[Pages H4807-H4824]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

BIPARTISAN CAMPAIGN INTEGRITY ACT OF 1997

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442 and rule
XXIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 2183.

{time} 1950

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R.

[[Page H4808]]

2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the
financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other
purposes, with Mr. Dickey (Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose
earlier today, pending was the amendment by the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas) to the amendment No. 13 by the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Is there further debate on the amendment?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs.
Northup).
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding to me
and giving me an opportunity to answer some of the previous statements.
First of all, I was surprised at how many speakers have talked as
though the whole system is corrupted. Maybe I am naive, but I believe
that this is a mostly honest system. I believe that there are those
people that cannot resist money in return for influence, but I have not
seen many colleagues on this floor that are in that position, and I
believe most of our Members work throughout the system in an honest
way.
And so I think it is important to tell the people, the American
people around this country, that while, yes, individuals, corporations
and labor unions contribute money because they care about elections,
that most Members on this floor can cite many instances when they have
turned to those people that are contributors and said, in this case, I
cannot support you, I do not agree, even though they contributed,
because they believed in most instances they shared a common
perspective of public policy.
Most all of us have, on plenty of occasions, looked almost every one
of our contributors in the eye and said, not on this occasion, I cannot
agree with you.
I was asked why I believe nonseverability is so important, and this
is why. I believe almost without a doubt that the courts are going to
strike down the provisions related to independent expenditures. So,
yes, we can make soft money illegal, and soft money, in my opinion, is
the type of money that is used for party building, for general themes.
I am not aware that any soft money has ever come into my campaign. It
may have, but I am not aware that it ever has.
But people that wish to influence campaigns, and we know they are
there, if they wish to influence campaigns, they can begin giving their
money to independent organizations, where most of us believe the
constitutional problems with this system exists. And in that case the
money is not traceable, it is not reportable, and the fact is that
those independent organizations can then collaborate or whisper in the
ear of anybody they want.
I know that I am going to abide by every law in campaign finance. I
know I believe in the system and that I believe in the voters, but I do
not want to create a system where money goes so that it can then be
sent to candidates, so that the candidate that is willing to break the
law the most, who collaborates with an independent organization, who
will be so desperate that they ask an independent organization to, in a
sense, money launder, which is what would happen, that the person that
is willing to break the law the most is the person that has the best
advantage.
Some people say that will never happen, but let me assure my friends
that in Kentucky we passed campaign finance reform for our governor's
races. And what happened? It did not take one session before we began
to have parallel campaigns. For example, somebody left from one of the
candidate's staffs, went to an organization, worked to raise money,
worked to spend money, and none of it reportable, none of it available
for the public to see. And what we had was parallel campaigns going on
out of sight of the voters.
That is the sort of thing that will begin to change the system for
those of us who report every expenditure and who are happy to live
within the system. It will put us at the most disadvantage, and the
person that is willing to collaborate illegally will be at the greatest
advantage.
I am sorry that it is given to those of us that oppose this such evil
intentions, because the truth is there are not many people in this
House that set a better example than if we just have hard money. No
independent money, no soft money. I have raised in my district from
individuals, from the $5 contributors, the $10 contributors that give
every month, and the large contributors, a whole group of people who
have supported me, and I do not need the soft money or the independent
expenditures. But there are people in districts who have not had that
opportunity and they have been able to get their voice out, they have
been able to have the support of the overall party building money that
can turn out voters, that can say this is what the Democratic party
stands for, that cannot be candidate specific, but they will be the
people who suffer.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
has expired.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 2
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from California?
Mr. FARR of California. I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard from the gentleman from
California.
Mr. POMBO. Am I to understand the gentleman from California has
objected to my asking for an additional 2 minutes?
Mr. FARR of California. The gentleman had 5 minutes and he yielded it
all.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection has been heard.
Mr. FARR of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I am one of the authors of one of the bills that are
going to be considered, and I find this process incredibly demeaning,
although we get up here and talk about how open it is because we have
258 amendments on the floor. But, frankly, the bottom line of all this
is that we have to vote on a bill, and the judgment will be whether we
put a bill out and put out a good bill.
Congress is able to do that, because we did it in the 101st session
of Congress, the 102nd session of Congress and the 103rd session. And,
in fact, the bill we put out is more comprehensive than any of the
bills we are debating here tonight. So this body is capable. We never
brought up 258 amendments to try to make those things. We did not talk
about severability in those issues. So I think my colleagues see what
is going on here. There is an effort here to try to really defeat the
issue.
I find it very ironic that we are debating right now on a
nonseverability amendment to a nongermane amendment, because I think
some of the people who sponsor these amendments really do not want
campaign reform. They want nonreform.
This debate sometimes becomes almost silly, because the public may
not understand the legal implications of severability, but they do
understand fair play. And what campaign reform is about in America in
1998 is fair play. How do we take so much money out of the system? We
have to pass a law to do that, and that law has to do a lot of things.
But they are not all connected.
Most people believe in fair play and they also understand that in
fair play people can make mistakes. And this nonseverability debate is
about we can never make a mistake. Congress cannot make one word of a
mistake, because if the court throws it out, we have to throw out the
whole thing. If we lived by that in our lives, then one poor grade
would throw our child out of school; one overdrawn check would cancel
our checking account. In fact, if one Member might get in legal
trouble, we should throw out all Members because they all got elected
at the same time.
So let us get down to what it is all about. This is about a bill that
is a bipartisan bill. We rarely see these on the floor. A lot of effort
went in to try to bring a consensus about so that we could get enough
votes to pass a bill out of this House in this session.
This bill has a lot of parts to it, and for those who say that we
cannot have severability, they have not read the bill. There is all
kinds of little things

[[Page H4809]]

in here, like automatic penalties for late filing. What if the court
threw that out? Do my colleagues think that has something to do with
soft money? Absolutely not.

{time} 2000

Should that kill the reforms on issue advocacy? Absolutely not. There
are all kinds of parts in here that a court could say, for example,
that we have not contributed enough money to enforce the law, some of
the things that we have in here.
We allow the FEC to refer suspected violations to the Attorney
General at any time. Read the bill. If we read the bill we will say,
well, if that one sentence were found unconstitutional, should all of
this other substantive stuff be thrown out? Absolutely not.
That is why people oppose this amendment, because they see this
amendment as a way of destroying the whole effort here of trying to get
a well-thought-out bill, a bill that has been compromised by the fact
that it has gotten this far in this very controversial session of our
Congress.
We need to make sure that we pass a bill that is comprehensive. And
frankly, I think my bill, and both the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I have
been working side by side, I think my bill at this point is much more
comprehensive than theirs. But I am up here advocating the support of
their bill because I think it is what we can politically do.
Let us not try to destroy this with 258 nongermane amendments. That
is silly.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FARR of California. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the point I also was going to make on
severability is, if this amendment were to pass, with all the
amendments that can be offered, how easy it would be for the other side
to simply offer and pass a clearly patently unconstitutional amendment
and the whole bill is dead.
So it could not be clearer, could not be clearer, that this amendment
is a poison pill to kill this bill. Because even if everything in the
bill is totally 100 percent constitutional, unlike the
telecommunications bill, unlike the Brady bill, and unlike a lot of
bills we pass, all they would have to do is come in with a nongermane
amendment that sounds good but that they know is unconstitutional and
it is over.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, one of the previous speakers, and there has been a lot
of discussion actually this evening about tobacco and what happened
over in the Senate, and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) I believe
talked about how I have received a lot of tobacco money. And I wanted
to confess tonight that I do represent 31,000 tobacco farmers and
tobacco companies through their political action committee using hard
money, which is legal, which Shays/Meehan does not try to address at
all. So they are not talking about hard money, that I have received
hard money from tobacco companies; and I do not apologize for that.
But I would also like to point out that there is a gentleman named
Ted Sioeng, who is from Indonesia, and he is the largest cigarette
manufacturer in Red China today. I have a picture here of Mr. Sioeng
and our President Bill Clinton. Mr. Sioeng gave Mr. Clinton and gave
the DNC $400,000. And by the way, it was not hard money, it was soft
money.
Now, I do not object to soft money, except in this instance there is
a Federal Election Commission rule 441(e) that says it is illegal for
foreign nationals to contribute money to campaigns in the United
States.
And so, I would just remind the gentleman that his President, I guess
he is all of our President, some of us like him more than others, but
he accepted $400,000 from this gentleman.
And do my colleagues know something else? They have been trying to
investigate these illegal contributions, which led to a lot of this
debate about campaign finance reform, and we cannot find Mr. Sioeng.
They have been looking for him everywhere. We cannot find him or any of
his family.
But I just want to remind the gentleman that the contributions to me
were legal hard money through the political action committee of which
employees of those companies voluntarily gave the money and PACs came
about as a reform measure themselves to encourage people to participate
in the political system.
Now people are saying that the only reason we are offering these
amendments is that we want to kill this bill, and I would suggest to
them that there are some sincere beliefs that this bill goes too far. I
think that we should support nonseverability for the simple reason that
I think this is a vitally important issue.
I would like to read a quote from Buckley v. Valeo.

Discussion of public issues and debate on the
qualifications of candidates are vital to the operation of
the system of government established by our Constitution.

This is one of the most fundamental First Amendment activities. Now
we seem to be summarily dismissing this First Amendment and the fact
that Buckley v. Valeo has not been overturned and court after court
after court after court continue to affirm it. And I think that the
real reason that our opponents are opposed to this nonseverability
amendment is that they know, without any question, that there are all
sorts of provisions in this bill that are unconstitutional.
Now, our friend from Pennsylvania a while ago said, no one has talked
to me about how these are interconnected, the provisions of this bill.
And I tell him what, when we start broadening the definition of
``express advocacy'' that has a dramatic impact on issue advocacy and
independent expenditures and what can and cannot be done. Those three
are definitely related.
I want to read an article here from the American Civil Liberties
Union. I have never really been a fan of the American Civil Liberties
Union, but I am sure that people who follow them know that their main
purpose in existing is to be sure that the Constitution is upheld. And
they are bringing all sorts of lawsuits around the country on many
issues that people do not like because they feel it is so important to
protect constitutional rights.
I just want to read to my colleagues.

What is wrong with the Shays/Meehan bill? Number one.
Shays/Meehan is patently unconstitutional. The American Civil
Liberties Union believes that key elements of Shays-Meehan
violate the First Amendment right to free speech because the
legislation contains provisions that would one, restrict the
right of the people to express their opinions about elected
officials and issues through unprecedented limitations on
text, accompanying issue group voting records, and restraints
on citizen commentary prior to election, restrict
contributions. Two, and uses of soft money.

