 
be empowered to do voter registration and outreach were denied. But I 
am more embarrassed and I am outraged that we would not give the Shays-
Meehan legislation an up or down vote and we would decide to give us 
this long list of fingers, so confusion will abound and the Founding 
Fathers' belief in democracy will be extinguished.
  We need to defeat this rule so that we can have a fair and democratic 
process to debate this like our Founding Fathers and I know our Mothers 
would have wanted us to do.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule.
  The purpose of campaign finance reform is to make federal election 
financing fair and balanced for all candidates. This is something we 
all agree with, regardless of party. I find it extremely troubling that 
the Rules Committee would report out a structured rule designed to 
limit and confuse meaningful debate on H.R. 2356, the ``Bipartisan 
Campaign Finance Act of 2001.''
  Mr. Speaker, this rule is simply not in the spirit of bipartisan 
cooperation. Campaign Finance reform is an important issue for the 
future health of our country. Every person in America will be affected 
by the debate we hold today. It is a travesty of good government to 
prohibit an up or down vote on this piece of legislation. By limiting 
debate on H.R. 2356 to a technical discussion of individual portions of 
the bill, the Rules Committee has made it virtually impossible for this 
body to do justice to the magnitude of the decision we make here today.
  Mr. Speaker, I am also disappointed in the committee's decision to 
offer a narrow slate of poison pill amendments for debate. I offered 
three debates in the spirit of inclusion and good government. The first 
might have helped this legislation to avoid a constitutional challenge 
by allowing constituent groups the right to speak with their elected 
leaders. The second might have allowed for more detailed information on 
campaign finance reform by tracking its effect on all communities in 
the United States. The third would have committed this body toward fair 
and equal participation for all in elections. Rather than consider 
these proposals, the leadership has stifled considerable debate by 
reporting a rule designed to push their agenda through without regard 
to the will of the American people once again.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States has reached a crucial point in its 
history. We could have discussed meaningful amendments that would 
protect the voices of all Americans. The Rules Committee should have 
paid attention to both the ancient and recent history of this Nation. 
Equal access to the right to vote has been a constant struggle within 
the United States, and until we take seriously the right of every 
citizen to participate in the political process by developing a 
campaign finance structure that promotes election reform for all 
Americans, this country will suffer.
  I am disappointed. The American people will be, too. I oppose this 
rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New 
York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, today we are talking about an 
issue that over 250 Members of this House have voted for twice and 
passed in the past. A similar bill has already passed the Senate in 
April. The leadership of this House promised supporters of campaign 
finance reform a straight up or down vote on Shays-Meehan, a bill so 
similar to the Senate version that a conference committee was not 
required, and we know that the conference committee has been the 
graveyard for campaign finance reform. I guess the leadership felt they 
could not win on the merits, so they had to manipulate the process to 
shortchange the American people once again.
  Let us show the American people that our government is not for sale. 
Let us show the American people that we support elections, not auctions 
to the highest spender. Let us vote against this undemocratic rule. Let 
us bring it down so that we can bring Shays-Meehan to the floor for an 
up or down vote and send it to the Senate so a conference committee is 
not required, the President can sign it, and we can finally pass 
meaningful reform.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Michigan (Ms. Rivers).
  Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise against this rule, and I raise my 
voice in support of a straight up or down vote on Shays-Meehan.
  The Supreme Court of the United States has laid out very clearly for 
all of us the role that Congress can play in regulating elections in 
this country. They have told us that Congress can prohibit the use of 
corporate treasury funds and union dues money in Federal elections. 
They have told us that we may limit contributions to candidates, 
parties and political committees; that we may pass laws to combat 
actual corruption and the appearance of corruption in the operation of 
the Federal Government; that we can require disclosure of the source 
and size of certain

[[Page 13105]]

