Steny Hoyer

Mr. HOYER

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee). (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, we ought to vote ``no'' on this amendment. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) voted ``no'' on this amendment originally. He offers this amendment as a substitute because he says it was offered before. That is correct. It was offered before it was perfected. Shays-Meehan now offer their perfected version, which is the preferred version by supporters of campaign finance reform. I urge, therefore, every individual in this House who wants to support campaign finance reform and see that bill placed on the President's desk to vote against my distinguished chairman and friend, the gentleman from Ohio, and keep campaign finance reform alive.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 35 seconds. We believe the interpretation of the gentleman from Virginia and the majority whip is absolutely incorrect; wrong. It does not do what they say it does. However, having said that, for the Record, it is clearly the drafters' intent that it not allow, nor do we believe it does allow, the use of soft money to pay hard money bills. So the interpretation is clear, and the intent is without question. The representations of the chairman of the NRCC are incorrect.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez). (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair tell me what the time is remaining?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I know the two commissioners and I have a lot of dealings with the FEC, but they must have had a very quick reading. The fact of the matter is section 441(b) of the Federal Election Campaign Act prohibits what they assert the bill allows, and the transition rule to which they refer does not affect this provision. So that I fear what has happened is they have analyzed the transition provision without analyzing existing law which is not changed, which prohibits that which the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and others have asserted would happen. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett) and apologize for not having more time to yield.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I do.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald). (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). (Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We come to the end of the debate on the central amendment. This is the amendment. This is the vote. This is the time when Congress will decide whether or not we will have campaign finance reform. I ask my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment. I ask them to take this historic step for the House and for America.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, let me start by saying that we all respect the gentleman from Illinois. Those who read this amendment will nod their heads in agreement on much of this amendment. But I am reminded of the words of the great President from the State of Illinois, the State of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln once observed during the course of the Civil War that if in the end things turned out all right, nothing that was said would matter; but however, if in the end things turned out wrong, that all the angels in Heaven speaking on its behalf would not matter. In the last page of this amendment, section 602, the language says: ``Notwithstanding any provision of this Act and in recognition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, nothing in this Act or in any amendment made by this Act may be construed to abridge those freedoms found in that amendment.'' With all due respect, that is not within the power of this Congress. It is not within the power of this Congress to say that this is constitutional or it is not constitutional. And why is that? It is because the Founding Fathers' genius was to separate the powers and to give to an independent judiciary the right to say whether an act of Congress is constitutional or whether it was not. If that were not the case, then a majority of us could say, ``No, that which we have done is constitutional.'' That clearly would not be consistent with either the separation of powers, or the general purpose for the creation of a Supreme Court, which could protect the minority. And I say to my friend from Illinois, that nothing we say in this bill can abridge the constitutional rights of any American, if the Supreme Court determines by five or more votes, that we have abridged those rights. It is not within our power, except by way of a constitutional amendment, which, of course, this bill is not, to take that step.

Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I agree with the gentleman; and I say to the gentleman, he and I have voted on different sides of an issue that I think was a very central first amendment right. He and I differed on that issue. But our opinion on that issue, other than that it may have motivated each of us to vote, is irrelevant. In the final analysis what is relevant, what is important to the individual, is what the Supreme Court of the United States says we did, and nothing we say in our legislation, affirming its constitutionality or questioning its constitutionality, will make any difference. It is the opinion of the Supreme Court that will make the difference. Therefore, I oppose this amendment, not because its sentiment is wrong--because its sentiment is not--but because it is mere surplusage, and not relevant to this legislation. I do not mean to say to the gentleman from Illinois that his opinion as to the constitutionality of one or more provisions of the act is not relevant. Clearly it is, and it may well motivate his vote on this particular piece of legislation. But to add this surplusage does not add to or subtract from the substance of this legislation. I would hope that this body would reject this amendment because of the process that this amendment will require the legislation to then go through. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement).

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

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman aware that in this resolution a case is cited by name, Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Commission, citing a case that has been overruled by the Supreme Court? Was the gentleman aware of that?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I hope not.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield for 1 minute, I have the right to close, and I have 2 minutes, and I will yield to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Clement), and then the gentleman from Illinois can take his minute, and I will take the last minute to close.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point?

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, first of all, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) was not involved in this, but secondly, let me say to the gentleman that I will remind him of his remarks as we go through legislation in the coming months.

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).