[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4491-4496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          OFFICIAL TRUTH SQUAD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 4, 2005, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) is recognized 
for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the conference and 
leadership for allowing me to come before the House during this hour 
today and to present a number of different issues with my colleagues in 
the House of Representatives.

                              {time}  1645

  We are going to bring another edition of the Official Truth Squad 
today. And folks ask, what is the Official Truth Squad? And I guess the 
simplest way to explain it is that it is a group of individuals in the 
House of Representatives who are interested in making sure that the 
American people have the truth presented to them so that they can make 
appropriate decisions. And it grew out of the group of freshmen Members 
of Congress who were elected for the first time to Congress in 2004, 
and after a number of months here, we would meet on a regular basis, 
met about once a week, and when we would talk to each other, we would 
get the same kind of sense about what was happening on the floor of the 
House. We were, frankly, disgusted with all of the personal attacks, 
the lack of cooperation, the leveling of charges, and, frankly, so many 
times, comments that were made that simply were not true. And so we 
said, what on Earth can we do? So we created what we call the Official 
Truth Squad. And we try to come here as often as possible, almost every 
day that we are in session, and talk about issues that are of 
importance to the American people and present the facts.
  We have got a quote that we are so fond of and it comes from Senator 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Moynihan said, ``Everyone is entitled 
to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts.'' 
And here in Washington, we hear something repeated over and over and 
over again, so often that you think it is a fact, that you think it is 
the truth, but, in fact, it is not. And we have just been treated to an 
hour from some of our friends on the other side of the aisle with many, 
many issues that were remarkably distorted. Some of them outright 
untrue. And so our concern is that the American people, in order to 
make correct decisions about what direction this country ought to go, 
they need the facts. They need the truth.
  I have told folks oftentimes, Mr. Speaker, I am a physician. Before I 
came to Congress, I was a medical doctor. And when I would see a 
patient, I could not get to the right diagnosis unless I was given the 
true information, either in a lab test or talking with the patient or 
whatever it was. And the same is true in public policy. Unless you get 
the truth, unless you get real honest information, you just cannot get 
to the right solution because you do not have all of the information 
that you need. So everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there 
are a lot of opinions here in Washington, Mr. Speaker, but they are not 
entitled to their own facts.
  And just by way of clarification of a number of things that folks 
have heard today and oftentimes, but most recently within the last 
hour, I was sitting here in the House, and I had to write down one of 
the comments that was made because it was just so outrageous, and it 
was, ``Everything that is supposed to be up is down and everything that 
is supposed to be down is up.'' And I guess I am supposed to take the 
gentleman at his word, and if that is the case, then I would like to 
point to a few things that are either up or down and are moving in the 
right direction, frankly, Mr. Speaker. And one of them is the number of 
jobs that have been created in this Nation over the last 3 or 4 years.
  A chart says it so much better than I can, but this is a chart that 
shows the number of new jobs, these are new jobs in America, since 
January of 2002 until January of this year. And what you see for the 
first 2 years is a significant decrease in jobs and then on about the 
end of 2003 or the beginning of 2004, it began to tick up, and now we 
have, month after month after month, over 30 months of new job creation 
in the hundreds of thousands, almost 5 million new jobs created in the 
last 2 to 3 years. So that is something that is up that I guess the 
gentleman wants to go down; is that right, Mr. Speaker? This chart does 
not even include the month of February, which was 243,000 new jobs 
across this Nation.
  Here is another chart that shows the direction of job growth. And 
again, the axis down here is January of 2002 through January of 2006, 
and you see what happens to job growth is that on or about the first 
part of 2003, it begins to tick up, and it is ticking up month after 
month after month after month and the unemployment rate ticking down. 
The unemployment rate last month, Mr. Speaker, 4.8 percent across this 
Nation. That is lower than the average for the 1970s and the 1980s and 
the 1990s. I guess that is something that the gentleman wants to go up 
instead of down; is that right, Mr. Speaker? These are good numbers. 
This is good news, economic news, across this Nation. And saying that 
it is something different, confusing people, distorting things, telling 
things that are, frankly, not true does a complete disservice to 
everybody in our Nation because if you are given misinformation, you 
cannot make correct decisions. So what the Official Truth Squad is 
interested in is real information, honest information, the real 
numbers, and then we are confident that people will make the right 
decision.
  Here is another number that I guess the gentleman wants to see go in 
a different direction. This is Federal revenues. This is tax revenue. 
And up until 2003, it was ticking down. And then what happened in 2003 
is that there was a tax cut. There was a tax decrease, and what 
happened was that Federal revenue increased after that and continues to 
increase. In fact, we are now at a rate of Federal revenue increase 
over where it was at the beginning of 2000. And it is kind of 
counterintuitive, but what happens when you decrease taxes is that you 
give people more of their money back, and they are able to spend more 
or save more or invest more, and it spurs the economy. So, Mr. Speaker, 
those are numbers that are moving in the right direction, not the wrong 
direction.
  A couple other items that are very specific that were mentioned 
within the last hour, and the record just has to be corrected because, 
again, truthfulness is imperative if we are to make correct decisions 
here. This is the issue of port security funding, and what you heard 
recently was, frankly, a remarkable distortion of the truth. Port 
security funding in 2001, it was about $30 million. Port security 
funding last year, over $3 billion. Port security funding request for 
this year, nearly $4 billion.
  Mr. Speaker, you can argue about whether or not there ought to be 
that amount of money or more or less, but what you ought not do is 
distort the truth to people and tell them that that is not what is 
occurring, that there are not resources going into port security. It is 
just wrong. It is not fair to the American people. It is not fair to 
the discourse here. And, frankly, it creates a greater cynicism for 
politics than there ought to be. We need to be working together here.
  The challenge of port security is not a Republican challenge. It is 
not a Democrat challenge. It is an American challenge. And an American 
challenge requires that Americans work together. We solve problems best 
when we work together. So I encourage my friends on the other side who 
oftentimes fondly distort things to work with us.
  You hear them talk about their national security agenda. Well, I 
think it is important that we look at the truth. It is important to 
look at the record. What they have said is that one of their 
recommendations is to follow the recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission. But on a roll call vote here in the United States House of 
Representatives, they voted ``no'' on establishing the Department of 
Homeland Security, rollcall 367, July, 2002.

