Vernon Ehlers

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the other sponsor of the bill from the minority side.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close. I just have to say, I am a little disappointed in this debate. In fact, I am greatly disappointed in this debate. I am just a simple person who grew up in a small town, and I grew up in an area where we said what we meant, and we meant what we said. I have heard so much diversionary discussion on this topic from the minority today, it is very disappointing to me. The proposition of the bill is very simple: unlimited spending of soft money was intended to be banned under BCRA. A diversionary tactic has developed which allows the expenditures of huge amounts of money, unregulated soft money, and this bill today is an attempt to stop that practice which is being carried out by people who are violating the intent of a law we passed a few years ago. That plain and simple is the issue here. I urge the body to adopt the bill and stop the abominable practice of huge amounts of unregulated, unreported money influencing elections. Let's get back to the original intent of BCRA and put it in place and enforce it. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material I previously referred to. [From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2004] The Soft Money Boomerang It's encouraging to see signs of life in Washington, particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, over the obvious need to plug the newest subterranean pipe for unregulated campaign funds from big labor, big corporations and just plain big money. Of all the subplots in the presidential election, none were as sorry as the Democrats' pioneering ``527'' groups--named for the section of the tax code that governs them. The 527's were intended to circumvent the law's strictures against having unlimited soft money flood into political races. The Democrats built these new shadow-party advocacy groups to attack the president early in the campaign season and build voter-turnout machines. Then they watched Bush partisans adapt the same financing device to float the campaign's most notorious and devastating attack ads, the Swift boat assaults on John Kerry's heroic war record and his antiwar activities after he returned from Vietnam. Dollar-wise, the Democrats proved better at milking the 527 strategy, spending more than three times as much as the Republicans in stealth-party ads favoring their presidential ticket. But the Republicans wielded their ads like a rapier once the Federal Election Commission, true to its track record, shirked its responsibility by deciding that the new breed of advocacy groups should not be controlled under the campaign finance reform laws. A commission majority endorsed the fiction that the 527's are independent. The truth is that they were strategically linked to the candidates and perfect targets for aggressive F.E.C. regulation and spending limits. The 527 fund-raisers were the V.I.P. toast of the party conventions last summer, raising money in luxury suites with a wink and a grin. After this year's election drubbings, you would think the Democrats would now see the folly of the 527 committees. But, no, ranking Democrats are determined to make them a permanent campaign weapon, with no dollar caps on the corporations, labor unions and fat-cat partisans who spent more than $550 million on such committees in this year's races. President Bush condemned the 527's and promised a crackdown when the Democrats first exploited them and caught the G.O.P. short. But later in the campaign, he failed to condemn the Swift boat ads when Senator John McCain did so and pointedly asked for the president's support. Now Mr. Bush has another chance to put his considerable political weight behind Mr. McCain, who is determined to use the coming Congressional session to pass legislation that would force this blowzy lucre-genie back into the bottle. Senator McCain overcame whatever past bad feeling there was between himself and the president and became a dogged Bush campaigner this year. We hope the president repays him by explicitly backing the McCain fight to stop the 527 gamesmanship as an abuse of fair elections. And it's equally important for the president to enlist in the senator's campaign to overhaul the election commission. The F.E.C. is a transparent extension of hack party politics, beholden to members of Congress who are more concerned with their own incumbency than the public interest.