And remember, soft money is everything the other groups spend that
are not candidates.
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I was unable to be in the House and on the floor for
the general debate on the rule, and I believe the issue of severability
has been well debated here. I rise now in support of the Shays/Meehan
bill.
Mr. Chairman, my colleagues, there is only one glue that holds this
precious democracy together, trust, trust between the representatives
and the represented.
I speak to lots of young college students throughout the State of
Illinois. They often rise and look me in the eye and say to me,
``Congressman, we do not trust any of you anymore. You are all in it
for yourself. You are all in it for the special interests. No one is in
it for us anymore.''
And when I inquire of them as to what it is that has brought them to
the point of feeling so distrustful about their government, feeling
that their government just does not care about them, they always look
me in the eye and they follow up with this statement. ``Congressman,
just follow the money. Just follow the money. You will know why we do
not trust government anymore.''
Well, I have followed it. And so have my colleagues. We know that
huge amounts of money is buying access to our government. And access
leads to influence, and influence leads to policies that are not always
in the best interest of our people.
If democracy means anything, it must mean that all of our people, all
of our people, irrespective of their economic station in life, all of
them, must

[[Page H4810]]

have equal access to their representative. We must do nothing to
disturb the trust between the representative and the represented.
Mr. Lincoln said it 130 years ago in front of a divided nation. He
said, here is the bottom line. There is no other. This is the bottom
line. Right makes might. Right makes might. Not money. Not power. Not
position. Not even the Congress. Right makes might.
Shays/Meehan is not perfect but it seeks to reestablish some measure
of balance, some measure of equality between the competing voices that
seek to be heard in this democracy.
The constitutional question in that little room in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, 225 years ago was whether the common man, the common man,
would have a voice alongside the monied aristocracy.
Thomas Payne put it in these words. He said, ``Gentlemen, we have the
opportunity to make the world over again, to give common people an
equal voice in their government, something unheard of in the whole
history of the world.''
There are times when we in this body are charged with making America
over again, when equality of voice is denied in our system. Do not do
further injury to this glue, to this trust, which holds us together.
Pass this bill and reject any amendments which seek to weaken it. It is
the right thing for all of our people.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to support the Thomas amendment of the
nonseverability clause. Because we need to do it right. We need to pass
legislation that is constitutional. We should not do anything else. We
know, with pretty clear record, that many provisions have already from
previous legislation been termed unconstitutional. So why should we do
it again?
It was interesting a little bit ago, just a few moments ago, that we
were told by a gentleman that this bill was not quite perfect but it is
almost and we should have no amendments because it is what the Senate
would accept. I hope some day I hear a senator saying, let us keep this
bill as it is because it is what the House will accept. I know that is
not going to happen.
I served in state in both the Senate and the House and I know that is
not going to happen in the Senate, whether it is in state or in
Washington. Though I respect that gentleman very much, we should not be
crafting a bill for the Senate.
I think the vast majority here tonight know that that bill will have
provisions struck down by the courts. And we do not need the poison
pill that the gentleman spoke of a few moments ago. Because this bill,
by most people's opinion, has unconstitutional provisions.
The current law has been in place about a quarter of a century. Large
sections were struck down in 1976 and left us a patchwork plan of
campaign finance, a patchwork.

{time} 2015

It has a lot of problems. But let us not build another system where
the courts can give us another patchwork quilt that will not work. It
will happen again.
Now, think about this a moment. If the court strikes down money to
the parties as being illegal but allows the private groups to be legal,
and that part remains, we have taken the power away from the parties
and we have given it to interest groups that we are talking so much
about. That could happen.
Is Shays-Meehan perfect? No, it is not. I think it misses the mark.
Because I think we have the soft money problem because we have taken
the power away from the people. In most State governments, individual
contributions are not limited at all, and soft money does not play the
role there that it does in Washington. That may not be true in every
State, but it is true in many. The people are stuck with the same
contribution limit that was here in 1974. If that were inflation fixed,
it would be probably 3 or $4,000. Now, if $1,000 was right then, it is
certainly not fair today. Why not empower the individual?
We limit an individual to $25,000 in a whole congressional race. Let
me tell Members why I think that is inappropriate. The Shays-Meehan
approach will limit free speech. It will particularly limit free speech
to those who want to protect the sanctity of life. I do not know a more
noble issue than protecting life itself. It will also prohibit those
who want to protect the right to bear arms, and I come from rural
America and that is a pretty important issue out there, the right to
bear arms, the right to defend yourself. I also come from an area where
private property rights are pretty important, and those groups will be
limited.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to come back to the point of $25,000 for an
individual. Why should an individual who happens to believe strongly
about life not be able to support every congressional candidate with
$1,000 that he wants to? Under the current law, he would not be allowed
to do that, and none of that is changed under Shays-Meehan. Why should
he not be able to support any candidate that is pro-life? Why should he
or she not be able to support anybody who defends the right to bear
arms? That is very important to some people, very important to the
future of this country. Or private property rights. Why should a person
not be allowed individually to give to any person who believes private
property rights is vital to the future? Because Congresses have
historically walked all over people's private rights. The previous
Congresses in my view have infringed on personal rights in many ways.
So why should we not? We need to have a bill that makes sense, one that
will not be partially struck down by the courts, and we need a
severability clause, because if we do not do it right, we need to come
back and do it again.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Peterson
of Pennsylvania was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. The question I had, the gentleman had referred to that
individuals can give up to $25,000. I just want to make sure that
everyone understands on this issue that the most that an individual can
give to a candidate is $1,000 in the primary, and so he cannot give
them $25,000.
Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. That is correct. The point I was making is
any individual can only give under current law, and Shays-Meehan does
not touch that. And we also have a limit that any individual can only
give $25,000 to 435 people. He can only give to $25,000, if he gives
them the limit.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, it is very clear that some figures my staff worked up
today are accurate. In fact, it might be worse than what they worked
up. With the rule that we passed today, 258 nongermane amendments to
stop any real sense of taking campaign finance reform forward and
actually passing it, with this rule brought to the floor by the
opponents of campaign finance reform we can keep talking for 24 hours a
day, 7 days a week for more than 385 days, and we will not be voting
still on campaign finance reform. That is what we allowed today. That
means in mid-July 1999, we could be voting on campaign finance reform.
Tonight proves, if we keep this up, this is exactly what is going to
happen. We are going to kill this thing with all of these amendments.
We can talk day in and day out about nonseverability. We can pull it
apart, we can look at it under the microscope. What it is all about is
stalling real campaign finance reform votes.
The real vote is for the Shays-Meehan bill. If you care about your
constituents, you will get to it and vote on it, and then we can get on
with the rest of the needs that we have for our government.
How did I get to this place? It was really kind of an awakening. A
couple of years ago, I had a meeting in my offices in the district I
represent, the two counties north of San Francisco across the Golden
Gate Bridge. The League of Women Voters came to my office along with
some Common Cause folks and members of the Democratic Central Committee
to talk to me about campaign finance reform.

[[Page H4811]]

I was not where they were. I was more like where you are over there,
I was whining and whimpering and arguing that, ``Well, if we can't have
caps on what an individual can spend of their own money, people like me
will never get reelected, or elected in the first place, because I
don't have any money of my own.''
The people that came, they are wonderful people, they always support
me, but they argued with me. They argued about the need to have
regular, everyday people feel like they were part of the election
campaign system, like they belonged to the political process. They
argued with me about soft money, which of course I agreed with. The
thing I did not agree was that what are we going to do if millionaires
like Huffington, multi-multimillionaires, can spend their own money?
They laughed and they said, ``Woolsey, you know, we agree with you on
everything, so we're going to forgive you this,'' and they left, and I
won my election well in 1996. But as they left and as I started
remembering the things they said, I realized that we do not have to do
this perfect. We do not have to have all of it. We have to start. And
we have to prove to people that we care that they are part of the
process, that it is just not big money, that we are not paying soft
money so that the money is not accountable, and that we ban soft money.
Shays-Meehan does that.
Also, and they pounded this home, and they were so right, that we
have to stop having advertisements and mailers without accountability,
third parties sending out information without anybody knowing who it is
that is sending that information.
So because of these wonderful people that came to my office several
years ago, and because they liked me enough that they thought they
could give me a good kick in the fanny, I came from the slow class to
the fast class. I am here now. I get it. We need to take a step
forward. Shays-Meehan does that for us.
Yes, we want to have a commission. We should add that amendment to
the Shays-Meehan bill so that we can have the commission watching and
going forward and making it even better. But we have to stop
disenfranchising the people in our districts that we work for.
I do not understand who these people that are opposed to campaign
finance reform work for, the people that are your constituents, the
people that elect you, the people that are your employers, do they
listen to you when you say you want more money in campaigning instead
of less?
Mr. Chairman, if we respect the people in our districts and the
people we work for, we will get on with passing campaign finance
reform.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, let me just respond to the gentlewoman from California
who complained that we have now passed a rule that is going to take a
lot of time here.
First of all, the leadership has given its commitment that we will
vote on this issue in August, and I believe they will honor that
commitment.
Now, beyond that, when a proposal such as this, which I believe
fervently strikes at the heart of free expression and the first
amendment, comes forward, then I do not apologize for wanting to take
the time to fully explore all the issues and to explore the
ramifications and to look at alternatives. I do not apologize for that.
I think it is going to take some time, but it is worth it if we can get
the point across to the American people that this is going to the heart
of freedom of speech.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the gentleman that
the Speaker is the same Speaker that shook hands with the President of
the United States 3 years ago, and we still do not have campaign
finance reform.
Mr. WICKER. The handshake was about the type of proposal that we
voted on yesterday, the commission, which the majority of folks on the
other side of the aisle somehow lost interest in when it was finally
presented to the floor.
But if I could reclaim my time now, I just would simply say, I do not
apologize for taking this issue to the American people and pointing out
that this goes to the heart of the first amendment. If Members are for
Shays-Meehan, and they think every bit of it is constitutional, then
they have nothing to fear voting for this nonseverability amendment.
If, however, as I do, if they believe that there are unconstitutional
provisions to this amendment, then they also ought to vote for the
nonseverability, so everybody, regardless of what side of the issue
they are on, ought to vote for the nonseverability.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WICKER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. What do we do about the fact that somebody could offer an
amendment that is clearly unconstitutional? If we were to pass this
amendment and somebody down the road offers an amendment that is
clearly unconstitutional, our bill is dead then.
Mr. WICKER. Reclaiming my time, I am glad the gentleman brought that
up because he made that point earlier. Amendments are not that easy to
pass. Amendments do not just get slipped in. We vote on them. We have
17-minute votes. I do not think amendments are going to be quite that
easy. But if an amendment passes, it will be passed by a majority of
the elected representatives of the people of the United States. I do
not see his concern as being valid, that somehow late at night an
unconstitutional amendment to this already unconstitutional proposal is
going to slip in.
Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will yield further, there have been a
number of amendments that have passed in the telecommunications bill,
the Brady bill, bills that we have passed that the court has said are
unconstitutional, and they have stricken that part of the bill. But
what the gentleman is asking us to do is pass an amendment where if a
comma is unconstitutional, a word, a phrase, the whole bill is gone. It
is a poison pill to campaign finance reform.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, it will only be a
poison pill if somehow the gentleman from Massachusetts or the
gentleman from Connecticut go to sleep and allow that poison pill to go
through.
In the brief time that I have remaining, let me tell Members why I
think this proposal is unconstitutional. First of all, because the
minority leader of the United States House of Representatives really
admits that it is unconstitutional.
Let me show my colleagues this poster which the Members have seen
several times before, but this is the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
Gephardt), House Democratic Leader, February 3, 1997, Time magazine:

What we have is two important values in direct conflict:
freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a
healthy democracy. You can't have both;

an admission by the minority leader that what he wants to do and what
his political allies want to do is unconstitutional. You have got to
amend the Constitution in order to accomplish their goals. That is one
reason that I think this Shays-Meehan proposal is unconstitutional.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WICKER. I decline to yield further.

{time} 2030

Mr. Chairman, further I think this proposal is unconstitutional
because of the unprecedented limitations that it places on political
advertising and political issue expression, and let me explain.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. Wicker) has expired.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for an
additional 3 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Mississippi?
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Reserving the right to object, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts is
recognized under his reservation of objection.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Being recognized on my reservation of
objection, Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman plan to yield during that
additional 3 minutes?