[[Page 4492]]

  On a rollcall vote in July 2004, they voted ``no'' on $21 billion in 
funding to strengthen border protections.
  Now, that is the truth, Mr. Speaker. That is the truth. And it is 
important that people all across this Nation know that.
  One more item as it relates to national security and then we will 
move on to a different topic that I think is important for the American 
people to know the truth about as well. And this is what they have said 
in their national security plan, the folks on the other side, and they 
talk about the need to increase human intelligence capabilities, 
eliminate terrorist breeding grounds, secure loose nuclear materials, 
stop nuclear weapons from development in Iran and North Korea. It all 
sounds wonderful. But what do they do? Rollcall vote 393, Democrats 
voted repeatedly to slash funding for intelligence activities.
  One of the ones that astounds me so, is that recently, June of 2004, 
rollcall vote 293 on the floor of the United States House of 
Representatives, there was a resolution that said we support the work 
of the intelligence community. We support the men and women who are 
working so hard to make certain that you and I are safe, Mr. Speaker. 
And what happened? They vote ``no.'' They cannot even stand up here in 
the House of Representatives and say, we support the men and women who 
are trying to keep us safe.
  So I think it is imperative, it is imperative that we talk about 
truthfulness here on the floor of the House. And, again, if we do not 
talk about the truth, if we did not present all the information 
accurately and appropriately, then the American people really cannot 
make an appropriate decision.
  Now, today we are going to talk about 527s, and I have been joined by 
a number of folks who are members of our Republican conference, and I 
am pleased to have them join us today. I want to put up a poster about 
527s.
  And you say, Mr. Speaker, what is a 527? Well, a 527 is something 
that folks across this Nation may not have heard about but they 
probably heard from them. And it is called a 527 organization because 
it is a political organization whose taxation is defined in the section 
527 of the Federal tax code. And we are here to talk today about 527s 
because we believe fundamentally that they were formed because of a 
loophole in the law and that they are fundamentally unfair and that 
they do not result in any transparency or accountability as it comes to 
elections.
  I want to just highlight a couple of things and then look forward to 
comments from my colleagues.
  Five hundred twenty-seven groups really result in no transparency and 
no accountability. And it is not unfair to Republicans or Democrats; it 
is unfair to the American people. Information that is not filed for a 
527 or posted with Federal Elections Commission, so there is no way to 
get accountability. You do not know who is donating to these groups. 
There is a lack of proper disclosure requirements for filing and donors 
and disbursements. Where do they spend their money? There is no way to 
tell. Filled out forms are often incomplete and disclosure is 
imperfect, again making it so that it is unfair to the American people 
because they will not know, they cannot know because the information is 
not available, who is funding certain ads or activities.
  They fall under the guidelines of the IRS. And as such, as you and I 
know, Mr. Speaker, the IRS is a huge, giant entity that, frankly, 
cannot figure out who is coming or going, and they certainly cannot 
with these organizations. And funding is dominated by a few wealthy 
donors, and I know that we will talk specifically about that. Unlimited 
giving, remarkable unlimited giving, is alive and well in the political 
environment. We believe that that ought to change.
  And I am so pleased to be joined by some of my colleagues, initially 
Congressman Patrick McHenry, who is an official member of the Official 
Truth Squad, a member of the freshmen class, from North Carolina. He 
has just great experience with political activity and also great 
experience with the importance of truthfulness and fairness in the 
public arena.
  And I am pleased to yield to my friend from North Carolina.