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

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the author of this legislation.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act of 2006. Today we have an opportunity to right one of the wrongs of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. All my friends on the other side of the aisle who voted for BCRA because they believed we needed to get soft money out of politics must support this legislation today because it does indeed get the soft money out of politics. Just a word of explanation. I have used the term ``BCRA.'' That is the acronym for Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which we worked on very, very hard a few years ago to get the soft money out of politics. What do we mean by soft money? That is money that is unregulated, both in quantity and disclosure to the Federal Election Commission. While BCRA was supposed to curtail the influence of soft money in Federal elections, it did not achieve that goal. In the 2004 election cycle, the first conducted under the rules imposed by BCRA, over a half a billion dollars in soft money was spent to influence the outcome. Just four individuals alone spent over $73 million total. While BCRA was supposed to reduce the influence of special interests, it actually empowered these ideologically driven outside groups. The power these outside groups gained came at the direct expense of political parties which saw many of the activities they had traditionally performed limited by BCRA, and thence taken over by these new organizations, the 527s. Again, let me explain, the term 527 refers to the section of IRS Code which governs their operation, and we simply use that designation for them. We now have a system where soft money continues to thrive. Our political parties, especially those at the State and local level, are increasingly unable to carry out core functions such as voter registration activities. We now have a system where the influence of billionaires is greatly enhanced. In some cases, representatives of 527s have made boasts about taking over the party. For example, Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org sent an e-mail to supporters after the 2004 elections stating, ``Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.'' What more evidence do we need of the corruption that has appeared here? This does not represent progress. Today we have an opportunity to reverse this negative trend, and this bill will help restore some balance to our system. H.R. 513 would require 527 groups spending money to influence Federal elections to register as Federal political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including limits on the contributions they receive. Thus, 527 groups would be subject to the same contribution limits and source restrictions that are applicable to Federal political action committees. There would be no more $23 million soft money contributions allowed from a lone, extremely wealthy donor. When this bill passes, individuals will be limited to $30,000. In other words, soft unregulated money will be replaced by hard regulated money which will be reported to the Federal Elections Commission. Those 527s that engage exclusively in State or local elections or in ballot initiatives would not be restricted by this bill. However, if they decide to engage in Federal election activity such as making public communications that promote, support, attack, or oppose a Federal candidate during the year prior to a Federal election, or conduct voter drive activities in connection with an election in which a Federal candidate appears on the ballot, they will be restricted by this bill. In other words, State and local activities would be free to continue as they have in the past. Those dealing with Federal candidates or issues will be restricted by the bill, and will have to use hard money. H.R. 513 would also impose new allocation rules on 527 groups regarding expenses for Federal and non-Federal activities. For instance, 100 percent of expenses for public communications or voter drive activities that refer only to a Federal campaign would have to be paid for with hard money. If both Federal and non-Federal candidates were mentioned, then at least 50 percent of such expenses would have to be paid for with hard money. In addition, under H.R. 513, at least 50 percent of a 527 group's administrative overhead expenses would have to be paid for with hard money. This bill, H.R. 513 has been endorsed by the reform community and rightfully so. Common Cause, Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and other like-minded reform groups have sent several letters to House Members asking them to support H.R. 513. In a letter sent just this week, these groups argued that H.R. 513 is needed in order to ``close the loophole that allowed both Democrat and Republican 527 groups to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited soft money to influence the 2004 presidential and congressional elections.'' Mr. Speaker, I will be including a copy of the letter for the Record. Mr. Speaker, I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are usually interested in what The New York Times has to say on these issues, so I would like to include some editorials from The Times as well; and an editorial from today's Washington Post also calls on the House to pass this bill. Mr. Speaker, I will include these editorials in the Record. Mr. Speaker, I expect many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would be arguing that BCRA should not be applied to 527s because they are independent organizations and have no connection to officeholders. The claim will be that we have already severed the link between large donors and Federal officeholders. This is nonsense; this is bunk. The 527s that have soaked up all the soft money were, in many cases, set up and staffed by former party operatives and