[[Page H4812]]

Mr. WICKER. Really, Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have time to
yield.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Then I would be constrained to object.
I object, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Objection is heard.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me first?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. This is just incredible, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would like to clarify that the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is recognized for 5 minutes
and yields to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Now we have not only does the other side, Mr. Chairman,
not allow us to extend time----
Ms. RIVERS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California yield
for parliamentary inquiry?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. No, I do not yield.
Ms. RIVERS. I have to be recognized for a parliamentary inquiry, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California does not
yield for a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate it. Then they come, and this is amazing, Mr.
Chairman: If we are going to have an open and honest debate, we need to
extend time particularly when the gentleman just yielded time to the
gentleman from Massachusetts to get into the debate, and then the other
gentleman from Massachusetts walks on the floor and objects to an
extension of time after the gentleman has been very courteous to yield
time back and forth.
This is really strange. It is such a lack of courtesy. And then for
the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) to stand up and demand time,
it is just they have got to be kidding.
I think it is really strange, Mr. Chairman, that now after the
gentleman from Massachusetts has objected to the gentleman from
Mississippi getting extra time, now he wants us to yield to him. This
is unbelievable, and I hope the American people are seeing what is
happening on this floor. They want to cut down debate; we want to open
debate, and we want an honest debate in exchange.
Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to exchange with the other side of this
issue, and with that I will yield back to the gentleman from California
so the gentleman from Mississippi can finish his thought.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the unprecedented
limitations on freedom of expression in this proposal before us
tonight.
It costs $62,000 a page in the New York Times to buy a full-page ad,
$62,000. I want to show my colleagues today $82,000. What I want to
show them today is $164,000 worth of expression, the editorial page of
the New York Times. The New York Times Corporation can purchase, can
put out this much expression every single day of the year.
It costs $75,000 a page to buy an advertisement in USA Today. What I
have here before us today is 2 pages, USA Today. The Gannett
Corporation puts out $150,000 worth of expression each day, and there
is no government agency coming in with a microscope saying what kind of
speech is this? Is this issue advocacy? Is this express advocacy? If
they print a voting record, the FEC does not come in and say, ``Well,
now did they write the right kind of comments down at the bottom of
that voting record?'' And that is as it should be. I applaud that. That
is freedom of speech, that is freedom of expression, and that is
America.
But under the proposals that we are going to be debating tonight and
the rest of this process X Y Z Corporation wants to take out an $82,000
ad in the New York Times or a $75,000, or Right to Life wants to spend
$75,000 of its contribution money to take out an ad in the Gannett
newspaper. Then the strong arm of the Federal Government comes along
with a magnifying glass and says, ``Did you say it right? Is it during
the right period of time? Is it during the 60 day period right before
the election?'' And there is a huge government agency coming in with
even more bureaucracy then we have now.
This is an unconstitutional invasion of the right of individuals, of
corporations, of public interest groups to purchase time, to purchase
space in a newspaper and freely advocate as American citizens. It is
unconstitutional. I think that is the very reason we need the
nonseverability clause.
Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment and the defeat of
the Shays-Meehan substitute.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge the defeat of the Shays-Meehan
substitute and support the Thomas amendment.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. RIVERS. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. For the edification of the majority whip:
The reason the gentlewoman from Michigan got up before was she and we
were under the assumption that the normal procedure would be followed
of alternating between the parties. I think a good-faith error was
made, but the gentlewoman was not trying to usurp anything. The normal
procedure is to alternate between the parties. Through a slip-up that
had not happened. The gentlewoman had the reasonable expectation that a
Republican, having completed, it would next have gone to her. That is
why the gentlewoman did raise that question.
Ms. RIVERS. Mr. Chairman, I wish to speak today on 2 issues: the
severability that has been discussed here and also the free speech
issue. I want to speak especially though to the idea that the
unwillingness of the sponsors to include a severability provision in
this bill is somehow an indictment of the bill.
As I said earlier, research shows us that only four bills in this
entire Congress have progressed without a severability clause, four
bills out of 4,965 bills. Virtually every Member in this House who has
sponsored a bill, including everyone sitting on both sides of the aisle
has routinely included that in their bill.
Now are we arguing that this is the only constitutionally
controversial bill that this body has ever considered? Absolutely not.
The argument seems to be that an unwillingness to accept a severability
clause indicates a weakness, that somehow people who are supporting
this believe that there is a problem constitutionally. I will point out
if, in fact, the numbers I am given are correct and we see a lack of
severability clauses in only a handful of bills, that means the
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution routinely does not
have a severability clause in his bills, that the chairman of the whole
Committee on the Judiciary routinely does not have a nonseverability
clause in his bill.
There seems to be a standard for this bill unlike any other, and I
think that that is a problem. Virtually every issue that comes before
this body has this sort of clause. The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
Greenwood) made a very good argument, that these items do not hinge on
one another, that if they lose one, it does not cause the fabric of the
bill to fall apart. They have value independently. No case has been
made why this is different than any of the other bills that we have had
considered.
I want to speak now to the infringement on free speech. The argument
that is being made very subtly is that somehow Shays-Meehan creates
regulation where none has ever existed before, that there are new
regulations on activities that have previously been unrestricted in our
political activities. This is not true. Independent expenditures have
existing rules that any organization who wishes to take part in that
kind of activity must follow. Those groups that wish to do issue
advocacy must operate within the existing rules. Laws exist right now
to govern how they must behave in these activities. Those who wish to
participate in giving soft money still have rules under which they must
operate, and the expenditure of soft money is regulated by laws in
existence. They are not working very well, but they exist.

[[Page H4813]]

It is important for people who are listening to this debate to
understand that there are existing regulations. It is impossible to
argue that these activities cannot be regulated when they already are.
The system provides for government oversight of these activities. We
are arguing about what that oversight should look like, not whether or
not it should be there.
The whole question that was raised earlier about soft money and that
somehow it is a benign issue because candidates really do not know
where the money comes from:
Well, I would be interested to know if there is anybody in this room
who has never been to a national fund-raiser or a State fund-raiser
where they have sat at tables from people who routinely give money to
their party. I suspect there is not. But even if there is someone who
has somehow missed that activity, all they need to do is read the
paper. The Hill, Rollcall routinely lists who was at each event and how
much money they gave. Nowadays you can even pick up a local paper in
Michigan. We can read about how much money Amway gave. We can read
about this person, that person. We know where the money goes, which
means if I can read it, my constituents can read it. Everybody knows.
One would have to be beyond naive to think that the public does not
care or, even more unlikely, is not affected by the money in politics
and the way it is handled.
Thomas Jefferson said when a man assumes a public trust he should
consider himself as public property, which means we must have higher
integrity, less selfish, more reasonable, more thoughtful, more
forthright and committed to doing what is right for the entire Nation.
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I want to clear the record.
The gentleman from Massachusetts totally misrepresented what was
going on here. I know the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers) was
overseen by the Chair, and I apologize for that. But the point was the
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) had yielded to the gentleman
from Massachusetts for a discussion and then ran out of time and was
asking for an extension of time, and the other gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) ran down and objected to the time, cutting
off debate from the gentleman from Mississippi.
Mr. Chairman, that is what happened on this floor. It is really
unfortunate.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from
California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to remind people that
in that disastrous 1974 law which, thanks to its nonseverability clause
we are still saddled with its oppressive regulations of this day which
have given birth to PACs, soft money, hard money, issue advocacy,
independent expenditures, all of the symptoms of the disease that our
liberal friends here are trying to focus on rather than the cause of
the disease, which is the government regulation itself, that one of the
parts of that disastrous law that was struck down, because it was a
comprehensive law, just like Shays-Meehan is trying to be. And part of
that was a ban on soft money. It was struck down, one of the first
things to go. It has been gone since 1976. That was banned. Been tried
before.
Mr. Chairman, they are doing the same unconstitutional thing again.
It will be struck down.
I listened to the arguments from the other side: Well, no, we cannot
go for the nonseverability clause of the gentleman from California (Mr.
Thomas) because the evil majority might sneak through some amendment
they know is unconstitutional. We do not have to sneak anything
through. This bill is unconstitutional, open and shut. It will be so
declared when it goes through the courts. All we want then is a
nonseverability clause in so the whole thing falls and certain vestiges
do not remain that further clutter up the system and make matters only
worse from what they are today.
Since this whole scheme of regulation was invented some 25 years ago,
political participation in elections has declined, public cynicism has
shot up. We hear people are spending more and more time fund-raising
because these hard dollars have been unadjusted. The limits, since
1974, remain in place. That means we have to work a lot longer to raise
the same amount of money. It becomes that much harder for challengers,
because it is always easier as incumbents once they are there, and that
is why we say this is an incumbent protection bill.
If we were acting in our own self-interest tonight, every one of us
would vote for Shays-Meehan. It would lock in our seats in Congress
because it makes it so much harder for a challenger to raise money and
to be able to take on the system.
Eugene McCarthy even, the great liberal, admits he never would have
been able to make his campaign if he could not have gotten a few large
contributions from wealthy people across the country. He was clearly
not in the mainstream in terms of appealing to what most people wanted,
but he had a political and important statement to make.

{time} 2045

He was able to raise the money because he was not fettered by the
very campaign law that we have in force which would be made worse by
Shays-Meehan.
This is an important point to think about. Do we want just
homogenized pabulum for the future of our political campaigns,
something that will appeal to everyone, so in effect it appeals to no
one; or do we want the sort of vigorous debate that was contemplated by
the founders that the Supreme Court recognized in Buckley v. Valeo that
is the essence of the American Republic, the American democratic
experience?
That is why the Supreme Court gave us Buckley v. Valeo, wiping out
much of the disastrous law, unfortunately, because it did not contain
the gentleman from California, Mr. Thomas', nonseverability clause,
leaving much of it in place. That is why we have this myriad of
problems that we are trying to address, and I say focus on the problem,
not on the symptoms.
Soft money is a symptom. If we do somehow succeed in banning soft
money, we will increase independent expenditures, because we still have
a Constitution, and the court still says it is the right of people to
speak independently, and it is their right. But when we skew the
campaign law in such a way that responsible speech is discouraged,
i.e., from the candidate who wants people's votes, who therefore has
incentive to be responsible in the use of his speech, we disfavor that
in favor of the independent expenditure.
We do not even know who they are. They can spend unlimited amounts of
money, raise unlimited amounts of money in contrast to the candidate,
and they are the ones who have more incentive to make the less
responsible statements.
Why do we not empower the candidate? Why do we not do as the Nation's
largest State, California, and a very large State in the East,
Virginia, already do it? And it works well. They do not have the limits
and they allow people the freedom.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. English) has again expired.
(On request of Mr. Meehan, and by unanimous consent, Mr. English of
Pennsylvania was allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to have the time.
Did the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to address a
question?
Mr. MEEHAN. No. I wanted to give the gentleman the time.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Chairman, we believe as Republicans that we ought to leave the
First Amendment alone.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that there are no
spending limits in this bill?

