John Doolittle

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I respect the honesty of the gentleman. I completely disagree on the solution, but I think some of the problems he has identified are real problems.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would like to continue on with my analysis of what is wrong with the present system. There is something definitely wrong with it, but there is great disagreement as to what that is, I think, between me and the other side. Point number 3, we talked about how the campaign finance system requires current and prospective office holders to spend too much time raising money and not enough time governing, debating issues. Secondly, today's system has failed to make elections more competitive. We had huge domination of Congress by incumbents for decades. Finally dramatic change occurred in the 1994 elections. I believe that was directly attributable to the 1974 law enacted 20 years earlier. Thirdly, this is very important, I think, for us to understand, as the public, as Members of the House. Today's system allows millionaires to pursue congressional seats and inhibits the ability of challengers to raise the funds necessary to be competitive. The millionaire is the only one who can write whatever amount he or she wants to his election campaign. Everyone else is forced to live within the same hard dollar limits that were put in place in 1974 and have never been adjusted for inflation. All of the moaning about soft money and these terrible issue advocacy ads that are, as they say, are sham campaign ads, I do not agree with that, but that is what they say, those are the result of never lifting those hard dollar limits. Sometimes it is important to understand, all the time it is important to understand causes and effects. We do not get that as a majority body in either House of Congress. We seem not to understand that the effect of issue advocacy ads or the effect of soft money or the effect of independent expenditures is directly caused by the hard and unadjusted limits on hard campaign dollars contributed directly to candidates. Inflation has risen by two-thirds. Can Members imagine having to live on the same salary, just to put this in perspective, pay all your food bills, your rents, your utilities, clothing, et cetera, gasoline with the same amount of money you earned in 1974, and have to live with that same amount of money today and meet all your bills? They could not do it because the prices have risen. In the campaign context when that happens, we start then pushing out into the less explored areas of the law. PACs became very big, which were really pretty much a creation of the 1974 big government reform that we have now. And those were heavily attacked by the left as recently as 2 years ago. Now we have gotten off PACs; now we are on to that hated soft money. Soft money is nothing more than unregulated money. It falls in two categories. Soft money that goes for political parties to do get out the vote and voter registration, voter identification, that type of thing, and then there is soft money, unregulated money that groups, independent groups will spend to communicate their views on an issue. That is what so upset incumbents, because those groups start using the name of the incumbent, start criticizing his voting record. They do not break the law; they live within the law. They do not make express advocacy. But that is very upsetting to incumbents, and they are not going to take it anymore, and that is why we have Shays-Meehan and these other bills, because they are not going to allow that sort of insolence to be displayed toward the incumbents. They are going to have more regulation. They are going to make it harder for the challenger. If I wanted to be guaranteed election for life in my congressional district, I would join on with Shays-Meehan, because that is the effect it will have. It will make it even harder for challengers who do not have the advantages of incumbency, who do not have the name ID in the district, who do not have the district offices, who do not have the ability to reach out and communicate with the voters, who do not have the ability to call a press conference and have anybody show up, when you restrict these things, you are helping the incumbent because he or she has all those advantages. You are hurting the challenger. I do not mind saying the Emperor has no clothes. I hope all the rest of my colleagues will feel free to join me today in making that important declaration, because that is really what this is all about. The founders of Shays-Meehan may have won the battle today, but I predict they will lose the war. The bill will not be enacted into law this year, will never clear the Senate. Let us just remember this, you are going to have a less sympathetic House to big government campaign reform after this, the coming 1998 elections this year. You will have a House that is less receptive to that when we convene in the next Congress in January. Your Senate, which now has at most 57 votes for the big government Shays-Meehan approach, will have, after these 1998 elections, at most, 54 votes, maybe 53 votes. So bask in the glory today and enjoy it. You are entitled to your temporary victory. I would just say to my colleagues that, please, feel free, even those of you who voted for Shays-Meehan, even those of you who will vote for the freshman bill, please step forward today and vote for a new approach. We know this bill is not going to pass today, my bill, but it is important to lay the foundation so that we can build upon that next year. Yes, I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), this will be back next year.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, the Legal Services Corporation often strays from its primary mission of providing legal counsel in cases to people who cannot afford it. It is clear that the LSC often pursues an activist and ideological agenda that hardly benefits its poor clients. It is ridiculous that we continue to fund a program so irresponsible that the Congress would actually have to take the kind of action we took in fiscal year 1996 and spell out what ought to be clear ahead of time for an organization funded with federal taxpayer dollars. Congress actually had to make explicit that the LSC may not get involved in redistricting, they may not get involved in abortion litigation, or prison litigation, or welfare litigation, or pro-union advocacy, or union organizing, or fee-generating cases, or representation of public housing tenants charged with possession of illegal drugs or against whom eviction proceedings have begun as a result of illegal drug activity, and a prohibition on representing illegal aliens. That is an indictment right there on the inclinations of the individuals in this irresponsible agency. I believe as much as anyone in protecting the rights of poor people, but I do not believe we have to build a bigger and bigger welfare state, of which this is a part, in order to accomplish those objectives. If legal representation of the poor at public expense is so important, let the attorneys donate their time, let the States handle the matter, where they are a little closer to the people and where these kinds of abuses cannot continue to occur. And yes, they do continue to occur. For example, when it comes to protecting children, the LSC has actually been often counterproductive to that goal. In 1997 Northwest Louisiana Legal Services argued for preserving a woman's parental rights to her children, despite clear evidence she had physically abused them. The case began in 1991. The State investigated it. They assumed temporary custody. Legal Services still got involved, claiming that terminating parental rights was improper. These children had been severely beaten and burned, and yet our taxpayer dollars went through Legal Services to defend this type of individual. Providing free legal services to the poor is perfectly appropriate for local and State entities to carry out. I think we will not end the abuses as long as the remote Federal Government continues to fund a program of this sort. Obviously these organizations have no interest in respecting the intent of Congress, when we have cited repeated violations of the very restrictions that were already in the law that continue to happen. This is not the job of the United States government. It is the job of the State governments or of local bar societies.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 329, I was unavoidably detained in a discussion with the Speaker concerning a matter of utmost importance to my constituents. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no'' on this rollcall. Amendment Offered by Mr. Pappas