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. McHENRY. Thank you, Congressman Price, and thank you for your 
leadership in the Official Truth Squad. I think it is important that we 
come to the House floor and articulate our views and our agenda for the 
American people as Republicans, as conservatives, and as Members of 
Congress. Today I think it is important that we bring up a pressing 
issue dealing with 527 groups. My colleague from Georgia has done a 
very good job of outlining what 527 groups are, what they do, how they 
operate.
  The one thing he points out in his chart there is that funding is 
dominated by a few wealthy donors, unlimited giving is alive and well. 
Let's just go back a few years. Our colleagues on the left, the 
Democrat Party, said that big money is a corrupting influence in 
politics. And so you had men like George Soros, one of the richest men 
in the world, a multibillionaire, George Soros, who I like to call the 
Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat Party, he spent $18 million to root out 
big money in politics. Think about that. That is liberal lunacy at its 
worst, or I guess I should say at its best.
  He wanted to root out the corrupting influence of very large donors. 
That is what he was quoted as saying, to root out issue advocacy phone 
calls, TV ads, radio ads. This last election cycle, he spent $27 
million, wrote a check for $27 million to different 527 groups to do 
exactly what he wanted to ban through campaign finance reform. Liberal 
lunacy, hypocrisy. It is a culture of hypocrisy that we are fighting on 
the left.
  Let's look at the facts and figures. $370 million flowed through 527 
groups. $370 million. That is more than President Bush and Senator 
Kerry spent on the presidential election. This flowed through 
unregulated, undisclosed means. So voters didn't have the opportunity 
to know who these 527 groups are, who their donors are, what their true 
agenda is. And so it is important that we bring out and bring to light 
the need for 527 reform so that we can have accountability and 
transparency, two things that my colleague from Georgia has been 
talking about extensively.
  We are going to point out the culture of hypocrisy on the left. 
Really at the heart of it is their reliance on a few billionaires to 
spend money through unregulated means to go out and influence 
elections. It is very deceptive to the voters. I think it is very 
unbecoming of who we are as a democracy. But I also want to say, 
Congressman Price, that I think our philosophy is similar. We believe 
that freedom works and that free and full disclosure is important to 
the nature of campaign financing. That is what we are trying to push 
with 527 reform.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. You mentioned one person, George Soros. I just 
happen to have prepared a poster here, because you talk about big money 
in politics, and the stated goal by some was to get big money out of 
politics. In fact, that is exactly what has not occurred. The problem 
with what we have right now, as you well know, is that there is no way 
for folks to get this information easily or to know what this money is 
being spent on. George Soros spent $27 million, as you have said. And 
then there are others here as well that I would love to have you 
highlight. I know that you have got information about that.
  Mr. McHENRY. Absolutely. I appreciate you putting up something 
visible for people to see. George Soros. What is his agenda? He is one 
of the greatest leftists this side of Havana and he is trying to 
influence elections for his left-wing agenda. I think it is important 
for the American people to be engaged in elections. But you should not 
allow billionaires to go in and buy elections. You shouldn't allow 
billionaires to go in, through undisclosed means, and influence 
elections. You see Peter Lewis. You see Herbert and Marian Sandler. You 
see Stephen Bing, a huge Hollywood producer. You have Hollywood money 
flowing through undisclosed means to influence elections.
  My agenda, Congressman Price, just like yours, is full disclosure. I 
think