kinds of spending and most contributions; and that we can regulate 
coordinated expenditures to thwart attempts to circumvent existing 
election law. That is what the Supreme Court has already said.
  Shays-Meehan does no more than what the Supreme Court has already 
endorsed, and it does no more than what is right. I urge Members to 
vote against this rule and support Shays-Meehan.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Schiff).
  Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in opposition to the rule, a rule that in effect takes 
Shays-Meehan and cuts it into 14 little pieces, a rule that says to the 
supporters of Shays-Meehan, If you are willing to vote for it once, we 
are going to put you to the test of voting for it 14 times.
  Why is this being offered over the opposition of both Shays and 
Meehan? Very simply for this reason, the opposition believes they 
cannot defeat Shays-Meehan in an up or down vote. The only way they can 
defeat this legislation is if they can obfuscate; if they can make it 
ambiguous, unclear; if they can conceal to the American people whether 
they are really for it or against it.
  The American people not only have the right to an up or down vote to 
end soft money and its corrupting influence on the political process, 
they have the right to the accountability that comes with a clear and 
unequivocal vote up or down on campaign finance reform. That is what is 
being denied with this rule. That is why we must reject this rule, so 
that the American people can have a clear and unequivocal vote for or 
against campaign finance reform.
  I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio 
(Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, to my colleagues, I stand in 
opposition to this rule. As a second-term Member of Congress, 
legislation was quite new to me in my first term. What I am seeing 
happening today is the inability of a legislator with good intention to 
offer a campaign finance reform bill who, after having had a chance to 
speak with his or her colleagues, saying, Well, maybe that's a good 
idea. Maybe I should suggest an amendment or a change. Yes, there are 
14. There probably could be 25 amendments that would be offered by 
colleagues to try and make this a better bill.
  I must say very truthfully, I am still torn about how we do campaign 
finance reform. I support campaign finance reform because I know it is 
good for all the people of our country. How we get to it seems to be a 
difficult question. And I say to Mr. Leader and to others here on the 
floor, let us take some time. The Senate dedicated 2 weeks. Why do we 
only get 1 day?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This is kind of an extraordinary situation we now find ourselves in 
on the floor. I would like to reiterate something I said at the 
beginning of this debate. This is a very peculiar result. The 
Republican leadership has crafted such an unfair and unusual rule that 
it may have the exact opposite effect of what the Republican leadership 
intended. They are trying to defeat Shays-Meehan, but they have written 
such a terrible rule that they may in fact drive some of the opponents 
of Shays-Meehan into the Shays-Meehan camp. It is a very interesting 
result.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), the Democratic leader.
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I hope that we can still have a rule today 
that is fair and seen as fair by Members on both sides of the aisle. 
This issue is a bipartisan issue. It is an issue on which we have 
always had bipartisan support. What we are saying today is that a vote 
for the rule as it presently reads is a vote against real campaign 
reform. I know there is disagreement on that, but all we are really 
saying is that we would like and appreciate what we believe is a fair 
procedure. And to us that means allowing us to have a manager's 
amendment putting all of the changes that we want to make in our bill 
in order with one vote. We then are happy to face any amendments that 
anyone wants to, in an orderly way, make against this bill and then 
vote on the Ney bill and then vote, if that does not succeed, on the 
Shays-Meehan bill.
  This is an important moment in our democracy. There are many of us 
who feel deeply that this system is flawed, that there is too much 
money involved in campaigns, that the American people have become 
cynical about politics and about our democracy, and we have to be able 
to at least have an effort to pass real, meaningful campaign reform 
now, today, or at the latest tomorrow or next week.
  I ask the leadership in all sincerity to give us what we believed was 
a fair procedure, for us to be able to get our bill perfected and in 
front of the Congress, take any shots with any amendments that are 
desired and then give us a vote on Ney and a vote on Shays-Meehan.
  I will just finally say again, this is a big moment for our country. 
A lot of people out there are watching. There are a lot of people out 
there, just ordinary citizens, who want there to be less special 
interests involved in the political process. They want the Government 
and the democracy returned to them. They want to know that their small 
contributions of participation and checks into this system count as 
much as the $50,000 and the $100,000 and the $500,000 checks.

                              {time}  1500

  I pray that we can come out of this House of Representatives today 
with real reform.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule. What could be more 
fair, Mr. Speaker, than to allow all the changes that Members have 
requested to be debated and voted in the daylight of public scrutiny on 
this floor. We are all here because we believe that righteousness 
exalts a nation, but let us craft a system today that exalts the 
righteous, brings down the corrupt but does not sacrifice the blood-
bought liberties, the freedom of speech of all Americans.
  I strongly support the rule and I urge its passage.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on 
the rule be extended for 20 minutes, equal time between the majority 
and the minority.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from New York?
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I would ask if 
the gentleman could please restate his unanimous consent request.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield under his 
reservation, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the rule be 
extended 20 minutes, and for equal time between the majority and the 
minority.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, reserving my right to object, I would ask the 
gentleman why he is making this request. This is a very unusual 
request. I have been in the House for 23 years. I do not recall the 
time being extended on a rule at any time during the 23 years that I 
have served in the House of Representatives.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield under his 
reservation, I am a new guy in the House. I think that some of my 
colleagues have expressed that they would spend some time expressing 
their view on the rule. I think some of my colleagues are seeing some 
different dimensions on the rule in discussions with some of the 
colleagues after hearing some of the debate on the rule, and I am one 
of those that believes that before we conclude our business tonight we 
are going to have a full and open debate on campaign finance reform.
  I think my colleagues are expressing in the debate of the rule the 
opportunity of how we will continue having an open, fair debate on 
campaign finance reform.

[[Page 13106]]


  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, continuing to reserve my right to object, I 
would ask a question, if I may, and I see that the chairman of the 
Committee on Rules is on his feet. I would ask the chairman, is it the 
intention of the majority side to seek a change in the rule at this 
point to amend the rule at this point?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield under his 
reservation?
  Mr. FROST. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me say it is obvious that we very much, in a 
bipartisan way, want to move ahead with campaign finance reform. My 
friend and I discussed this late last night in the Committee on Rules, 
and we fashioned a rule and it is quite possible that we could, as we 
have discussed with the side of the gentleman, propose a modification 
to the rule. As we work on that unanimous consent request which has 
just been propounded by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), it 
is so that we might continue an interesting discussion on the issue of 
campaign finance reform and, during that time, ensure that we have a 
package put into place that will allow us to proceed with a full and 
fair and vigorous debate throughout the rest of the afternoon and 
evening.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, further reserving the right to object, I 
would ask the gentleman, is this discussion about changes in the rule 
only occurring on his side of the aisle or are there any Members on our 
side of the aisle who are being consulted about potential changes in 
the rule?
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this juncture, I will say that I know 
that there are consultations that have gone on in a bipartisan way.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. I think there are conversations going on everywhere.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Frost) under his reservation of objection.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer), the ranking member of the Committee on House Administration.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) 
for yielding me this time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move for a call of the House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, a call of the House is 
ordered.
  Mr. HOYER. I do not believe the gentleman had the floor. He did not 
have the floor.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I believe that I had the floor. I do not 
believe the other gentleman is recognized.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Reynolds) withdraw his unanimous consent request?
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

                          ____________________