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, due to an illness I was absent on Friday, July 17, 1998. Had I been present, I would have voted ``Nay'' on rollcall vote No. 295 and ``Aye'' on rollcall vote No. 296.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, during the course of debate on campaign reform, I have repeatedly voiced concern that the Shays-Meehan legislation, if enacted would threaten citizen participation in our democratic system. Numerous provisions in Shays-Meehan 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 an election. Why would any group of citizens distribute a voting guide or scorecard on a candidate when the Federal Election Commission (FEC) would be empowered to decide, after the distribution of the scorecard, whether it was written in an ``educational'' manner? Why would a citizen's activist organization issue a ``voter alert'' to its supporters warning them to an upcoming vote in Congress, when they could be potentially fined for violating the burdensome ``coordination'' section of the bill? Why would a group of citizens concerned about an issue like partial birth abortion or affirmative action run a television advertisement to try to influence the way their Member of Congress votes, when they could be fined for violating new free speech restrictions that are contained in the bill? The Shays-Meehan bill contains a provision that prohibits non- citizens from contributing to campaigns. When you combine that provision with the amendment offered by Representative Pickering, I believe political contributions by minorities would become suspect. As a stand alone, the Shays-Meehan bill is patently unconstitutional on its face. It violates the First Amendment rights of all Americans. But it would be a mistake to compound those constitutional errors by somehow making suspect political contributions by Americans with non- western names. With these two amendments adopted, the threat to minority participation in our election process would compound the threat to freedom by the bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, I am going to yield my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for purposes of control.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 500, I call up the bill (H.R. 3267) to direct the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conduct a feasibility study and construct a project to reclaim the Salton Sea, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Speaker, Thomas Jefferson said, ``To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions in which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.'' The House of Representatives has an opportunity to hold a historic vote on legislation to repeal those provisions of Federal law which require employees to pay union dues or fees as a condition of employment. This vote is long overdue for the working men and women of this country. Nearly 80% of Americans share in the belief that compulsory unionism violates a fundamental principle of individual liberty, the very principle upon which this Nation was founded. Compulsory unionism basically says that workers cannot and should not decide for themselves what is in their best interest, that they need a union boss to decide for them. I can think of nothing more offensive to our core founding principles which we celebrated on the Fourth of July, a few days ago, than that principle that the working people of this country do not have the ability to decide for themselves. With this bill, not a single word is added to Federal law. It simply repeals those sections of the National Labor Relations Act and Railway Labor Act that authorizes the imposition of forced-dues contracts upon working Americans. It simply does away with the requirement that people have to belong to a union to hold a job. I believe that every worker must have the right to join and financially support a labor union if that is what they want to do. Every worker should have the right, of his own free will and accord, but he should not be coerced to pay union dues just to keep his job. This bill simply protects that right, and no worker would ever be forced into union membership without his consent. Union membership should be a choice that an individual makes based upon merits and benefits offered by the union. If a union truly benefits its members, they do not have to coerce them. If workers had confidence in the union leadership, if the union leadership was honest, upright, and forthright, then they would not need to coerce their members to join. A union freely held together by common interests and desires of those who voluntarily want to be members would be a better union than one in which members were forced to join. If the National Right to Work Act is passed, nothing in Federal law will stop workers from joining a union, participating in union activity, and paying union dues. Union officials who operate their organizations in a truly representative, honest, democratic manner would find their ranks growing with volunteer members who are attracted by service, benefits, and mutual interests, not because they are forced against their will with no options to be a member of a union and pay union fees in order to hold a job. In addition, voluntary union members would be more enthusiastic about union membership simply because they had the freedom to join and were not forced into it. When Federal laws authorizing compulsory unionism are overturned, only then will working men and women be free to exercise fully their right to work. When that time comes, they will have the freedom to choose whether they want to accept or reject union representation and union dues without facing coercion, violence, and workplace harassment by overbearing, and in many cases, disreputable union bosses. A poll taken in 1995 indicates 8 out of 10 Americans oppose compulsory unionism--8 out of 10 Americans do not think you should be forced to belong to a union to hold a job. Mr. Speaker, some members of this Chamber will say that this is a states rights issue and since law allows states to pass Right to Work Laws there is not need for this legislation. Nothing could be further than the truth. First of all, Federal Law is the source of compulsory union. But more than that Mr. Speaker, Right to Work is about freedom. No governmental authority should endorse the right of a private organization to force working men and women to pay dues or fees as a condition of employment. Compulsory unionism is wrong on the federal level, compulsory unionism is wrong on the state level and compulsory unionism is wrong on the local level. In the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson ``The very purpose of the Bill of Rights is to place certain subjects beyond the reach of the majority . . . ones fundamental rights wait for no election, they depend on no vote.'' It is my sincere hope that my colleagues will join me in defending the fundamental individual liberty of the right to work and will support this bill.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with the gentleman's response to me on the voter guide, why he thinks that is permitted by Shays-Meehan. Now the gentleman is asking me to comment upon his hypothetical.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, it was my intent when we offered this to have it drafted in such a way as to protect the printed material or material on the Internet. It really was not my intent to go beyond that. The wording of the amendment arguably does go beyond that, so I offer this modification to conform the written language of what my intent clearly was.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, in drafting the original amendment, which we are now seeking to modify, although we strike out the coordination language in this subsection B, I would just reference the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to the overall section 206, which deals with coordination of the candidates. Since that deals with providing anything of value, it was our experts' belief that that would still apply, and, therefore, it was not necessary to do it in the way the gentleman is suggesting.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify my amendment.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I listened to the gentleman's explanation. The phrase in this bill that he supports says that words in context have no reasonable meaning other than to urge the election or defeat. I would submit to my colleague that the words ``office of promoting homosexuality in schools'' where one candidate opposes it and one supports it, those words in conjunction with the Christian Coalition card, which in context is being distributed in churches and the card or the word says it is a Christian action organization, those would be deemed, or could be deemed, to constitute the context advocating the election of the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske) and the defeat of his opponent.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. I would like to answer the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) as well. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) is quite correct, He conveniently left out that key phrase. I want to note that one of those points says promoting homosexuality to school children. And then down below in the real fine print, which no one can read from here, the Christian Coalition is described as a pro-family action organization, I believe is the phrase. In context, I believe a reasonable person could conclude that a pro- family action organization does not think it is a good idea to promote homosexuality to schoolchildren and, therefore, that would fall under Shays-Meehan as being held to be applicable to their law and, therefore, would be banned. I would like the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell) to explain to me his interpretation.