[[Page 4493]]

that is important. My version of campaign finance reform is maybe akin 
to what yours would be, Congressman Price, and that is to allow full, 
open, public transparency of campaigns and allow them to be financed so 
that the American people can see who is financing them. We shouldn't 
limit that financing. Until we have that in America, through honesty in 
Federal elections law, we must level the playing field until we get to 
that point.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate those comments, because they are 
right on where we need to get to. The problem is that politics is the 
art of the possible so what we have got working here in this Chamber is 
the possibility of appropriate reform right now. The accountability and 
disclosure that you mentioned, I think it is important to mention these 
numbers, Mr. Speaker, because they are staggering. The American people 
need to know that. George Soros, we have talked about, $27 million. 
Peter Lewis, $23.9 million. This is personal money coming into 
campaigns that the American people don't know anything about. There is 
no way for them to get that information. Herbert and Marian Sandler, 
$14 million. Stephen Bing you mentioned, but you didn't mention the 
number. The number is $13.9 million. That is money, Mr. Speaker, that 
is being used to influence elections and nobody knows about it.
  When you and I, Congressman McHenry, have our elections, what do we 
do? We put on everything that we have got, Paid for by Price for 
Congress, or Paid for by McHenry for Congress. We have to disclose 
that. And that is appropriate. What happens when they spend nearly $80 
million? Nobody knows.
  I would like to yield now to a good friend and colleague who is not a 
freshman, who has been around here for a little while, but he is a good 
friend and he has excellent insight into this and so many other issues 
and is truly interested, Mr. Speaker, in making certain that the 
American people have the information that they need in order to make 
appropriate decisions. Chief Deputy Whip Eric Cantor from the great 
State of Virginia, I welcome you and look forward to your comments.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman and I commend him on really a 
tremendous job in heading up the Official Truth Squad of House 
Republicans, because it is about transparency. You have done a great 
job at laying out the record here in the House of who votes for what 
and sort of comparing that to the rhetoric that often swirls around 
this place, certainly in the press and in other corners. I would also 
like to commend the gentleman from North Carolina for his leadership on 
this and many other issues. But I would like to, as the gentleman from 
Georgia indicated, talk just a minute about the issue of transparency 
in elections. See, I come from the Commonwealth of Virginia. In 
Virginia, we have an election law that allows for open and often 
disclosure. We have a campaign finance regime that allows for pretty 
much anyone to step up and exercise his or her first amendment right 
without any restriction so far as there is full and quick disclosure. 
That is really what we are all about, I think, here in this country, is 
we are about ventilating what goes on in this body, what goes on in 
elections. And so when this body passed the McCain-Feingold 
legislation, when it passed what we otherwise now call BCRA, somehow 
the Federal Election Commission in its promulgation of regulations 
created a loophole that was unintended, because again I think the 
primary goal of any campaign finance reform should be transparency. We 
should trust the voters and trust the citizens of this country to be 
able to make decisions for themselves as long as they have full 
disclosure of the information. Well, McCain-Feingold produced this 
loophole and the loophole was the 527 entities that were created, or 
really that flourished, after the passage of the McCain-Feingold 
legislation. As both gentlemen have pointed out, this loophole allows 
the super-rich to impact elections and it allows them to impact 
elections with very little to no accountability to the voters.