congressional staffers. In some cases, Federal officeholders attend fundraising events for these 527s in an attempt to grant an official stamp of approval and signal to their donors where soft money donations should be steered. I do not intend to name names, but I will include in the Record a number of articles that describe how 527s have been set up by people who used to work for Federal officeholders or national parties. The soft money shell game we spawned 4 years ago is clearly demonstrated in these articles. They demonstrate that these so-called ``independent'' 527s are, in many cases, independent in name only. In reality, they have been set up by people who used to work for our parties. They left to organize 527s to escape the restrictions BCRA placed on the parties. Had their candidate for the presidency won, many of them would be working in the administration. Would not they feel indebted to the millionaire donors who helped put them in office? Is not that what BCRA was supposed to stop? Let us stop pretending that these 527s are anything other than campaign organizations established to influence our Federal elections. This is not the first time Congress has dealt with the 527 issue. In fact, some time ago, 6 years ago to be exact, Roll Call reported on the debate that was going on at the time and included a quote from a powerful congressional leader of the time. In 2000, 527s did not have any disclosure requirements, and a bill was pending to require them to disclose their donors. At an event held to rally support for the bill, this leader was quoted as saying, ``Now more than ever, we need to assure the American people that we are not willing to let our system of government be put in jeopardy by wealthy special interests, unregulated foreign money, and, most importantly, a system of secrecy. It is time for disclosure.'' The leader who said these words was Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. We passed a disclosure bill then, but the problem of wealthy special interest money jeopardizing our system of government has only gotten worse in the ensuing 6 years, and I suspect the minority leader would say the same thing today. Not extending the contributions restrictions in BCRA to all 527s was a terrible mistake that we are today seeking to rectify. Today we can restore some sanity to our system. The status quo allowing 527 groups to raise unlimited amounts of soft money while our parties continue to lose power and influence is unacceptable. It threatens the health of our democracy. We must subject 527s to the same regulatory restrictions that are applicable to all other parties, candidates and committees. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 513. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\3/4\ minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds). (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 755, I call up the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H. Res. 541, the resolution now under consideration.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 541) honoring Drs. Roy J. Glauber, John L. Hall, and Theodor W. Hansch for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics for 2005, and Drs. Yves Chauvin, Robert H. Grubbs, and Richard R. Schrock for being awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Joint Resolution 82 provides for the reappointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. Alan Spoon has served as a member of the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural History Board of Regents since 2000 and, by all accounts, has done an excellent job. His diverse background in finance, management, and technology has served the institution very well. We would be privileged to have him continue to serve as a member. Mr. Spoon has a unique skill-set, stemming from his 25 years of service in various dynamic business atmospheres. Mr. Spoon currently serves as a managing partner of Polaris Venture Partners, which invests in Internet-related businesses, networking, biotechnology, and medical technology. Prior to his position with Polaris, he served in a variety of capacities at The Washington Post Company. These included positions as president, chief financial officer, chief operating officer, president of Newsweek, head of newspaper marketing, and head of corporate business development. Prior to serving on the Board of Regents, Mr. Spoon served on the National Museum of Natural History's Board of Directors. Mr. Spoon received his BA at M.I.T., his MS at M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management, and his JD from Harvard Law School. In light of his distinguished service with the Smithsonian Institution, I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 82 and reappoint Mr. Spoon to an additional 6-year term. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 82) providing for the reappointment of Alan G. Spoon as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 81.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.J. Res. 82.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the joint resolution (H.J. Res. 81) providing for the appointment of Phillip Frost as a citizen regent of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. House Joint Resolution 81 provides for the appointment of Phillip Frost to serve on the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution. This 17-member board, which governs the Smithsonian Institution, is comprised of the Chief Justice and Vice President of the United States, three Members each from the House and Senate, and nine citizens who are nominated by the Board and approved jointly in a resolution of Congress. Our first regent nominee, Phillip Frost, founded Ivax Corporation, and has served as the Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board since 1987; he also served as President of Ivax from 1991 to 1995. Before founding Ivax, Dr. Frost