John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 350 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 1542, the Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001. H. Res. 350 provides for 1 hour and 20 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour of that time equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary. H. Res. 350 waives all points of order against consideration of the bill. It provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying the resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole. H. Res. 350 provides that the bill, as amended, shall be considered as the original bill for the purpose of further amendment and shall be considered as read. It also provides that no further amendment to the bill, as amended, shall be in order except those amendments printed in part B of the report of the Committee on Rules. H. Res. 350 provides that the amendments printed in part B of the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand for division in the House or in the Committee of the Whole. H. Res. 350 waives all points of order against amendments printed in part B of the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to approve this resolution so that we can move on to a vigorous debate on the underlying bill, the Tauzin- Dingell broadband measure. When the House of Representatives was writing the 1996 Telecommunications Act a number of years ago, I played a role in helping to restore a sense of balance to that bill with respect to its treatment of the various segments of the telecommunications industry as it moved from the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet to the full Committee on Commerce, to the floor, on to the other body, and eventually into public law. I did so because I believed key to enacting such a monumental, deregulatory telecommunications measure was to take a balanced approach. I am somewhat dismayed with the current form of H.R. 1542, as I fear that it moves the telecommunications market away from the progress we have started to make under the 1996 act, and puts us instead on a road towards large, unregulated monopolies dominating the telecommunications industry. This rule provides for two different amendments to section 4 of the bill, which has been at the center of the debate on this proposal from the beginning. With respect to the upcoming debate regarding the Buyer-Towns and Cannon-Conyers amendments, I will support the Cannon-Conyers proposal, which seeks to address some of the telecommunications industry's concerns with the current version of the Tauzin-Dingell bill, and in doing so will bring some sense of balance, in my judgment, to this proposal. In closing, I am going to vote for this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis), a member of our leadership.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the sponsor of the Tauzin-Dingell bill.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of the committee.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns). (Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that for those who think this is cynical, this bill was essentially introduced in March of last year. Both parties raised about the same amount of soft money, about $245 million in the last cycle; and we should ban it all, and those who do not want to ban it all, do not want to ban it. The Shays-Meehan bill will only reduce soft money for national political parties; admittedly, not to local parties, admittedly not to interest groups. They can still continue to use soft money. Only national political parties will be totally forbidden from using soft money. Yet, we are going to drive wedges between the national parties and special interest groups. We are going to make our politics narrower and narrower in focus, because interest groups tend to have a single interest. Whether it is pro- or anti-abortion, pro- or anti-gun, pro- or anti-environmental, they are single-issue organizations, and they will be unfettered in their use of soft money, and we will have candidates across this country trying to genuflect between the alter of this group or that group, and not to the people with the broadened philosophy, but with narrow interests. That is bad for our politics; it is bad for our policy. This substitute was not cynical. For those who say it is a poison pill, let me just say that that is a bad cliche, and, for the most part, cliches are substitutes for rigorous thought. This was put forth a long time ago. It could have been read long before Shays-Meehan was ever even produced at midnight last night. In fact, many of the folks who signed the discharge petition which passed the rule to put this bill on the floor have not read this Shays-Meehan version yet. This is only the most recent iteration. If we want simply to curb some soft money, but not all, support Shays-Meehan. If we want to simply marginally reduce corporate, union and special interest loopholes, support Shays-Meehan. If we want to nibble around the edges of this debate year after year after year, then the Shays-Meehan is the bill for you. But if we want a complete and total ban on every dollar of soft money involved in Federal election advocacy today, then join me and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), and support this substitute. Join us. Ban it all; ban it now.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, can the Chair tell us how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, to begin to address the question of intent, this bill, or the vast majority of this bill, was actually introduced March 15, 2001. It was introduced by me after talking to many people about it because I believe if we want to get rid of soft money, Members ought to do that. Every year since 1995, this body has been offered a version of Shays- Meehan, and in every Congress we have listened to our colleagues take the floor of the House to vilify soft money and all of its evils and ills; yet in all of the various incantations of the Shays-Meehan language that we have seen over the years, we have never seen a version that bans soft money in Federal elections. Let me say that again. In all of the various incantations of the Shays-Meehan language that we have seen over the years, we have never seen a version that bans soft money in Federal elections. Further, in nary a rendition of the Shays-Meehan bill, have the authors banned all soft money immediately. That is right. Yet for the rest of this day and into the night, we are going to hear that this proposal bans soft money. It calls to mind the wonderful line from Alice in Wonderland when one of the character says, ``When I use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean.'' That is what ``ban'' is going to be today. Mr. Chairman, I am the former chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. I ran that committee on the very soft dollars that we seek to ban today. So when I speak about the need to end soft money in Federal politics, I know of what I speak. It is from that background that I came to the floor proudly today to support the ban- it-all, ban-it-now reform legislation of the gentleman from Texas. I support campaign finance reform. In fact, even as a former NRCC chairman, I introduced my own campaign finance reform legislation in this Congress, legislation that would ban all soft money used by national committees, corporations, and labor unions. I am pleased that much of that bill is incorporated in this substitute today. But the debate here today is not about my language; it is about my principles. And while I support campaign finance reform, principle prevents me from supporting Shays-Meehan. Mr. Chairman, all Americans deserve a voice in the political process, and we need campaign finance reform to ensure that all voices are heard. Yet Shays-Meehan simply silences some voices altogether while amplifying others. Shays-Meehan creates a playing field, but it is not a level playing field. It is a field where winners are guaranteed. Clever rhetoric and good intentions have never been able to hide this fatal flaw. While soft money is certainly not the root of all evil in modern politics, all direct contributions to national parties from corporations, labor unions, or individuals should fall under the same regulation as direct contributions to candidates fall under. Ultimately, campaign finance reform must be about fairness. Bringing corporations, labor unions, interest groups, and individuals under the same regulations as everyone else is the only way to achieve honest fairness. The substitute put forth by the majority leader and I does not play favorites. It does not pick winners and losers. It does not use clever language or fancy phrases. Rather, it identifies a single societal goal, accountability and disclosure in politics; and then it proceeds to be certain that this end is achieved. It identifies a single problem in politics and focuses all of its energy and power on effecting a solution; and that is the bill we have before us today. In 12 simple pages, this bill bans every dollar of unregulated, unaccountable, and undisclosed money that can be constitutionally eliminated from Federal politics. Again, every cent of unregulated, unaccountable or undisclosed money that can be constitutionally eliminated from Federal politics is eliminated by this language. Why? Because America is asking for accountability from its government, and we answer that call. We answer it not next cycle, not next year, not in 60 to 90 days, but we answer the call today, now. Not in 100 pages, not in 75, not in 50; but in 12 simple pages, this bill addresses completely what the proponents of Shays-Meehan language have been attacking for nearly a decade. Do not let the length fool Members. The language of the substitute is thorough, it is total, and it is complete; and it actually does ban soft money. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to point out that there was nothing cynical about my intent to introduce this bill a year ago. There is nothing cynical about supporting it now. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), who has some time constraints, and then I will make my comments.

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, does the current Shays-Meehan bill require the signature or the identification of the sponsor?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who just spoke on his points. He made them all so equally well in committee. The question I asked is does this bill require that identification, and there is no evidence to me that it does.

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