[[Page H4814]]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I am perfectly aware that there are no spending limits
in the bill.
Mr. MEEHAN. So the gentleman is aware that there are not
constitutional problems in this bill?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Oh, there are terrible constitutional problems with
this bill. How can the gentleman say that? This bill is filled with
problems.
Does the gentleman really believe for a minute that this bill is
constitutional?
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield further?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
Mr. MEEHAN. So the gentleman did not favor the reforms after
Watergate either?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I certainly did not. It is a disaster.
It gave birth to the cancer we face today that you cite as the reason
for your reform; your side gave us all of this monstrosity.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is not in favor of any
limits at all?
Mr. DOOLITTLE. I thank the gentleman. That is correct. No limits.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Pennsylvania yield?
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. I appreciate the gentleman yielding.
The gentleman from Massachusetts asked if we supported the 1974 law
that was passed after the Watergate hearings. You bet we did not.
Because there were things in there like limiting the expenditure of
campaigns to $70,000. I mean, a whole campaign spending $70,000, trying
to reach the voters. In the Senate they limited it to 8 cents per
voter, 8 cents per voter. Do you know why they did all that? I say to
the gentleman from Massachusetts, it is so they could stifle
challengers and give advantages to incumbents.
That is exactly why we oppose the 1974 law that, most of it was
struck down by the Supreme Court over time, and that is why we are very
concerned about the severability of this one. We do not want another
law like the 1974 Watergate incumbent protection plan, because it is
all interrelated, it is all put together, and the gentleman from
Massachusetts says, if we put one unconstitutional amendment here, it
is a poison pill. Well, one more poison pill in a bottle half full of
poison pills will not make a difference.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of both the Shays-Meehan bill,
as well as the bipartisan freshman campaign finance reform bill. I
think these bills take a large step in the direction we need to go in
this country, the ability to take the big money out of the political
system.
I find it amazing though, Mr. Chairman, that opponents to these bills
claim that if there is a ban on soft money that our constitutional
freedoms and liberties and free speech are in jeopardy, yet when I go
home back to Wisconsin and listen to the people, they know, just
commonsensically, they know there is too much money in the political
system, too much big money being contributed, too much influence of
money out here in Washington, D.C.
Why is this so important? Why do we need to have this debate and pass
this legislation as soon as possible? As this chart demonstrates, Mr.
Chairman, we are seeing an explosion in the arms race for big money in
the political system. Back in 1987-1988, roughly $45 million in soft
money contributions were contributed to both political parties. That
jumped up to $86 million in the 1991-1992 campaign season, and then
suddenly in 1995-1996, the last campaign season, it exploded to $262
million in soft money contributions to both parties. This is just the
tip of the iceberg.
This is only going to escalate unless this body, the only body that
can do something about it, takes some action as soon as possible. That
is what this debate should be about. That is why these campaign finance
reform measures are so important, because the people know there is too
much money going into this, and it is only going to get worse.
I just have a couple more points to make. That is why we need to take
action.
I am proud to have a Senator in my home State of Wisconsin, Senator
Russ Feingold, leading the charge in this effort in the U.S. Senate,
teaming up with Senator John McCain from Arizona in sponsoring the
McCain-Feingold bill, one that suffered a fate that was unbecoming of
this United States Congress. I commend the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) for the
work that they have put in for many years of getting finance reform
passed.
But perhaps it was a group of freshmen, and it behooves us as
freshmen to sit up and take notice and keep our eyes and ears open to
see how this place operates. Maybe it was a group of freshmen who had
to come together and take a look at this from a fresh perspective, with
new insight, and decide to work in a bipartisan fashion to try to
eliminate the poison pills for both parties and draft something that
would have a chance of passing; and I am very proud to have been a part
of that process and the product that we produced. I want to encourage
my colleagues that if Shays-Meehan goes down, we support the freshman
bill.

But the severability clause is important, the amendment is important
to discuss, because I do not believe the soft money ban is
unconstitutional. I think we have solid constitutional case law that
supports us with Buckley v. Valeo, which says that we can limit money,
that is, soft money contributions, in order to prevent the corruption
or the appearance of corruption in the political system. Anyone who
takes notice of how decisions are made out here would see the
appearance of corruption every day, with the amount of contributions
being contributed.
I have a lot of respect for my friend and colleague, the gentlewoman
from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup) who was here a little bit earlier talking
on the floor; but I was flabbergasted by some of the statements coming
out of her mouth that she did not know where the soft money
contributions were coming from to the parties and that she did not see
any influence of big money in this political system. Well, I do not
know where she has been for the past year and a half in watching this
democratic process of ours work. I do not know where she has been for
the last couple of weeks in watching the tobacco legislation and the
fate that it suffered unfold in the U.S. Senate.
There is a direct link to big money in the political system. We are
seeing the results of this day in and day out. But perhaps the most
egregious example of what big money is doing in corrupting this
political system of ours happened last year.
I came as a fiscally conservative Democrat, believing in fiscal
responsibility, but also the need to invest in priorities in this
country. I was very proud to be a part of the negotiations in trying to
reach a bipartisan, balanced budget agreement that would put our fiscal
house in order; and after the days and the weeks and the months of
negotiating that balanced budget agreement last year, it finally came
to a vote on this floor.
I cosponsored an amendment that would have given us 10 hours to look
at that budget agreement, page through it, to see what all was in it
before we were forced to vote on it. And it was voted down, that
amendment, along party lines, and I could not understand. This
amendment was not that unreasonable. The least we can do is step back,
pause and look at the agreement before we vote on it, and I did not
understand why it went down to such defeat as it did.
But I did 3 days later when it was discovered that the tobacco
companies received a $50 billion tax cut that was never, we never had
any hearings on it, it was never part of any of the discussion or the
debate on the House floor. We certainly did not have any separate vote
on this tax credit, and yet it was in there. The only reason it was in
there was because of $11,293,000 worth of contributions from big
tobacco.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has
expired.
(On request of Mrs. Northup, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kind was
allowed to proceed for 3 additional minutes.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, just to close, and I will just be a brief
second

[[Page H4815]]

before I yield to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup), all we
have to do is just take a look at where the contributions are coming
from, and we start seeing a track, we start seeing the appearance of
corruption, if not corruption outright, of what is taking place right
now.
How did this $50 billion tax cut get inserted in this budget
agreement without any knowledge on the House floor? Well, it was
because the chief lobbyist of the tobacco industry went to the
Republican leadership in this Congress, literally the night before
final passage of this bill, and said, hey, because a pack of cigarettes
is going to be taxed an additional 15 cents, we need a break in all of
this. So there was a corresponding tax credit for the next 25 years for
that tax increase on a pack of cigarettes, and it was done behind
closed doors without anyone else's knowledge.
Again, we just have to follow the money. There are 11,293,853 dollar
reasons for why something like that would take place in this democratic
process of ours.
Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to yield to the gentlewoman from
Kentucky.
Mrs. NORTHUP. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important, considering what
the gentleman says, that somebody respond to the cynicism of what he
said, and particularly, about the tobacco bill.
I do not take, and never have, a penny of tobacco money, and yet the
tobacco bill over on the Senate side is simply too big. There are
reasons that people oppose it. I think that that is the sort of
discussion that ruins political discussion on its value, and every time
somebody disagrees with you, to say, see, they took money; or see, it
is all the influence of evil.
The fact is, I do not take money, and I thought the bill got way out
of hand; and it is a perfect example of why that kind of a bill that is
that complicated can never pass unless we get some leadership from the
White House that is involved in it and calls for it every single week.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I think I got the gist of the gentlewoman's
point there. The gentlewoman may not take the money, the parties take
the money, and to be fair, the Democratic Party is also dipping into
the tobacco till, perhaps not to the extent that the Republican Party
is. No one has clean hands on this floor.
But the only body, the only people who are capable of cleaning it up
are the ones right here, right now, and we have that ability to do it.
There is cynicism across the country, and perhaps there is some even
in the gentlewoman's district, because I know there is in mine, those
who feel that this democratic process is being taken away from the
average citizen on the Main Streets of rural western Wisconsin, and it
is going to large money, special interests that are dominating the
political agenda out here in Washington; and that is what this debate
is all about.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has received a lot of money,
big money, $10,000 from a lot of unions, different unions, and I could
go through them, but we do not have time because the gentleman does not
have the time. My only point is, is the gentleman influenced by this
big money that he received in his election?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, every Member in this
House is raising some money. The money that I was receiving was from
hard-working men and women.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. DeLay, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Kind was
allowed to proceed for 2 additional minutes.)
Mr. KIND. The point, Mr. Chairman, is that understanding
constitutional case law right now in the court's eyes, in the court's
holding, is a quid pro quo relationship constitutes corruption, and a
quid pro quo relationship is defined as a relationship where money is
exchanged for preferential treatment. Perhaps there are coincidences
that are beyond belief out there to take a look at legislation that is
being passed out here that would certainly fit under any constitutional
definition and would give us legal standing to ban soft money, as these
bills do.

{time} 2100

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. KIND. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, is soft money
given to candidates directly?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, no, it is contributed to
the party. But we all know standing in this body, too, we all know
standing in this body as well the soft money which was originally set
up for getting out the vote, and that is now being diverted for
independent expenditures and issue advocacy ads.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would again yield, soft
money cannot be used for independent expenditures. Soft money is used
for issue advocacy. There is a big difference. Independent expenditures
is expressly advocating the defeat or election of a candidate and soft
money is not used for that.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, if the gentleman is
claiming that soft money is not filtering back into the States and
being used in issue advocacy ads, he has not taken a close look at our
campaign system in our country today.
I can cite countless examples of how that is happening. The original
intent of soft money contributions has been perverted beyond
recognition today. That is a strong argument of why these finance
reform bills are necessary today.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Why? What is wrong with issue advocacy?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, part of the issue advocacy component of these
finance reform bills is merely asking these groups who are behind the
ads to identify who they are so the American people know who is
financing this and perhaps will have a better understanding of what the
political motivation might be. Neither one of these bills would
prohibit issue advocacy ads.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILLMOR. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) a question, if he would consent to answer it. The
gentleman indicated in his debate that we spend too much money on
campaigns. I just wondered, I want to ask him what does he mean? What
is too much money? Too much money compared to what? What amount of
money is appropriate?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILLMOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, let me show the trend. This gives a better
idea of what too much money means to the average American throughout
the countryside: When we start with soft money contributions of $45
million and $86 million and suddenly it explodes to $262 million.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Can I get a simple answer to the question? How much is
too much money?

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The Chair would ask each
Member to yield and reclaim time so that only one person is speaking at
a time.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California
(Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, how much is too much money? I keep
hearing this assertion made out here, we spend too much money on
campaigns. How much should we spend?
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GILLMOR. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, where I come from, and perhaps this may not
be true in my colleagues' congressional districts, but the average
person in western Wisconsin believes that under the current finance
system, even though it is legal for a wealthy individual or group to
contribute a million dollars to either political party, that is

[[Page H4816]]

too much money. That is ridiculous. It is unbelievable that this
democracy of our size allows that to happen. That is too much money.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman refuses to answer the
question. I just wonder, since if we add up all the money that was
spent on congressional House races in the last campaign, it amounted to
about $218 million. That breaks down to about $3.80 per voter who voted
in the election. $3.80. That is less money than we spent on bubble gum
in this country.
The gentleman from Wisconsin, every time he talks about corruption
and money corrupts keeps talking about the fact, and every time he says
that he denigrates every Member of this House.
Mr. Chairman, he raised money just like we all do, and he is claiming
that somebody in this House is affected by the money being raised. He
will not answer the question, will not answer the question if he is
affected by the tons of money he raised.
I am not affected by the money I raise. The gentleman talks about
tobacco money. When the tobacco interests and the companies came to me
to talk about the settlement that they made and the agreement they made
with the President of the United States, I told them not only no, but
hell no. I was not about to do what the tobacco companies wanted me to
do.
So this whole notion that money corrupts. Then the gentleman has got
to look at himself and look at himself in the mirror. Look in the
mirror. Look how much money he raised. Has it corrupted him? No, it has
not. He is a fine gentleman. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is a fine
gentleman and he is very much involved in this process.
So the point I am trying to make is that the Shays-Meehan bill and
others are trying to restrict people's involvement, restrict their
involvement in the political process as much as they can. For what
reason? Frankly, they have good intentions, but the result of their
intentions is incumbency protection.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is quite obvious that there is not
too much money in the system just by the facts. The amount of campaign
spending as a percentage of GDP is relatively constant at 4 to 6
percent. We keep hearing these exaggerated claims that they cannot back
up with any specifics.
Then, as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) pointed out the charges
that the system is corrupt, somehow we are all corrupt but nobody ever
names anybody who is corrupt. We are supposed to create that pervasive
feeling.
Mr. Chairman, this is destructive of our institutions and I for one
have determined, that is why I introduced the bill to take off all the
limits, I am not going to put up with this left-wing morality play. I
am going to answer the charges every time they are made that we are
spending too much money.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is not anything more important
than the discussion of public issues.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Whitfield, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Gillmor
was allowed to proceed for 30 additional seconds.)
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky
(Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing more important in the
discussion of public issues than for the public to be informed. In
1996, Procter & Gamble spent more money promoting its products, $5
billion, than we spend in campaigning for all elections in the U.S.,
Federal, State and local, $2.2 billion.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Before we proceed, the Chair reminds
Members to refrain from profanity.
Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to make one note before I yield to the
gentleman from Maine. We are hearing a lot of comment, people wanting
to know how much is too much and talking about whose interests are
being concerned. The perception of the American public is clear. They
are upset about what is going on in politics and they have the clear
perception, whether or not it is reality with respect to each and every
Member here.
The perception is that money is a corrupting influence and that money
is having an impact, so much so that when Bill Moyers spoke recently to
a group, he did an interesting exercise. He had an entire group stand
up and asked a third to sit down and identified that that third of the
group represented those people who do not bother to register anymore.
Then he had a second third sit down and identified that that was the
group of people in this country that while they may bother to register,
they do not bother to go out and vote. So the remaining one-third of
people represented just that small portion of people in this country
that actually are voting now and, in effect, are electing their
representatives.
Whatever the reasons are that the other two-thirds are not voting,
one clear reason that people express as one reason is that they have
the definite perception that money is adversely impacting this system.
Mr. Chairman, one of the speakers earlier talked about Mr. McCarthy
running for President. Senator McCarthy, as a liberal, talked about the
fact he did not have a campaign unless he had large contributions. Let
me turn that around for a second and speak of what a well-known
conservative, the Senator from Arizona, Barry Goldwater had to say.