  As was said earlier, when any Federal candidate runs for office, they 
are required to disclose their contributions, their expenditures to the 
FEC, all of it done now electronically and online for their 
constituents and for the entire country to see. That is the difference 
here with 527s. They simply are not disclosing who their donors are in 
a timely fashion and are not disclosing what type of expenditures they 
are making. In fact, the Center For Public Integrity reported that 
section 527 political organizations raised approximately $535 million 
during the last Federal election cycle in 2004. That was up from the 
prior cycle of $268 million that was raised then. Reports that were 
released by public interest groups and various media sources during 
2004 indicated that these 527 groups were not reporting all their 
contributions and expenditures to the IRS. In fact, the IRS did a 
study. In that study, it was estimated that 527 political organizations 
received nearly $27 million in contributions prior to filing the 
necessary disclosure forms, and consequently may be subject to over $17 
million in unpaid taxes and penalties. So it almost seems as if 527s 
may be averting the law to get away with hidden contributions, hidden 
activities, shady activities.
  We all know and we have read the reports about the type of activities 
that these organizations have engaged in. For instance, one of these 
527s hired dozens of felons as voter canvassers in Missouri, Ohio and 
Florida, including people convicted of crimes such as burglary, 
forgery, drug dealing, assault and sex offenses. Again, if there were 
not this loophole that instead would require 527s to abide by the same 
kind of disclosure laws that any Federal office or any Federal campaign 
committee was required to comply with, we would have known about that. 
In fact, these organizations, my contention would be, would not have 
hired felons and would have been much more careful in their activities.
  But the list goes on about the type of activities that these entities 
are engaged in across the country. That is what we are here today to 
talk about and that the Truth Squad has come to deliberate upon because 
frankly the American people expect better. The American people do 
expect that those who engage in political activity do so in the 
sunshine, do so with the ability for voters to access information and 
for the political process frankly not be commandeered by these groups 
that operate in the dark.
  I appreciate the manner in which the gentlemen from Georgia and North 
Carolina approach this subject and look forward to continuing to debate 
and discuss these important issues that face Americans frankly this 
election cycle.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you really clarifying that issue 
so very well. I think it is important that we talk today about what 
kinds of things these 527s do, because people say, ``I don't know what 
a 527 is. How am I supposed to know? They would never interact with 
me.'' That is what people think. But I am stunned at the number of 
folks that I know who have gotten phone calls from 527s. They are what 
are called push calls, so that they are trying to push an individual in 
a particular direction to believe something that may often not be true 
about an individual candidate or an individual person.
  Mr. McHENRY. Congressman Price, I know you mentioned the telephone 
calls. Some of us get annoyed by these answer machine messages. Some 
people get annoyed by these recorded messages. Even when telemarketers 
are at the other end of the line. I for one agree with my constituents 
on that. But it is important at the end of that telephone call to 
actually know where it is coming from and who paid for it. Under 
section 527 of the IRS code, these groups don't even disclose that. 
They don't have to. They don't have to say who is paying for these 
phone calls. They have to say who they are from. As a Member of 
Congress, I have an obligation to communicate with my constituents. So 
when I make phone calls to them, I disclose that it is coming from the 
Congressman Patrick McHenry office and if they have a problem they can 
call me back at this

