[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13116-13117]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                        CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Platts) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Speaker, as a freshman Member of this Chamber, and as 
one who has supported campaign finance reform and fought for campaign 
finance reform for close to 10 years, I need to express my great 
disappointment in the vote that occurred earlier today in which we 
defeated the rule on campaign finance reform legislation and, thus, 
have disallowed that legislation from coming forward.
  Before I share exactly how I voted, though, I think it is important 
to share some of my history on this issue and how I live campaign 
finance reform and not just talk about it.
  Over the last 9\1/2\ years as a candidate first in the State House 
and now in Congress, I have never accepted political action committee 
money. I have limited the amount of money I have spent; I have limited 
the amount of my personal money I have spent. In fact, in my campaign 
for Congress a year ago, I limited my expenditures in the primary to 
less than $150,000; and I was outspent five to one by one opponent, 
three to one by another, two to one by a third opponent. We did grass-
roots campaigning; and thanks to the people of my district, we were 
successful. I ran in that fashion because I believe money is wrongly 
influencing the governing process, and I think it is time we do better 
by the people we are elected to represent.
  Unfortunately, we did not get that opportunity today; and despite my 
strong support for campaign finance reform; in fact, in the June 30 
reports of this year, I imagine I will probably pretty easily be the 
Member with the lowest amount, with $7,000, maybe $8,000 in my campaign 
treasury, compared to hundreds of thousands of dollars, because I am 
not interested in being a fund-raiser, I am interested in being a 
public servant. But despite that history, despite that I seek not just 
to preach about campaign finance reform, but to try to practice 
campaign finance reform, citizens may be surprised to learn that I 
voted against the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the maker of 
the underlying bill that was to come before the House; I voted against 
the position of the distinguished Senator from Arizona who wanted a 
vote against the rule. I think it is important that we discuss why I 
voted that way, even as an adamant supporter of campaign finance 
reform.
  I would contend that the defeat of the rule and, thus, the 
disallowance of the bill coming up for a vote is a huge step backwards. 
What we have done is send the bill back to committee where it may never 
come out of for the rest of the session; and under the best-case 
scenario under the rules of this House, it will at least be several 
months before we get another opportunity to bring it to the floor.
  What was the alternative if we had supported the rule and brought it 
forward? Was it perfect? No. In fact, if I had my druthers, I would go 
one heck of a lot further than we were proposing to do in the 
underlying legislation and the amendments. But if we had allowed it to 
come forward, if we had approved the rule, we would have had the 
gentleman's bill before this House, a very comprehensive campaign 
finance reform piece of legislation. We would have had 17 amendments 
before this House, 12 of which the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. 
Shays) was preparing to offer. We would have had the opportunity for 
two substitute campaign finance reform bills to be discussed, debated, 
and openly voted on in this House. What did we get? Nothing. Not one 
vote. We got a rule denial that sent it back to committee, and we have 
lost tremendous ground.
  The worst-case scenario that could have occurred if we had supported 
the rule, that we would move a piece of legislation forward either that 
was in

[[Page 13117]]

such good form and in such similar form as the Senate legislation, as 
the McCain-Feingold legislation, that the Senate would have concurred 
in it, and we would have taken a huge step to eliminating soft money, 
to reducing the influence of money on the process. Under the worst-case 
scenario, we move forward and come out with a bill that the Senate did 
not like, we go to conference. So we are in conference where we can 
hammer it out between the Senate and the House. Instead, we are still 
in a committee in the House, a long way from getting to a final piece 
of legislation.
  What was the grounds for defeating the rule, those who voted against 
the rule. Why? What did they not like about the rule? It came down to 
this. This is important for the citizens of this Nation to understand. 
It came down to procedure over substance. It was not a question of 
whether each and every one of the gentleman's amendments was going to 
get a vote. All 12 of them under the rule would get a vote. It is that 
he and others wanted them all to be voted as one, in one lump sum, they 
had to take it or leave it, one lump sum. Do I not think that was a 
good approach? I think the 12 amendments was fair, was reasonable. Each 
and every amendment would have gotten a vote on the floor; it would 
have been openly discussed and debated. Instead, none of them came to 
the floor and the underlying bill did not.
  Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day, I think. As one who has fought for this 
reform, and we got so close to getting a substantive vote, and instead, 
we are back in committee. All 228 members who voted against the rule, 
if they so strongly believe the rule was flawed, I would encourage each 
and every one of them and I would hope that each and every one of them 
will bring forward a discharge resolution with what they think we 
should do and that all 228 are on that discharge resolution.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge that we as a House do campaign finance reform 
once and for all and do it right.

                          ____________________