The fact that liberty depended on honest elections was of
the utmost importance to the patriots who founded our Nation
and wrote the Constitution. They knew that corruption
destroyed the prime requisite of constitutional liberty: An
independent legislature free from any influence other than
that of the people. Applying these principles to modern
times, we can make the following conclusions: To be
successful, representative government assumes that the
elections will be controlled by the citizenry at large, not
by those that give the most money. Electors must believe that
their vote counts. Elected officials must owe their
allegiance to the people, not to their own wealth or to the
wealth of interest groups that speak only for the selfish
fringes of the whole community.

The American people no longer believe that that is the case, and that
is one of the problems that we have, and the perception one of the
reasons that we have to address campaign finance reform.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), who
has asked for some time on this.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. Tierney) for yielding. I want to get back away from some of this
rhetoric about free speech back to what the Court itself has said. I
want to get back to what the Court itself said in Buckley v. Valeo.
We know this debate is degenerating when we start talking about
individual Members and what individual Members raise and whether there
is actual corruption with respect to decisions made by any individual
Member.
What the Supreme Court has said very clearly in Buckley v. Valeo,
that the Congress has the constitutional right to regulate elections in
order to minimize corruption or the appearance of corruption. And the
Court said it is unnecessary to look beyond the act's primary purpose,
to limit the actuality and appearance of corruption resulting from
large individual financial contributions, in order to find a
constitutionally sufficient justification for contribution limitations.
The question was raised earlier, I believe by the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), what is wrong with soft money? I will tell my
colleagues what is wrong with soft money. Right now we have a system,
what is left of it after Buckley v. Valeo, that imposes individual
contribution limits for individuals and for PACs in the amount of money
that can be given to Federal candidates.
Since 1907 in the case of corporations, and 1940s in the case of
labor unions, neither corporations nor labor unions can give to
individual candidates. Soft money is no longer a loophole, it is a
highway. It is the means by which very

[[Page H4817]]

large contributions, hundreds of thousands of dollars from some
corporations, millions or up to millions of dollars in some cases, are
funneled to the national parties. Then they are used for television
ads.
Those ads may be issue advocacy, as the gentleman from Kentucky said.
But what do those ads say? Watch them in the last cycle. They say:
Congressman So-and-so is voting against the environment. Congressman
So-and-so is doing this or such. Call him and tell him to stop.
Those are ads intended, they are absolutely intended to have an
effect on an election and they are the reason why we need to ban soft
money.
Mr. SANFORD. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just touch on a couple of points that I
have heard during this debate. The first has been there is too much
money spent in politics, or there is too little money spent in
politics. I think neither one is actually the case.
Mr. Chairman, I think rather what we have is a structural problem in
politics that the Shays-Meehan bill begins to address. That structural
problem that we have is that we have got diffused cost and concentrated
benefit.
Our Federal Government, as we all know, is a very big thing. It is
$1.7 trillion worth of spending every year. And if we look at that
issue of diffused cost and concentrated benefit, as a conservative we
can see it in troubling spots. Again, people do not buy votes. I would
agree with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), I would agree with the
gentleman from Arizona, I would agree with a whole host of folks on
that very point. But it does buy influence. It helps in access.
The guy that is giving a Member $10,000 is a guy they are ever going
to pick up the phone for or open the door to. Again, they cannot give
$10,000; that is a rhetorical statement.
Take for instance the sugar subsidy vote. That is a classic example.
I mean, here is a program that costs the American consumer another $1.2
billion a year in the form of higher sugar prices. It is hardly the
kind of thing that I could sell back home in a town meeting. There are
always a handful of domestic sugar producers and consequently districts
that are affected in our country. Yet all those benefits go down to
truly the hands of the few.
In the case of the sugar subsidy, we are looking at $60 million a
year that goes in personal benefit for instance to the Fanjul family.
The Fanjul family, they are not American citizens. They hold Spanish
passports, but they are on the Forbes 400 list and they have yachts and
helicopters and a whole host of things.

{time} 2115

All this bill is about is trying to limit their level of access
versus the level of access of a person in my district who lives in a
very simple trailer in Moncks Corner, South Carolina. I think that that
is part of the issue that we are dealing with, not too much money, not
too little money, but an issue of diffused cost and concentrated
benefit in a very big government.
Two, one of my colleagues was earlier holding up both the New York
Times and I think it was U.S.A. Today, pointing out how the editorial
page in the New York Times was, I think, $85,000; and U.S.A. Today, I
think it was $75,000. The point was, hey, they are not controlled in
the way they get to advocate a point, but Shays-Meehan would control
others.
That is a good thing as a conservative. They are not in the business
of arguing for ethanol subsidies. They are not in the business of
arguing for grain contracts or for weapons treaties. They are not in
the issue of government contracts, for that matter.
But what you have here is a case when you do want their interests
limited, because you do not want somebody trying to sell missiles to
China to have unlimited access on that front.
The third point that I would make just in the debate that I have been
hearing is there has been much discussion, I think I even heard the
words verbatim ``we believe you ought to leave the First Amendment
alone.'' But the bulk of the people that are suggesting that, and I
would say that with all due respect to my colleague from California,
would be people that may have voted for, for instance, the religious
freedom constitutional amendment last week.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SANFORD. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is talking about me. The whole
religious liberties constitutional amendment was to protect the First
Amendment of freedom of religion. It had nothing to do, as the
gentleman suggests, in shutting down freedom of religion. It is too
big, two different things.
Mr. SANFORD. I think that is the jump in logic. In other words, to
suggest that limiting of soft money is eliminating of speech is not the
same thing.
Mr. DeLAY. If the gentleman will yield, the courts have held so.
Mr. SANFORD. But in a 5-4 Supreme Court decision, they have also held
in a different version a separation of church and States than the one
that you voted for.
Mr. DeLAY. No, no. The Supreme Court said that we could not practice
openly and freely religion in the schools. You are right. We have as a
body the opportunity to say, no, you are wrong. We are going to pass
the constitutional amendment protecting the freedom of religion. It had
nothing to do with shutting down the freedom of speech or religion.
Mr. SANFORD. Which is a great thing. In other words, that is what we
are charged to do by the Founding Fathers. I think in the same way, it
is a very legitimate point, a very legitimate point to say that, in
this debate, we ought to look at limits on the degree to which people
can influence a giant $1.7 trillion yearly machine.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the debate this
evening. I rise to support the Thomas amendment. I also rise to discuss
some very interesting comments made by my friend from Massachusetts,
followed up by my friend from Maine.
I appreciate my friend from Massachusetts quoting the late great
Senator from my State, Barry Goldwater. I think it is important also to
remember the context of Senator Goldwater's quote, because, ladies and
gentlemen of the House and ladies and gentlemen of America who join us
beyond these walls via C-SPAN, a check of the complete Goldwater record
indicates that our late great senior Senator was talking about liberty
and freedom of expression within the context of those who had that
right denied by the coercive actions of organized labor bosses who
reached into their pockets against their will to advocate causes with
which the rank and file disagreed.
Indeed, I note with interest, this dispatch from U.S.A. Today, May
30, 1996, Dateline, Portland, Maine, the campaign in which my friend
from Maine was involved, ``By air, the AFL-CIO has spent more than
$500,000 on a series of television ads criticizing Jim Longley's votes
on Medicare, student loans, and private pensions. The ads have helped
make Portland the political advertising capital of the Nation. From
April 1 through September 15, 6,968 ads aired or 41 per day.''
My friend from Maine also offered elucidation of what he called the
soft money process. I believe he should know firsthand, as chairman of
Clinton-Gore 1992, which was the vast recipient of vast amounts of soft
money, firsthand, the Clinton-Gore ticket and the minions of the
Washington labor bosses got help that was never really documented.
Again, let me give credit to the left, because in employing so-called
campaign finance reform, they ensured in 1974 and years before that
there would be no legitimate documentation of the amounts of money
spent by the Washington union bosses to the extent that a study from
Rutgers University shows us that, instead of $35 million spent by Ball
Sweeney and his ilk, they instead spent between $300 million and $500
million to try and influence elections in the Congress of the United
States.
Yet, the self-same recipients of that ultimate special interest money
would come here to this floor and act as the paragons of virtue and
tell us that we need to change our system.
Barry Goldwater was right about something else. When he discussed
Bill

[[Page H4818]]