chaired the Department of Dermatology at the Mount Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami from 1972 to 1990. His other work involved joining the University of Miami School of Medicine faculty in 1966. Among his many accomplishments, Dr. Frost was named the 2001 National Entrepreneur of the Year by Ernst & Young. A native of Philadelphia, Dr. Frost attended the University of Paris from 1955 to 1956. He received his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Pennsylvania and his medical degree from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York in 1961. Dr. Frost and his wife Patricia, who currently serves as Chair of the Smithsonian National Board, have displayed a genuine commitment to the arts through personal leadership and philanthropy. In 1986, they gave their entire 113-piece collection of American abstract art to the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Dr. Frost has experience serving on a variety of boards and possesses significant fiscal experience with matters of government oversight. I believe the Smithsonian can benefit greatly from Phillip Frost's financial, educational, and leadership experience. And I urge my colleagues to support House Joint Resolution 81. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Gerasimos (Gerry) Vans, who is retiring after more than 25 years of distinguished service to this institution. Throughout his years of service to the House, Gerry has tackled a wide range of institutional challenges. In every aspect of his service to the House, Gerry has demonstrated his characteristic professionalism, knowledge, and creativity, and has without exception conducted himself with the utmost integrity. Gerry, a native of Milwaukee, Wisconsin began his career with summer intern positions in the House and Senate while attending college. Following his graduation from Marquette University, Gerry pursued a masters degree at The George Washington University while employed in the House mail room. Gerry began his congressional career in earnest following his appointment to the U.S. Capitol Police force where he remained for two years. His next appointment was as the Executive Assistant to the House Sergeant at Arms, where he served as secretary to the U.S. Capitol Police Board and primary Capitol Police liaison for the Sergeant at Arms. Gerry had primary operational responsibilities for major House events and congressional funeral delegations, and was a key staffer in Capitol security planning. Since joining the Office of the Clerk's front office staff in 1991, he has served under four Clerks, first in a support capacity to senior management, and since 1995 as a senior manager--as Special Assistant, Assistant to the Clerk, 1999, and Deputy Clerk, 2003. Because of his fluency with congressional operations and practice, he is frequently called upon to brief visiting foreign parliamentarians and senior officials, and has participated in various legislative-related conferences. Gerry has also been instrumental in the development and implementation of the Lobbying Disclosure Act; the five-year project to move the Legislative Information Management System, LIMS, from a mainframe to a client-server platform; the Document Management Initiative: conversion of all legislative documents to a common Extensible Markup Language (XML) standard; Continuity of Operations: development and planning leading to the first comprehensive House-wide continuity of operations apparatus; and the development of the History and Preservation Office. Over the years, Gerry's responsibilities have grown to include the day-to-day oversight and operations of the Clerk's 9 departments and 270 employees, which provide legislative and information services to the House and the general public. He is involved daily and directly with such issues as Member of Congress relations, House floor operations, planning, personnel, procurement, information technology, printing, oversight of vacant congressional offices, and event planning. There is no doubt that the House as an institution is losing one of its hardest working public servants. Gerry's dedication and professionalism has spanned both Democratic and Republican majorities, during which time his mission has always been to complete any task, big or small, with the same tenacity and thoroughness. Gerry will be dearly missed by the House of Representatives and by all those among us who have had the pleasure of working with him during his more than 25 years of service. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this institution, I wish to extend to Gerry Vans our heartfelt gratitude for his tireless service to the House, and wish him the very best as he embarks upon his new career.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my fellow physicist for yielding. I rise with great pleasure to support this amendment. For 12 years I have been fighting within this chamber for improved math and science education, and I am delighted to see other individuals offering similar amendments, and that I am not the only one doing so. I congratulate the gentlewoman from Washington State. This is precisely what we need. We must address this issue if we are going to remain competitive. I recognize full well that we are at this time quite competitive; but the Chinese and the Indians 20 years ago started a program to teach their children math and science. They did it well, and they have now become major competitors of us. If we do not get on the ball and once again get to the top in competing with them on math and science education, so that we are producing scientists, engineers, technicians, and mathematicians who can compete worldwide, then we will lose the competitiveness battle. I am absolutely delighted the President had proposed the American Competitiveness Initiative. This amendment will be an important component of the President's initiative, along with the other things we