Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter) in strongly supporting this resolution. It basically details two matters of significant concern as far as the history of democracy in Peru as well as that part of the world. The first, as the gentleman from Nebraska has alluded to, is the disregard by President Fujimori for the independence of the judiciary and the failure to recognize some separation of powers in terms of upholding the constitutional prohibition against three terms of consecutive service by the President. The second is a clear case of abuse with respect to the freedom of the press which I agree should be seriously investigated by outside credible authorities. These are but two examples of threats to democracy in a country that is in a position to be a partner and an agent in cooperation with the United States in Latin America. But actions like this really threaten that relationship. And so it is important that we pass this resolution to send an appropriate message to Peru that they need to reverse these actions and get back to a more proper course toward democracy.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Hawaii (Mrs. Mink). (Mrs. MINK of Hawaii asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire who has the right to close.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), a leading expert in bipartisan opposition to this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, this amendment is the only obstacle standing between us and passage of the Shays-Meehan bill. Unfortunately, this is not a debate on the merits of this amendment, because the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and I attempted to offer the substance of this amendment as a separate amendment to Shays- Meehan so that the Members would have an opportunity to vote for this Good Housekeeping measure and for Shays-Meehan, and we were deprived of that opportunity, and so was the body. This amendment is so innocuous that it comprises mostly recommendations that were unanimously supported by the FEC commissioners. If there is a single Member in this chamber tonight that intends to vote against this amendment, raise their hands. Not a single Member. This is an amendment that should be taken up on the consent calendar that is reserved for technical bills. That is where we should be debating the merits of this. We should not be debating it as a way to submarine Shays-Meehan. The fight has always been about the right to be heard about the merits of Shays-Meehan on the floor of the House, and we have almost concluded that debate, but let me conclude by citing once again the facts, because the facts speak for themselves. In the 1991/1992 election cycle, $86 million by both political parties was spent in soft money; in 1996, $260 million; in 1970 and 1978, $193 million, more than twice the previous presidential campaign cycle. And in the 2000 election cycle, it is estimated between $500 million and $750 million in soft money. These are unlimited contributions that are not being made for good government. The facts speak for themselves. Let us defeat this amendment, let us pass it on the consent calendar, and let us pass Shays-Meehan.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, the Hutchinson bill on balance is a good bill. I want to commend the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof), the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) and all of us who worked very hard to put it together. It was the best we could do under some very rough circumstances, over opposition from Democrats and Republicans here. But I disagree with the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) when he says we cannot do better. We have to do better. Look how far we have come just in the last year. Last year, we as freshmen had to fight like dogs just to get the bill heard on the floor of the House. We encountered numerous forms of subterfuge just to be heard on the merits. Tonight we have been much more successful in having an open and honest debate on campaign finance reform. We have had some very strong votes here tonight, Democrats and Republicans. We are making progress. We are starting to make it clear that we have found a way to close two of the most gaping loopholes in the system. Shays-Meehan has been to the Senate only once, not twice. It will go over there again tonight. Last year 52 Senators, Democrats and Republicans, voted in favor of the McCain-Feingold companion to our bill. Can they do better? They have to do better. Our system of democracy depends upon it. Let us not sell ourselves short tonight. Let us instead be ambitious. Let us pass the strongest campaign finance reform bill that we can. Let us send it to the Senate. We will negotiate and try to produce something that is meaningful to close two of these most gaping loopholes, because the money continues to pour in at record rates. We have got to do something and we can help put the Senate in the right direction. I would urge defeat of the Hutchinson amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt). (Mr. HOLT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson). (Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin). (Mr. CARDIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to ask to control the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to point out exactly what the bill does. The bill does not single out the Internet in any fashion. It is for exactly the reasons that were expressed by Mr. DeLay. He cited a commissioner that said that the Internet is going to bring about great change. One of the arguments that is constantly made by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) is that we should not take a snapshot of the Internet in an attempt to decide exactly what is going on there. This is a very fluid situation. That is why it needs to be studied. That is exactly what the FEC is doing. They are studying how the Internet is going to affect politics, and it will be a positive force. Meanwhile, we are here on the floor of the House today debating the proposition that if somebody is going to intend to influence the outcome of an election, whatever medium they should choose, they should have to stand up and attach their name to anything that they intend to say or do. Those people that are ashamed of the political advertising that they are engaged in today, so ashamed that they do not want to put their names on it, will resort to any media to accomplish that dirty deed. We need to put it to a stop. We need to adopt the issue ad restrictions in this bill. We need to defeat this amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Baird).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Oregon (Ms. Hooley).