Moyers, and I thought it was interesting to see the jump from Bill
Moyers to Senator Goldwater, when he said, when he said how
hypocritical.
The fact is that we have seen the corruptive influence of people
reaching into the pockets of other people against their will,
subverting those First Amendment rights, free from documentation, free
from the spotlight of the Washington media, except in rare cases. We
see all too often through the clear glasses that Senator Goldwater
wore, which I wear in representation on my lapel, the real story here
and the real culprits.
Two things should happen if we want real campaign reform. Number one,
I would suggest to my friends on the left and those well-intentioned
friends here on the right, if you want real campaign reform, obey
existing laws.
I would note with interest the comments of my dear friend from
Wisconsin who seem to imply that the reason the White House strayed
into suspect ground and may have violated these rules was because of
the current system. No, I would suggest otherwise.
I would suggest that there was a clear, sadly mistaken desperation
for cash and a win-at-all-costs mentality that cannot be excused by any
type of misdirection play, by any type of masquerading in the public
interest to claim that somehow let us clamp limits on those who seek
donations of free will from free American citizens.
Let us, instead, maintain the current system, allowing the union
bosses to reach into the pockets of every working American who happens
to be a member of a union, subverting their rights, and taking their
money to go to causes with which they may disagree.
I would suggest, again, to this body, that we should adopt the Thomas
amendment. And I would suggest further to this body that let us have a
clear examination of what, in fact, has transpired in the past
election, in elections before, and let us tell the entire story.
Senator Goldwater was talking about the freedom to use contributions,
not to have money cynically taken away.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me.
Before the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth) leaves the hall, I
would just like to raise a question.
The gentleman stated that one of the things we should do is to obey
existing law. I agree. I agree with that. The gentleman was not in any
way suggesting that money spent in any individual campaign of any
Member was not consistent with existing law, was he?
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman from Oregon yield?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is making my point for me.
What I am suggesting that, through previous design of so-called
campaign finance reform, a large segment of this society, through
coercive tactics, have their contributions undocumented. To that
extent, the law is silent.
Mr. ALLEN. The law is silent.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Under a lawyer's definition, that would be existing
law. It makes the point that there are those following the human
impulse of gaining the system for their own selfish needs.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to
the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, the point the gentleman makes is actually
the right point, because nothing that happened in that election broke
existing law. The fact is that the gentleman would like to change the
law as with respect to labor dues. So he would seek to change existing
law.
But the fact is, what we are here about today is to try to deal with
the influence of money in politics. That does not mean that there is
some level that is so big that we have to deal with it. What happens
with bubble gum, what happens with yogurt is irrelevant.
What we are talking about and what the reformers are saying is this,
we need to break the link between Federal candidates, Federal office
holders, national parties, agents of the national parties, and giant
contributions.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield so that I
might ask my friend, the gentleman from Maine, a question?
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. No.
Mr. ALLEN. The gentleman has had his time.
We are trying to break the link, because as the Supreme Court has
said on several occasions, we can, this Congress can enact reform in
order to prevent appearance of corruption or corruption.
What the Court has also said in another case is that it is because of
the risk that corporations that accumulate wealth in the course of
their business activities, because of the risk, that those
corporations, big money in this society, could unduly influence
elections. The Court has said it is appropriate to regulate or to bar
contributions from corporations.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mr. ALLEN. Most recently, in the Colorado Republicans case, which was
the case dealing with hard money limits, the Court said, if it appears
to Congress, if it appears to Congress that the existing hard money
limitations could be circumvented because of contributions to the
political parties, i.e., soft money, then the Congress could rethink
whether or not it wanted to change limits or create limits on
contributions to the national parties.
That is why we are here. Because what used to be a loophole is now a
highway because there is too much money in this system, soft money. It
is being used to influence Federal elections. We need to shut down this
system.
It is, in fact, soft money, these unlimited contributions from
corporations, from unions, from wealthy individuals to the national
parties in the last cycle that is subverting our political process.
That does not mean that you go to any one individual and say this
result was influenced by big money.
What we have got in this system, in this country right now is a
political system gone awry. We need to change it.
What we have got with the Thomas amendment is an attempt to subvert
the Shays-Meehan bill. That is what is going on here. The folks who are
trying to improve the Shays-Meehan bill with this amendment, with this
proposed amendment, are not supporters of reform generally. They are
trying to undermine reform. There is no question about it. It may be an
argument about free speech, may be an argument about other forms of
money. But the fact is that we have got to have campaign reform. We
have got to have it in this session. It means a ban on soft money. It
means voting down the time.
Ms. HOOLEY of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, let me just briefly end by
talking about this is really something the American public wants. It is
something that we have with the Shays-Meehan bill. We have a bipartisan
bill. All you have to do when you talk about influences, all you have
to do is look at what has happened to the tobacco bill.
Somehow or another, we have to restore the faith in the American
public so that everyone has a voice in our system. We need campaign
finance reform, and we need it now. The Shays-Meehan is our best
chance.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number
of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of comments as I listen to this
debate tonight. First of all, I am reminded of the words of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) last night, after an extended
debate, that we should remind ourselves that we need to, under the 5-
minute rule, move forward at some point and conclude debate and
continue on to the next amendment.
The present amendment is the Thomas amendment. I know that we are
engaged in a vigorous debate on the underlying amendment, the Shays-
Meehan provision, but I think that we need to keep our eye on the ball
and to move on so that we can get to other amendments in this process.
I also wanted to make the point that I appreciate my fellow freshmen
are here. The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), I believe it was,
made mention that freshmen are still warm to reform. I see my friend
the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and

[[Page H4819]]

the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen). Both of those gentlemen have been
very active participants in the freshman task force.

{time} 2130

And the freshman bill that will come up later on addresses some of
the serious problems that have been raised.
My friend, the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth), makes mention
of the last campaign and the problems in it. And I do not believe that
a lack of enforcement, and I say this as a former Federal prosecutor,
the lack of enforcement of laws has never been a reason for us not to
improve the law.
Certainly we ought to enforce the law, but it is a separate issue
when it comes to improving the law. And there were problems in the last
campaign that chased after soft money, and for that reason, we should
remedy it.
A question was raised, whether we could cite any instances of
corruption. Well, that is what some of these committees are
investigating, the instances of corruption that deal with soft money
and contributions from corporations. But I do not think the issue is
necessarily corruption.
I believe the issue is confidence of the American public in our
system. And I will point to instances on both sides of soft money.
On the Democrat side, the $600,000 contribution from the Loral
Corporation to the Democratic National Committee at a time when that
organization was under investigation when they were asking for approval
of a technology transfer to China. That hurts the confidence of the
American public, and it should not have been done. We should ban that
kind of contribution; whether it affects the system or not, there is
the perception of it.
On the Republican side, I will cite the instance of Microsoft. When
they are under investigation by the Department of Justice, they should
not be able to give $200,000 in contributions to a national political
party. Whether it affects the debate or not, the perception of the
American public is that it does. And that is what I am concerned about,
is the confidence.
So I believe soft money is an issue. I think it is an important issue
that we must address. And even though I oppose the Shays-Meehan bill
for other reasons, I compliment my fellow freshmen for being concerned
about this issue and wanting to improve the system.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask a question of my good
friend from Arkansas. In his days as a prosecutor, did he petition for
the legislature to change laws in lieu of prosecuting those who had
broken existing laws?
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, certainly we should
never do anything to substitute for law enforcement. The gentleman is
absolutely correct. And I am fully supportive of strengthening our
ability to enforce the laws. Our committees should be investigating any
wrongdoing.
But the problem is clear, and that is soft money. That was the
problem, the chase for, in the last campaign. And we should not neglect
addressing that problem because of enforcement problems.
I want to come back, and I love this debate, but I think the
gentleman from Connecticut is entitled to a few moments here, so I will
be glad to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) if he
has some areas that he wants to wrap up. And, hopefully, we will
conclude this debate.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I have not asked for
my 5 minutes, but I will just say that we have strayed a bit from the
amendment, and I am concerned that we have the potential for hundreds
of amendments, so we maybe should try to come to a debate on certain
amendments and then go on to the next amendment. We can still make some
of the same points, because they are related.
But what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) proposes is to
strike the severability clause, which basically says that if any
provision in this act or amendment made by this act, or the application
or the provision or amendment to any person or circumstances is held to
be unconstitutional, the remainder of this act and amendments made by
this act, and so on, are still constitutional and remain in effect.
That is a clause that is in most bills. It was in the congressional
accountability bill, under the Contract With America, voted for by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and other Republicans, all other
Republicans. It was in H.R. 65, the Victim Restitution Act. The
gentleman from Texas voted for that as well. It was in the Regulatory
Transition Act of 1995 as well as in our Contract With America. This
was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay). It is the
same severability clause, and it passed as well.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
First, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this is the first night of
extended debate, and I would say we are all learning from this process.
We are all learning as to how much time we should be asking for. We
have Members who come and others who are waiting. I kind of hoped that
the way the process would work was that we would ask for 5 minutes, and
if we asked for an additional 2 minutes, it would be granted without
objection, and if there is a reason to extend even further, that it
will be the same for both sides. But I think there were some moments
where we probably erred in that process.
Also, there were times in this debate where I heard some strong
attacks and concerns with other Members, and we just started to go to
it and forget what we are debating. We have lots to debate here, and I
truly believe we will cover all the territory by the time we do all of
the amendments. But right now, what we are debating is the severability
clause and whether we should take it out of the Shays-Meehan amendment.
In some cases we pass bills with the severability clause and in other
cases we are silent. And when we are silent, the court basically
follows the process of considering a severability clause included. But
this is a case where the amendment is actually saying that if any part
is unconstitutional, the whole bill should be eliminated. There are
only a handful of times in a number of years that this provision has
been offered. That is my understanding.
And so I say, first, I believe the severability clause should be
included, like it was in with most of our Contract With America, like
it was with the bill that the gentleman from Texas introduced in the
Contract With America, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. He
introduced it, we voted on it, it passed.
It was in the telecommunications bill, thank goodness, because one
small part was declared unconstitutional and the rest remained intact.
It was in the Brady bill, thank goodness, because one part of the Brady
bill was declared unconstitutional, but not the rest of it.
I believe that some want this amendment because they think that this
whole bill that we have--which deals with soft money, which deals with
recognition of sham issue ads, which codifies Beck, which has
improvement of FEC disclosure and enforcement and deals with franking
and foreign money and fund-raising on government property not being
allowed--some think they are all intertwined. I do not. I think some
parts can stand on their own.
Obviously, everybody will make up their mind. We are going to vote on
this tomorrow. But I believe that the other danger is that other
amendments will be attached. We will oppose some amendments, but some
will be attached because nobody will have the courage to vote against
certain amendments because they will be difficult politically. And I
would not want to risk the chance that those amendments in particular
would then disqualify the rest of the bill.
So I would conclude by saying that we need to oppose this amendment.
It is a provision that is in most bills and it certainly should be in
this one. And when I see parts of the legislation in 1976 that were
declared unconstitutional and other parts that were not, I thank
goodness the other parts still stayed there. We can always come back
and make changes where we think there is an unconstitutional element
that has been taken out, and just come back and address that issue.
So I strongly oppose taking out the severability clause and, in
particular,

[[Page H4820]]