[[Page 4494]]

number if they want to be taken off the list or they don't want to be 
contacted. You can't do that with 527s.
  I don't know, Congressman Price, if you recall reading about, or 
Congressman Cantor, I don't know if you recall reading about a 527 
group in one State who hired felons, known felons, folks with criminal 
records, to go out and knock on doors to campaign. It is absolutely 
frightening when you see these shady groups hiring shady people to be 
out in our communities. It is very frightening and the power that you 
see with $80 million coming from just four people to influence 
elections. At the very least we want to know what their agenda is, what 
they are arguing for. What we should be engaged in is more disclosure.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. CANTOR. The gentleman is exactly right. I think the three of us 
and probably most of our colleagues would adhere to a philosophy that 
allows for free and open participation in the political process, but 
again, with the stipulation that that participation brings an 
obligation for full disclosure; and that is in fact what we are about 
here in 527 reform.
  I anticipate and look forward to the debate on this House floor next 
week on the issue of 527 reform. We have got to allow the average 
American the same ability to get involved in the political process 
that, frankly, the super-rich have. As we see in the gentleman from 
Georgia's charts, over $78 million, nearly $79 million was contributed 
and put into the political process by four super-wealthy donors. Now, I 
know that most, if not all, of our constituents do not have the ability 
to participate in that manner, to participate in these 527s.
  The gentleman from Georgia mentioned what is a 527. And Congressman 
McHenry, you indicated, well, they are the ones that are paying for 
these calls that may be interrupting your dinner at home, that may be 
coming and knocking on your door inquiring about your allegiance, 
inquiring about your political affiliation. 527 groups are groups that 
have involved themselves in the political process. They have become 
omnipresent in many places in this country because they can get 
involved in a political campaign really under the radar screen, 
unbeknownst to a candidate, unbeknownst to perhaps both candidates in a 
race. They do so because they are not properly disclosing who their 
donors are.
  Frankly, we do not have the proper enforcement mechanisms in place. 
Mechanisms that should be in place belong at the FEC just like they are 
for any other election campaign.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Accountability really is what it is all about. 
It is so important for people to appreciate that when we make a phone 
call or when we put an ad on the television or when we send something 
out, we have got to say who it is coming from. We have got to say it is 
coming from our campaign. When people get their information from other 
sources, when they get it from the newspaper, they know who is giving 
them information. You can see who wrote the article. You know where the 
editorial is coming from by looking at the editorial boards.
  When you watch the evening news, you know where you are getting your 
information from. When even PACs, political action committees, which 
have often times gotten a bad name, but even PACs have to disclose what 
they are doing, that they are paying for this so Americans across the 
Nation can understand and appreciate who is paying for it, who is 
pushing that discussion point or that argument; and then they are able 
to respond. But what happens with 527s is that nobody knows, nobody 
knows.
  I have got an actual phone call that went out and this was a 527 that 
was put together to attack the Medicare part D program. Now, I do not 
want to talk about the merits of the program, but I want to talk about 
the importance of Americans knowing who is contacting them. This phone 
call went something like this:
  Hello, I am calling from Working America. You and your family must be 
having trouble with the Medicare prescription drug plan. Ask 
Congressman So and So. Congressman So and So received so much in 
contributions from big drug companies and HMOs. Congressman So and So 
voted for the drug program and has drug companies and the HMOs laughing 
all the way to the bank and the rest of us scratching our heads. You 
should call Congressman So and So's number and tell him and her to stop 
working for drug companies.
  Now, whether you believe that message or not, I do not happen to 
believe that, whether you believe that or not, you ought to know who is 
paying for it. That is the importance of the issue that we are talking 
about today.
  Mr. McHENRY. Congressman Price, do they leave a telephone number?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. There is no way to know who is paying for it, 
and there is no way to contact them. You are absolutely right.
  Mr. McHENRY. What group do they say they are with?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. These groups all have wonderful names. This one 
is Working America. It is a great name, but can you find them? There is 
no way to find them.
  Mr. McHENRY. This goes right to my point. Somebody calls you and says 
they are with Working America or they say they are with Mom and Apple 
Pie, and yet this other person is very hateful. That is their message. 
It is always a negative message. There is nothing inspiring about it. 
It does not talk to the greater good. It talks to really the base 
elements of our society and of human beings.
  Look, what I am for is allowing groups to participate who are honest 
and straightforward. I know, I know, Mr. Speaker, I know that is a 
laughable thing in politics. Honest, forthright, openness. Oh, 
goodness. I guess just as a new Member of Congress I still want to 
embrace those things, somebody who is not so focused on Washington. I 
am focused on my constituents. I want to make sure they get the 
information they need, that they have the ability to discern for 
themselves what is right and what is wrong and where we should go as a 
country.
  Congressman Price, I appreciate you using a specific example because 
that allows the American people to hear, to hear what is happening all 
across America with this big interest liberal left wing money flowing 
into politics through unregulated, undisclosable means outside of our 
Federal election laws. That is wrong. And so what we need to get back 
to is openness and full disclosure and to make all groups abide by the 
same laws, that we do not have a two-tier system.
  I do not think it is right in any form in our society to have two 
groups, lower-class citizens, upper-class citizens, big money 
billionaires who play by different rules than you or I as average 
Americans. And so it is important that we have a unified system for 
Federal election laws that say you must disclose, you must be honest. 
And that is why as Congressman Cantor, our chief deputy whip, said, who 
is a great leader on this issue, we will bring a bill to the floor next 
week and it will bring all these rogue 527 groups like the Daddy 
Warbucks of the Democratic Party, George Soros, who is funding left and 
right, left and right, we are going to bring this bill to the floor and 
say that these groups must abide by our Federal election laws. We 
cannot have rogue groups in this country.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I appreciate you so much pointing out one of 
the stock and trades of the 527s, which is what I call ``the politics 
of division.'' And it is so often used because it pits one group 
against another. And it is cynical and it is not an honest debate at 
all. It is calling somebody up and saying, Isn't Joe Schmoe a bum and 
don't you think you ought to do something about it? You have no idea 
who is calling, no idea who is paying for it.
  Accountability and transparency, that is what we are after. And 
people all across this Nation are being affected by 527s, and they may 
not even know it. They are active in over 30 States, countless 
congressional districts in the Nation, and they are affecting people's 
opinions even though the folks do not know that they are there and they 
are paying for this message.