Mr. DOOLITTLE

Mr. DOOLITTLE. And that is the design.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Whereas now that is clear. If we do not use certain words, it is clearly beyond the purview of Federal regulation. Now everything is arguably within the purview.

Mr. DOOLITTLE. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) indicated my amendment was bogus, but I thought it was interesting that these organizations all consider his so-called exemption for scorecards bogus: The American Civil Liberties Union, the American Conservative Union, the National Right to Life Committee, the National Rifle Association, the National Defense Foundation, amongst many others, the National Legal Policy Center. Would the gentleman agree that their wording actually makes ambiguous what is now clear and unambiguous in the present law?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, there is clearly a major difference of opinion about the Shays-Meehan bill and what it does. And those of us who have taken the floor in opposition have opposition for very principled reasons. They support it for principled reasons. But I think one thing is clear that they basically, by the wording of their bill, are going to wipe out the voter guides. That is why we have got about four dozen organizations spanning the whole ideological spectrum, from the American Civil Liberties Union to the American Conservative Union and everything in between, claiming that this so-called exemption for voter guides in Shays-Meehan is ``bogus.'' And it is bogus. It is bogus because it deliberately blurs the bright line that the Supreme Court handed down in the famous Buckley case in which it has been repeatedly reaffirmed. When we read that case we see why they gave us a bright line, because it is very difficult to separate issue discussion from advocacy of election or defeat of a candidate. They did not want to chill free speech. That is why they gave us the bright line. That is why they said we had to be clear and unambiguous in urging the election or defeat of a candidate, using words such as ``elect'' or ``defeat'' or ``support'' or ``oppose'', et cetera. Shays-Meehan, basically in the name of good government, subverts the first amendment. What could be more clear than the first amendment, which says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech? They abridge the freedom of speech, and they do it and justify it in their own minds because they think speech needs regulation. The Founders thought it was too important to be regulated. That is why we fought the American Revolution, and that is why we have a written Constitution with that express provision in it. That is why all of these groups that do voter guides, which is the most grassroots form of activity there is, are urging my colleagues to support my amendment to this bill. I think it is a bad bill, and I will oppose the bill with or without the amendment. But at least the amendment preserves the integrity of the voter guide system and allows these groups, which many Americans are members of, to go ahead and disseminate the information and not be called into question. Which one of my colleagues would want to have the threat of hiring attorneys, being subjected to months of publicity and spending $400,000 or $500,000 to defend what their own constitutional rights already are? That is what this amendment is about, to make it clear and unambiguous, and that is why I urge my colleagues to support my amendment.