replacing it with a statement that says if any part is
unconstitutional, the whole bill goes. That, to me, is just an attempt
to kill meaningful campaign finance reform.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman keeps referring to the fact
that I introduced bills and voted for bills that had severability
clauses. I do not know what that has to do with this case where we are
making the case that when we are talking about an overall campaign
structure, one affects the other.
That is the case we are trying to make here; one affects the other.
Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did make
that case, but in addition, acted like this was a very extraordinary
event and that somehow, by our putting the severability clause in the
bill, we feared that another part was unconstitutional.
What is fair is fair. I do not believe that when my colleague
introduced and voted for the Contract With America, those various
bills, that he feared that various parts were unconstitutional. I just
want to say that this is a very usual clause to be in a bill. It should
stay there. And I hope tomorrow, when we all come to this Chamber, we
vote to defeat this amendment.
Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by commending the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr.
Shays) for all of their work on this legislation. They have spent many,
many, many months crafting this legislation to address many of the
underlying problems that we have in our current campaign financing
system in this country; problems that threaten this institution, that
threaten many of our democratic institutions; problems that are
corroding the way we make decisions in the House of Representatives, in
the United States Senate, and within the administration.
They are problems that the American people demand that we address and
that we rectify and that we once again bring them back in to our
democratic decision-making process and not bring them in based upon the
size of their wallet, the size of their contributions and who they
know, but rather, on the merit of their arguments. That is what this,
the People's House, is supposed to be doing.
This discussion about the severability amendment is simply a ruse to
attack this legislation and to certainly set it up for later attack if
it looks like, in fact, it is going to pass. We draw, very often, very
complicated legislation in this House. And we know, very often, that we
are treading to the end, because people, in fact, are trying to affect
court decisions when they draft legislation, when they draft
amendments. And to protect the underlying legislation, very often we
put severability clauses in those pieces of legislation.
We do it in the State legislatures, we do it in city councils, and
they do it in the United States Congress, and we have for many, many,
many years.
In this particular legislation, the gentleman from Connecticut and
the gentleman from Massachusetts have addressed a number of the
problems that we confront in our campaign finance system. Each and
every one of those remedies could stand by themselves, and they are
very, very important to improving our system. They are very, very
important to improving the participation of the American public in that
legislation. That is why we want the severability clause, because of
those provisions by themselves.
So if a constitutional challenge is brought on one of these single
provisions, we will retain the best of this legislation, and that will
become part of our campaign financing system, and we will, in fact,
have a better campaign financing system than we have today. We will
have a less corrupt campaign financing system than we have today. We
will have a campaign finance system that encourages people to
participate, which our system does not do today. That is why we need
this severability.
To throw this up and suggest that somehow this is a trick and this is
to allow us to do a lot of unconstitutional things is just simply not
the case. The authors of this legislation are far more careful about
their legislative duties than that. The people that they have consulted
have guided us and are relying on past court decisions.
Yes, we may not do it perfectly, but we should not be in a position
where one challenge against a very small part of this legislation can
throw out so many other parts of the legislation that are very, very,
very important to us.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MILLER of California. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from California for
yielding to me, and I want to commend all of the sponsors of the
Meehan-Shays legislation for the work that they have done, the source
of encouragement that each one, especially the original sponsors of the
bill, has been to all of us that have yearned for and hoped to make the
kinds of changes that we are seeking to make in the campaign financing
system that we have today.
We hopefully all remember the day that we came to this floor and we
raised our hands and took our oath of office, and we had families
sitting in the gallery. I do not think that there is a moment in my
life that quite matches that one: my hopes and aspirations for the
future, the good wishes of my constituents, whether they voted for me
or not.
We start out, really, I think, with 100 percent goodwill. I think the
only thing that could match that day was the day that my two children
came into this world.
I have to tell my colleagues that if there is one thing that is
constantly rubbing down or taking the polish or the gleam off of that
magnificent day, that very first day when I became a Member of
Congress, is the system by which we are elected, that is, the money in
the system. We know it is broken, we know it cannot be defended, but
right here on the floor tonight we are debating an amendment that is
being offered to this very good piece of legislation.
In my view, it seeks to throw some dust in the wheel, to clog up the
wheel, throw sand into the wheel, to jam it up.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
If we are going to talk about constitutional issues and freedom of
speech, it seems to me that none of us have very much freedom of speech
if we are drowned out by millions of dollars. And so we have to, in the
House of Representatives, in the Congress, really speak to the hopes
and aspirations of the American people and say to them, yes, we are
capable of addressing this; we can rebuild the confidence that the
American people should have in this institution.
They know it is broken. They know much of what goes on here is not on
the level.

{time} 2145

They know that money speaks to this process and that it warps it and
that it is corrosive.
We have and should have to corral the political will in this place to
reform the system. No bill is perfect. Why? Because human beings are
not, so no piece of legislation is perfect. But this is sound. It
addresses the things that are really broken down.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I would love to yield, but I do not have the
time. I would like to complete my train of thought. I have been on the
floor since a quarter of 7 this evening to do this.
We can do this, but we have to be very careful to distinguish
excuses, throwing sand in the wheels and jamming them up and those
issues that really mean something. We are all pros here. We are all
pros here. We know what can be done with parliamentary maneuvers. Try
to explain that to your constituents. They know it is not for real,
they know that there are excuses coming out of this place.
Why do we not reach for the brass ring and say to the American
people, ``You know what? We can do it.'' It says, ``In God we trust.''
In the people we trust. 68 percent in the poll in the

[[Page H4821]]

Wall Street Journal of the American people said they wanted this system
reformed. We can do it, Republicans and Democrats.
Yield and do not succumb, my colleagues, to these things that are
being thrown in as excuses, because that is what they are. Let us come
through the 105th Congress the last few days that we have, legislative
days, and show the American people that we are worthy of their trust,
that we can move legislation through this place where it is not
encumbered by any money except the interests of the people that we have
come here to represent.
Remember that first day our excitement. If we can come to this floor
having passed this legislation, having it signed into law, I predict
that every day we come to this floor we are going to have that same
exhilarating feeling that we did the very first day when we raised our
hands, took our oath, and saw all of the endless opportunities without
anything getting in the way.
Again, I thank my colleagues. They have given me a great deal of
courage and inspiration by what they have fought for and kept the
faith. And we are going to keep the faith, and I have trust that we can
do this.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. ESHOO. I yield to the gentlewoman from California.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding.
I rise to thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for their leadership and their
courage for bringing us to this moment of truth. Are we for campaign
finance reform, are we for cleaning up the system, or not?
My colleague mentioned the first day when we were all here and raised
our hands and pledged to take an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. The greatest
enemy to our Constitution, foreign or domestic, is the money in the
political system that undermines and mutes the voices of the American
people.
Mr. Chairman, when Washington was first established as the capital of
our country, it was a swamp. In 200 years, it has returned to being a
putrid swamp contaminated by the impact of campaign money into the
system. Again, against the wishes of the American people.
I rise against this amendment because I see it as an attempt to
unravel and undermine the courage of the Meehan-Shays, Shays-Meehan
bill. This is a good bill. It strikes a balance.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, would the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. PELOSI. I am sorry, I do not have the time. The gentleman knows I
would if I could.
It strikes a balance. That is why we have to keep it intact. We have
come to the moment of truth. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on
Shays-Meehan, ``no'' against the Thomas amendment. Let us face this
moment of truth. The American people are watching. Let us drain the
swamp.
Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Thomas amendment.
I think when we look at what happened with the campaign finance
reform after Watergate and the provisions that were struck down by the
Supreme Court, we see a patchwork of legislation that is left that has
led to a lot of the problems that we have here today.
Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to a news article that was in the
Clayton County, Georgia News Daily back on May 23 of this year. The
longest reigning speaker of the house of any state legislators in
Georgia, his name is Tom Murphy. And the quote in the headline was by
Mr. Murphy. ``I worry about the future.''
It goes on to say that:

If Tom Murphy could do it all over again today, he would
steer clear of politics. Murphy, the longest tenured serving
speaker in the country, told the Clayton College and State
University Alumni Association that politics has deteriorated
into an arena of viciousness and untruths. The candidates are
getting so careless with the truth that I worry about the
future of this state and the nation. What truly worries me in
the next few years, unless something happens, is you will not
get a decent person to run for office.

Mr. Murphy never mentioned finances. He never mentioned money. He
mentioned untruths and viciousness. That is what we need to focus on.
The gentleman sent me an article the other day of a quote, and the
quote reads as this. It is titled ``Honesty'':

We can afford to differ on the currency, the tariff, and
foreign policy; but we cannot afford to differ on the
question of honesty if we expect our republic permanently to
endure. Honesty is an absolute prerequisite to efficient
service to the public. Unless a man is honest, we have no
right to keep him in public life. It matters not how
brilliant his capacity. Without honesty, the brave and able
man is merely a civic wild beast who should be hunted down by
every lover of righteousness. No man who is corrupt, no man
who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty
to the community. If a man lies under oath or procures the
lie of another under oath, if he perjures himself or suborns
perjury, he is guilty under the statute law. Under the higher
law, under the great law of morality and righteousness, he is
precisely as guilty if, instead of lying in a court, he lies
in a newspaper or on a stump; and in all probability the evil
effects of his conduct are infinitely more widespread and
more pernicious. We need absolute honesty in public life; and
we shall not get it until we remember that truth-telling must
go hand-in-hand with it, and that it is quite as important
not to tell an untruth about a decent man as it is to tell
the truth about one who is not decent.
That was by Theodore Roosevelt in 1900.
Mr. Chairman, yes, we can change campaign laws. And there are
probably some that need to be changed. We have not investigated
thoroughly enough yet to determine just which ones. But that is not the
problem. The main problem is compliance and untruths. The change in
statutes will not change either compliance or untruths.
It has been mentioned about unions and dues from union members and
how in the 1996 campaigns some of them were erroneously used. I have
with me a flyer that was published in Georgia. On the back of it it
says the ``Georgia State AFL-CIO Not Profit Organization.'' On the
inside the cover says their rules and it walks through several things,
Medicare, pensions; and it goes on to say, and this is entirely against
the law, the current law, this is where compliance has not been adhered
to, it says, ``Vote no on Collins. Vote no on Milner and Collins.''

That is where your noncompliance comes in. The untruths are in the
breeding of this. We can change the law. We can change every law in the
campaign finance arena. But if we do not change the hearts and the
souls of those who are involved in the government, we are not doing
anything.
That is the problem. It is not written words down. It is inside the
individual. It is not how we get here as much as what we do to get here
and what we do after we get here.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, this has been a long evening. But then again, this has
been a long wait. I have been in the Congress now for 6 years trying to
find some way to get campaign finance reform passed. And I remember
when I first got here, sort of a brash young freshman legislator and I
got together with another member from Oklahoma. He is a great Member,
had a lot of experience, Mike Synar.
Mike had a lot of courage and he was smart. And he sat down with me
and he said, ``If you want to work on campaign finance reform, boy, let
me give you some tips. The first thing you have to do is you have to
work with Republicans. Because if we, as Democrats,'' and we were the
majority party then, ``if we, as Democrats, propose our bill, it is not
going to have credibility. We have got to get Republicans on board. So
the first thing you need to do is find a group of Republicans who are
interested in truly passing campaign finance reform.''
And that is what we did. Every year that I have fought for campaign
finance reform, I have worked with Republicans so that we could level
the playing field equally among Democrats and Republicans.
The other thing that Mike Synar said was, ``You know what? My
experience is that independent expenditures are the thing that are
going to kill American politics because congressional elections are not
going to be about the people who live back home anymore.''
Mike Synar knew something about independent expenditures, because the

[[Page H4822]]

National Rifle Association and other groups spent millions over the
years trying to defeat him. So he said, ``Whenever you come up with a
bipartisan bill, you got to make sure that you deal with independent
expenditures.''
And here we are, 5 years later, finally on the verge of having a vote
before this House. And it gets emotional at times because I know how it
feels having worked so long and so hard on a bill to have it
misrepresented on the floor. It gets frustrating.
Members say the bill is unconstitutional. We have been working with
constitutional scholars on this for the last 5 years to make sure it
does pass constitutional muster. And other Members bring up the
campaign reports of whatever Member stands up. It is irrelevant.
The bill that is before us does not deal with each individual
Member's campaign report. It deals with soft money and independent
expenditures. It deals with giving the FEC the teeth it needs to
enforce the laws.
Why would we want to go after soft money, my colleagues ask? We have
spent millions of dollars investigating and having public hearings on
the soft money abuses in the system. Everyone in America, whether they
be Democrat or Republican, agrees the soft money system is totally out
of control.
This is relatively new by the way. In 1976, there was not any soft
money spent in the presidential election. In 1980, only $19 million was
spent. In 1984 there was $22 million spent. In 1988, there was $45
million. 1992 it goes up. In 1994, it goes up. And now it is $263
million. This is a recent phenomenon in American politics, soft money
or the expenditures over and above the legal limits that are in force
that are in law and that are constitutional. That is what this debate
is really all about. That is why we are here.
I want to tell my colleagues that I believe we are on the verge of a
majority of Members, Democrats and Republicans, who are ready to vote
for Shays-Meehan but it is going to be tougher than that. As if it was
not tough enough to form a consensus among Democrats and Republicans, a
lot who have had great ideas about campaign finance reform. No, it is
getting even tougher.