[[Page 4495]]

  We have been joined by Congresswoman Blackburn of Tennessee who is a 
wonderful leader, an honorary member of the Official Truth Squad. We 
welcome you today, and I look forward to your comments.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you so much. I appreciate the gentleman from 
Georgia and his work on the issues and for continuing to work on the 
Truth Squad to get the message out, and the gentleman from Virginia, 
our chief deputy whip, Mr. Cantor, who has been leading on this and 
working with us to be certain that we educate our constituents on 
exactly what a 527 is.
  I love the poster that you have there. It is a PAC by another name. 
One of the problems with this, as we were just hearing from the 
gentleman from North Carolina and you reiterated, people do not know 
where the money is coming from. People do not know who is behind this 
group. And time and again in town hall meetings people will come before 
us and say, I got this call or I got this mailer. Who is this group? 
And then they find out that it is a group that nobody knows who is 
giving them the money. Nobody knows really what they are about. They 
are kind of a shadow organization.
  I think it is time and it is appropriate that we put the emphasis on 
three things, which is what our bill will do next week: disclosure so 
that we know where the money is coming from; transparency so that our 
constituents when they get a piece of mail, they know who it is by. 
When they get a mailer from our campaigns, it says that. When they see 
an ad from our campaigns, it tells them. And we know that they are 
aware of who they are receiving that from. And that type of 
transparency is needed in this system.
  The other thing is about fairness, and it is about fairness for the 
system because addressing these issues, disclosure, transparency, 
fairness, will enable our constituents to know that our focus is on 
being certain that they know that they can trust the electoral process, 
that they can trust that there is some truth in the material that they 
are getting with knowing where it is coming from, and that they know 
that we are working to be certain to restore the trust and integrity 
that they expect from this body and from the electoral system.
  This is something that we have needed to address. We have watched the 
process and the 527s kind of get out of control with the 2004 
elections. And I appreciate what you said about it being the politics 
of division. All too often these groups focus on the politics of 
personal destruction. No one is well served. No one is well served when 
we travel that path.
  Our political process is to be about ideas and bringing forth ideas, 
in bringing forth issues that are focused on how we preserve freedom. 
How do we preserve hope and opportunity for future generations? How do 
we make certain that this Nation stays a free, a productive society? 
And being certain that we have an open and trustworthy process that is 
accountable is a way that we will do that.
  So I thank the gentleman from Georgia for bringing the issue to the 
floor today. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his interest in 
the issue and for being a leader on the issue as we address the problem 
that the advent of 527s have caused in the political process.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentlewoman so much for her 
participation and her leadership and for joining us on this issue today 
because the items that you mention are so important: disclosure, 
transparency, fairness.
  As I mentioned before, this isn't fairness for Republicans or 
fairness for Democrats. This is fairness for Americans. It is fairness 
for the system. We talked about 527s being a PAC by any other name so 
they ought to follow the same rules. That is what ought to occur in the 
House next week.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia to talk about the 
solution, where do we go from here and how do we solve this problem.
  Mr. CANTOR. I thank the gentleman. I thank the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee who has joined us, and I appreciate her dedication to this 
issue and so many others that reflect her desire to achieve 
transparency in so much of what we do here in this body and on behalf 
of the constituents that we represent.
  The gentleman is right, next week will be the opportunity for all of 
us to set partisanship aside, to speak up for the American people, and 
to essentially allow all Americans the access to the political process 
that right now only the super-wealthy have through their use of 527s.
  So we will look forward to hopefully having a bipartisan vote next 
week in closing the loophole, in upholding the principles of McCain-
Feingold, which were to get soft money out of politics.
  We have often heard that that is what McCain-Feingold was about. This 
is what we were trying to do was to get rid of this so-called ``dirty 
soft money.''