have done in this bill and in other bills to improve math and science education in this country. So thank you again to the gentleman from New Jersey for yielding me time. I commend him and the gentlewoman from Washington for initiating this amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Blumenauer-Ehlers- Wu amendment, which calls for the Secretary of Education to convene a summit on sustainability. I would like to thank Chairman McKeon and his staff for working with us to make this amendment in order for consideration. Simply put, sustainability is meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. As population growth, urban development and growing energy use place stress on our ecosystem, it is imperative that we develop innovative and successful sustainable operations and programs. For many years, businesses and universities in Michigan and throughout the nation have engaged in sustainability initiatives. The West Michigan Sustainable Business Forum, a diverse group of 90 companies, academic institutions and government agencies works toward achieving the triple bottom line of environmental stewardship, economic vitality and social responsibility. Universities are in a unique position to foster new knowledge, evaluate policies and discover new technologies to address sustainability. In fact, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University and Aquinas College have sustainability centers that have provided innovative research and have engaged students in sustainability thinking. Sustainable operations and programs on university campuses include water and energy conservation and recycling, as well as academic programs such as engineering courses that encourage innovative product designs, e.g., alternative fuels for cars and new types of packing that use fewer natural materials. This amendment would convene a summit of higher education experts working in the area of sustainable operations and programs. It would encourage the Federal Government and university and business leaders to identify best practices in sustainability by encouraging current efforts, enhancing research and identifying opportunities for partnerships to expand sustainable operations and academic programs. I respectfully urge Members to support this very important amendment.

Mr. EHLERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the chairman for yielding me time. I rise in support of H.R. 609, the College Access and Opportunity Act. I thank Majority Mr. Leader Boehner and Chairman McKeon for their endless hard work on this bill. I will vote in favor of the bill and wish to highlight provisions I strongly support. I may also comment about a few that I hope will be modified as we go through the process. I strongly support an independent evaluation of distance education programs, and I would like to thank Chairman McKeon for including my study in his manager's amendment. Section 931 will require the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a scientifically correct and statistically valid evaluation of the quality of distance education programs as compared to the quality of campus-based education programs. I am not opposed to distance education, but I want to make certain that we do a good job of this and we develop good accreditation standards. Also, I am very supportive of strengthening U.S. competitiveness through math and science programs and teacher training. During the committee process, I worked with Chairmen Boehner and McKeon, and with Representative Wolf, to craft provisions that provide scholarships and interest payments on loans for students pursuing an undergraduate or graduate degree in science, math and engineering. I understand that Representative McMorris will be offering an amendment to further strengthen U.S. competitiveness, and I urge Members to support her amendment as well. I do have some concerns about the college affordability index. My local colleges contacted me, very concerned. They are low-cost institutions but realize tuition increases are inevitable, and the index will handicap them more than it would handicap other higher- tuition schools. We should encourage schools with low tuition and not increase their problems. I should also mention a concern about State accreditation. Again, the institutions in Michigan are concerned about that, and we have to clarify the bill to make certain that the accreditation language applies only to those States that are already doing it. I strongly support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. EHLERS

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to close. Mr. Speaker, this is not a joyous event to celebrate. At the end of World War II, we realized that we had witnessed the greatest genocide in the history of this planet. I was a young lad at that time, but I thought: never again could this happen. Yet now that we know it can happen and how horrible it is, we must guard against it ever happening again. I am sorry to say that it has happened, not on that scale, but we saw that happening in Iraq, we are seeing it happen right now in Darfur and other parts of the Sudan. The ability of humans to commit great horror against their fellow human beings has not died out. That is why it is essential for us to engage in this ceremony and to participate and recognize that this is an ongoing battle to fight against those who would kill their fellow human beings indiscriminately at times, and at other times kill them simply because of their race or ethnic background. I am very pleased to be here presenting this resolution, because this event is something that we should all participate in every year to remind us of what can happen if we let our guard down, and if we assume that we have conquered evil. Evil will always be with us, and we must continually fight it. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 350) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.