{time} 2200

We have the potential of 260 to 270 amendments. Tonight we have been
debating since 5:30 and we are not through the first one yet. That is
what we are up against. It is a challenge. Tempers are going to get
short at times, short fuses, when representations are made that are not
accurate. But I believe we are on the verge of a historic vote, a vote
that will have Democrats and Republicans joining together, not only in
a bipartisan way but a bicameral way, because the other body has
already voted, a majority, for this bill.
We can pass this bill. We can pass this bill. I urge Members of both
sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment tomorrow morning, because
it is a poison pill. It kills the bill. And after we are finished with
that, I urge Members to get rid of these poison pill amendments and
pass this bill and have the courage to move forward.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, this week the Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights
celebrates and commemorates its 35 years of fighting for justice in
America. Its theme is Answering the Call for Equal Justice.
As I listened to my colleagues, I want to agree with the gentleman
from Georgia. It is a question of compliance. But it also is a question
of laws. The call for justice is, one, to have the right law, but, as
well, to be able to comply.
The Shays-Meehan legislation dealing with real campaign finance
reform brings both of those to the table. It calls for justice for
America. It emphasizes democracy. It puts the control of politics in
the hands of the people. And it provides us with the law which we
should obey.
We can spend a lot of time tonight talking about money in the
Buddhist temples, or maybe we should talk about the alleged loan
schemes to funnel $1.6 million of foreign cash into U.S. elections
through the National Policy Forum which then-RNC head Haley Barbour
solicited these funds on board Hong Kong businessman Ambrous Young's
yacht in the Hong Kong harbor. We can stand up and call the roll of the
many times that we have not complied with our own laws. But maybe those
laws are faulty, and maybe men and women have frailties and character
flaws. Now we have the time to deal with real campaign reform.
We have already heard that 81 percent of the moneys that fund
campaigns come from men, only 19 percent from women. What it simply
says is we have got to even the playing field. We have got to enhance,
if you will, the pennies, the nickels and the dimes that women give,
the dollars, the five-dollar bills, so that the moneys lift everyone
equally. But obviously some of our gentlemen control these large
pockets of soft money. They control PACs. And so there is an
unequalness there.
I want to see everyone have an access to this political process and
to be heard. My good friends on the other side of the aisle realize
that this amendment on severability is a poison pill, so that if you
find one sentence in the Shays-Meehan legislation as being
unconstitutional, all the work that we have done throws out, throws out
a very valid piece of legislation.
What the American people would like to see is the real words of the
candidates, one on one. They would like to see some of our media
provide the free time so that we can be heard one on one. This
legislation goes to the question of all the signs of outside dollars
that may come in and influence negatively the process of the American
people. I believe the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights is right,
calling for and answering the call for equal justice. The Shays-Meehan
legislation frankly tells you how to do it. Take all of the excess
money out of this process. Let democracy be run truly by those who go
to the polls every single time there is an election, by those who read
and analyze, by those who believe in philosophies and make their
decisions at the voting booth based upon the decision that has been
given to them by this Constitution and by this flag, the right to make
a democratic choice.
I would hope my friends in the 258 amendments that we have, we do not
even have 258 more days in this year, much less in this session, would
realize that we need to get down to the business that the American
people have asked for. We need to lift all boats at the same time. We
need to equalize and make sure that the least of those who have nothing
more than their vote can be heard in the halls of Congress.
Lastly, Mr. Chairman, let me say something. There was a lot of
disagreement over this legislation, and I am not here to point any
fingers. But we voted on bankruptcy legislation just a couple of weeks
or so ago. In this article by the Wall Street Journal, it said that the
lawyers and bankruptcy judges and law professors and even the National
Bankruptcy Commission said the bill was not the right bill. But in the
same article, it said that the American Financial Services Association
paid a lot of money in campaign contributions, and we have a bill that
may hurt working men and women. I hope we can fix it. But what we
really need to do is to fix it permanently and ensure that the loudest
voice in this House is that of the average working man and woman. That
is why we need to get rid of this amendment and support the Shays-
Meehan legislation.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, there is a movie that I enjoyed, it was called
Groundhog Day. Some of my colleagues may have seen Groundhog Day. Maybe
the Chairman saw it. I know they have theaters in Arkansas, Mr.
Chairman.
I am a member of the Committee on House Oversight. We have heard all
of these arguments. The House of Representatives was set up, and
fortunately we have the Committee of the Whole and here we are tonight
as the Committee of the Whole and we are repeating all of those
arguments. We had 40 Members and these Members are very well intended.
I heard the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), I heard the
gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), I heard the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), I heard every one of the sponsors almost,
or I read their testimony for their proposals. The problem is we have
435 experts. The gentleman from

[[Page H4823]]

Georgia (Mr. Collins) was just here and showed his brochure of how he
was offended and beaten up by soft money or union money.
The problem we have here is this soft money, and we would love to ban
it, I would love to ban it, we looked at this, the problem we have is
we have $263 million here, but we heard the gentleman from Arizona who
said that there was a half a billion dollars of union money that you
could not even put on this chart in addition to that. And, Mr.
Chairman, we are all going to be here again because we are not going to
be able to solve this unless we can solve all of these problems. We do
have an impediment. The impediment to soft money, and we have heard it,
is the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the first amendment, the
free speech clause.

We have been through this debate in committee, we are going to be
through this debate again. Our committee tried and we did our best. We
brought out four bills, one on disclosure, one banning soft money, one
banning union money, and one banning very clearly foreign
contributions. And unfortunately we are here again.
So we will repeat on campaign finance reform Groundhog Day. We are
going to hear all the arguments again. We are going to have the same
votes again. It is just a prediction. It is going to be another
Groundhog Day.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think
this has been a pretty good debate, although Members do not want to
seem to yield to questions. I think that is unfortunate, so I am going
to try to put this in perspective and bring us back to Earth.
There are two different kinds of campaign money. One is hard money,
one is soft money. The hard money that we are talking about is money
that goes directly to candidates to elect or defeat candidates. That is
heavily regulated and supported by the Supreme Court to do so. What the
Shays-Meehan bill wants to do is stop the soft money.
Now, the gentlewoman from Texas talks about the Lawyers for Civil
Liberty.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. The Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights.
Mr. DeLAY. The Lawyers for Civil Rights under Shays-Meehan could not
raise the money to advocate the kinds of issues the gentlewoman
advocates under Shays-Meehan. They would be regulated. I do not
understand why she would support Shays-Meehan.
She talks about leveling the playing field. The Supreme Court said
that the concept that government may restrict speech of some elements
of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is
wholly foreign to the first amendment. We are not trying to level the
playing field here. What they want to do in the Shays-Meehan bill, they
want to ban soft money. Ban it altogether. And, therefore, bring moneys
under the hard money type of regulations. They want to recognize people
like Lawyers for Civil Liberty; if they want to run ads against Tom
DeLay because he does not support their advocacy, they want to call
those sham type ads and they want to regulate those, too. I do not want
to regulate your group. I want them to be able to come at Tom DeLay and
let us have a discussion of the issues. They want to codify Beck. But
the problem is that you have to remove yourself from the union in order
to take advantage, you have to resign from the union to take advantage
of their Beck codification. This is all tied together. This is all part
of what we are talking about here.
The gentleman from Georgia is absolutely right. Honesty does not come
from a bureaucrat. Honesty does not come from the Shays-Meehan bill.
You cannot bring honesty to this Chamber, and I might say, this Chamber
is not corrupt. This Chamber is not corrupt.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). The time of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Mica) has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Mica was allowed to proceed for 3
additional minutes.)
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I continue to yield to the gentleman from
Texas.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, the point here is that honesty does not come
from a bureaucrat or from a law. I have said it before and I will say
it again, I do not know one Member of this body that is corrupted by
money. As the gentlewoman said, we ought to lift all boats. Under
Shays-Meehan and other kinds of restrictions, she would not be elected.
She would not be able to get 58 percent of her money from PACs, because
they would eliminate PACs. They would eliminate soft money. They would
not be able to elect a woman and let her get in a boat and be lifted.
That is what we are trying to say here.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DeLAY. I cannot yield. I do not have the time, and I am trying to
finish so the other gentlemen can use the time. You would not yield to
me, so I just have to keep moving.
Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make here is, real reform is
opening up the process, not shutting it down in favor of incumbents.
That is what they are trying to do. This is all interconnected. The
Thomas amendment is saying that if one part of this is struck down,
then it all should be struck down, because the Shays-Meehan bill is
connected and interconnected.
Therefore, I beg Members to vote for Thomas. Because if you are for
real reform and not shutting down the process, if you are for real
reform and opening up the process and inviting more people in, then you
would not only pass the Thomas amendment but defeat the Shays-Meehan
bill.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman
from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, the cosponsor of the bill from
Massachusetts mentioned that they had 127 legal scholars working on
this project. They issued a report called Buckley Stops Here, the 20th
Century Fund, not-for-profit group.
This is paid for by what we would call soft money, contributions. And
we want them to use soft money to speak about an issue and try to
overturn the Buckley case if they want to do that. But if Shays-Meehan
is adopted, they are going to curtail the speech of not-for-profit
groups because in essence they do not like what these groups are
saying.
You are curtailing the amount of money that can be given to 501(c)(3)
organizations and you are expanding the definition of express advocacy.
Mr. SHAYS. Express advocacy involves----
Mr. MICA. Regular order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will suspend.
The Chair would like for each Member to yield and to reclaim his or
her time so that one person will speak at a time.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have remaining?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman has 30 seconds.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, and I am sorry I do not have
too much time, but I tried to point out and I serve on the committee,
we looked at this, we have been there, we have done it. We see $263
million in soft money, another half a billion not even on that chart.
We are not going to resolve this because you do not have the votes on
either side, and 218 votes in this House beats the best argument.

{time} 2230

So people want the laws enforced, people want disclosure, and people
want a ban on foreign money. Those are the things we can agree on.
Those are the things that we brought out as a committee.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has done his best. I urge
his amendment.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of Meehan-Shays.
Americans want fundamental change, a complete overhaul of the
campaign finance system. They want meaningful limits on frenzied
political spending, and they want them now.
Finally, today, we have an opportunity to give the Americans what
they want. We have an opportunity to end the abuses of the electoral
process.
We must ban soft money, rein in the exploitation of issue ads, limit
individual contributions, and restore the faith of the American people
in our political process. We must pass Meehan-Shays.
The Republicans have tried to kill reform time and time again by
breaking promises, strong-arming reformers off of the discharge

[[Page H4824]]

petition, and by introducing a hodgepodge of bills that the House
already rejected and a constitutional amendment that they didn't even
believe in. Now, they are attaching hundreds of poisonous amendments to
a bill that would genuinely reform this system.
Why? Because the Republican leadership is trying to protect a broken
system that works for them. The Republican leadership wants to keep the
flow of big money coming from special interests and silence the voices
of working men and women and their families. The Republican leadership
wants to kill reform.
Representative Ray LaHood even admitted last week that the
Republicans were ``trying to talk it to death.''
But talk is cheap. Today, I challenge my Republican colleagues to
act. Prove that you are not in the pockets of the special interests.
Restore America's faith in its elections. Support genuine campaign
finance reform and bring a true victory home to the American people.
Vote for Meehan-Shays.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Dickey). Does any other Member seek
recognition?
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the process is to encourage
the Chair to ask for a vote on this issue, and then I think we will
have a rollcall vote tomorrow.
What is that process?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Are there any other Members who would like
to speak on the amendment?
If not, the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) to the amendment in the nature of a
substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 442, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from California
(Mr. Thomas) to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by
the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) will be postponed.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Am I correct to understand that once the Thomas
amendment has been considered and now that we have to roll that vote
that we could not consider another amendment tonight?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is the Chair's understanding that there
will be a motion to rise.
Mr. HUTCHINSON. Am I correct that there was an understanding that we
would cease debate at 10 o'clock tonight or when we completed debate on
the Thomas amendment? If that is correct, it would appear to me that we
are slowing down the process of amendments that need to be considered.
I think we could do another amendment tonight within 30 minutes, as
tired as everybody is.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A motion to rise, if made, is preferential.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Hayworth) having assumed the chair, Mr. Dickey, Chairman pro tempore of
the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R.
2183) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to reform the
financing of campaigns for elections for Federal office, and for other
purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

____________________