                              {time}  1730

  Well, it would seem to me that anyone who voted for McCain-Feingold 
several years ago, in order to be consistent, should vote for the 
measure that will be on the floor next week because, otherwise, I would 
think an individual would open themselves up to allegations of 
hypocrisy, because, in fact, it was the aftermath of McCain-Feingold, 
the regulation process at the FEC, that produced the flourishing of the 
527s; and as the gentleman, gentlewoman and also the congressman from 
North Carolina has shown, this is nothing but a ruse on the American 
people.
  There is an awfully powerful voice out there in many, many areas of 
the country involved in electioneering, a voice that no one knows who 
really is speaking, and that really is not what this country was about. 
That is not what the voters expect of us.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for laying 
out what the plan is, a positive plan, a plan to level the playing 
field and to make the system fair.
  I wonder if Mr. McHenry has some comments about where we go from 
here. What is the positive solution from here?
  Mr. McHENRY. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for yielding. I will tell you 
what we are trying to do is reform reform. Unintended consequences of 
laws are something that we as Americans deal with all the time, and the 
Federal election code has numerous unintended consequences as 
Congressman Cantor mentioned, and what we are trying to do is make 
fairness reign within the Federal Election Code.
  There was a glaring omission with 527s, and what we are saying is, do 
not exempt these groups from Federal election laws. It is very simple, 
very basic, 527 fairness. We want to allow 527s to participate just 
like PACs participate, but they should disclose like PACs and like 
campaigns and abide by the same laws, rules and regulations.
  I am so happy that we are going to come forward with legislation that 
does that, that ensures fairness and a level playing field for all 
Americans and all the people that want to participate in elections and 
make their views and their voices heard.
  Because as I said before, Big Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat party, 
George Soros, he certainly does not abide by the rules and regulations 
that all average Americans have to abide by when it comes to funding 
elections. So let us make sure that the Daddy Warbucks George Soros, 
the Big Daddy Warbucks of the Democrat party, of the leftist agenda, 
has to abide by the same rules and regulations that all Americans do. 
It is a matter of fairness and good government and reform.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your comments, and I 
think it is so important to focus on the issue of fixing and reforming 
the system because that is what our constituents send us here to do, to 
fix and to reform the system. This system is broken, allowing more 
individuals, some individuals to have a greater influence than they 
otherwise might be able to have, and it is not fair. It is not a level 
playing field.
  I just have a few more moments left, but I wonder if the gentlewoman 
from Tennessee might have some closing comments.

[[Page 4496]]


  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Georgia, and 
one of the things, as we talk about fairness, again, going back to the 
politics of division and the politics of personal destruction, I have 
got before me a list of some of the shady acts that were committed by 
527s when it comes to people that were hired to be voter canvassers and 
the way that they filled out faulty registrations and absentee ballots. 
That is the type of activity that my constituents repeatedly tell me 
they feel like should not be a part of the electoral process, that 
individuals should be held accountable for that.
  One of the things that we have found is that many of these activities 
were carried out by 527 groups, and that is something that is causing 
our process to not function as it was set up. It is not fair to our 
voters. It destroys the ``one man, one vote'' principle, and I think 
that it is important that we address the activity.
  I am so pleased that our focus is on disclosure, transparency and 
fairness, and I look forward to working with the Members of this body 
next week to be certain that our focus stays on trusting integrity in 
our electoral process.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman so much 
and appreciate your participation today and leadership on this issue, 
along with my good friends from North Carolina and Virginia.
  The issue of 527 groups is really about the issue of fairness, as has 
been mentioned, and the truth of the situation that we currently have 
right now is that there is a loophole in the current law. There is no 
transparency, and there is no accountability, which means that 
Americans can get information from people that they do not know. They 
do not know who is sending it to them. They do not know what their 
agenda is, and there is no way to find out. That is not a system that 
any of us would devise.
  To cut to the bottom line, which is the bottom line, funding is 
dominated by a few wealthy donors, and we have a lot of talk about soft 
money. What is soft money? Soft money is unlimited money, and in this 
case you have got a number of individuals giving tens of millions of 
dollars to affect the political process with no transparency, no 
accountability and no fairness.
  So what we stand here today to talk about and to present to the 
American people is the truth of the situation, a proposal for a 
solution that is fair to all Americans. The current is a system, as I 
mentioned, that is not unfair to Republicans or unfair to Democrats. It 
is unfair to Americans.
  So what we are here to talk about and to present to the American 
people is a system and a solution that will fix and reform the system 
in a way that is fair.
  I urge all of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, Republican, 
Democrat, to come together next week and to work for a positive 
solution to a real challenge that we have in America, that would bring 
about a positive solution for all Americans and a better system of 
electoral process that we have in our Nation and allow each individual 
American a better opportunity to decide.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased once again and want to thank the 
leadership for allowing us to participate. I thank my colleagues from 
Tennessee and North Carolina and Virginia for participating today.

                          ____________________