John Linder

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, the Chair is going to have to determine whether he wants to recess, because we are ready to close the debate.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the gentleman from Texas that he close the debate, because I am prepared to.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman from Texas have any more speakers?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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 might consume. During consideration of this resolution all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this is the second resolution defining the rules of debate for the campaign finance bill, and it fulfills the promise made by the Speaker for a full and open debate on campaign finance reform. House Resolution 458 provides for the further consideration of H.R. 2183, the Bipartisan Campaign Integrity Act. The rule makes in order amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying this resolution to be offered by the Member designated in the report. The rule also waives all points of order against those amendments and provides that they shall be considered as read. I do want to mention that the second rule identifies a certain subset of possible perfecting amendments, those printed in the accompanying report of the Committee on Rules. For those amendments the second rule waives all points of order, thereby partially superseding the terms of the first rule, H. Res. 442. Mr. Speaker, by way of review, the House passed the rule in late May that provided for general debate in consideration not only of the constitutional amendment but also provided for the consideration of 11 amendments in the nature of a substitute with a bipartisan freshman reform bill serving as the base text. That rule allowed for the consideration of any germane amendment to the 11 substitutes to reform our campaign finance laws. Today in order to allow for consideration of as many amendments as possible this second rule makes in order every amendment submitted to the Committee on Rules. Mr. Speaker, we cannot ask for a more fair and open amending process. The debate rules will ensure the most open debate process in the history of campaign finance reform, as was promised by Speaker Gingrich and the Republican majority. Unfortunately the Democrat opponents of open debate promised to close down the process, allow consideration of only one bill and foreclose all other opinions on this subject. Democrats will ironically ask for closed rules or procedures that they used for 40 years to subvert popular legislation and undermine open debate, and, in addition, a recent Washington Post editorial expressed its distress that the open process may actually permit the substitute that has the most support to win. I find it interesting that wide open rules are now considered shams when the Democrats are not getting their way. Let us review the history of campaign finance. When it came time to reform these laws the old Democrat Committee on Rules muzzled the minority and forced a closed rule upon us. Not only were we allowed to offer only one amendment to the entire bill, but the Democrats refused to allow us the basic right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. This was not an isolated incident, but rather a pattern of suppressed debate on this issue in Democrat Congresses. In the 102nd Congress Democrats again stifled open and free debate with a similarly closed gag rule. Mr. Speaker, rather than suppress debate, the Republican Congress has offered a wide open rule. Only weeks ago leading proponents of campaign finance reform were celebrating. Now apparently they only want to debate their own proposals. It is not enough that they want us to pass laws to limit and regulate political expression and free speech, but they also want to limit it and restrict free speech here in the House when we debate and consider these bills. Up in the Committee on Rules we listened to testimony from Members requesting that we make their amendments in order. What did we do? We granted their requests and made their amendments in order. Now it strikes me as rather disingenuous and somewhat hypocritical for Members to submit these amendments to the Committee on Rules and then oppose the rule after we made their amendments in order. I have concluded that many Members on the other side of the aisle have decided that they just do not want to vote on some particular amendments. We are going to have a vote on banning contributions from noncitizens, prohibiting fund- raising on Federal property, prohibiting solicitation to obtain access to the White House or Air Force One and establishing penalties for violating the prohibition against foreign contributions. While I understand why the Democrats would not want to vote on these issues, each of these amendments deserves consideration. This rule allows us to debate these important issues. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we need a massive overhaul of our campaign finance laws, but I do have concerns about campaign financing. These concerns are about illegal money from the People's Liberation Army, illegal campaigning in Federal property and illegal campaign donations from Buddhist monks. We have laws that prevent that already, and I believe it would be more useful if we can get some kind of assurance that the current laws that we have on the books are going to be honored. These new campaign proposals will do nothing to stop the kind of shameless disregard for that law that we saw in 1996. Mr. Speaker, let us enforce the current laws, and if it is necessary to consider more campaign legislation, let us have an open process that allows for a full debate on all pertinent issues. This rule provides for that kind of open debate. I urge my colleagues to support the rules so we may proceed with consideration of each of the substitute campaign finance reform bills and any amendment which is offered. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 458 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire as to whether it is in order for the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro) to be talking about another subject when we are talking about this rule.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I think it is interesting that the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), who just spoke against this rule because it was too open, put out a press release on March 30 of this year where he said, ``The Republican leadership has deprived the House of Representatives of a fair debate on cleaning up our campaign finance system. Instead,'' he said, ``instead the leadership is using a parliamentary maneuver that grossly limits debate and prevents any amendments from being offered.'' Well, Mr. Speaker, we are not. We are using a normal procedure to allow any amendment being offered, and now he is offended by that. I wish he would make up his mind. Mr. Speaker, I point out to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost) when he said the White House has never said they violated any campaign laws that, no, I know that. They have never admitted to anything they have done, nor will they. But the fact of the matter is, the President did say on tape, with his face showing on the tape, that ``We discovered we could raise gobs of money in 50- to $100,000 chunks through this loophole in the law and put it on the air.'' Now, when a candidate spends over the $70 million money that the taxpayers give him is illegal on its face. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. LINDER

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Montana (Mr. Hill).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting now that wide-open rules are considered shams when they are not getting their way. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the reason I raise the issue of Chinese money is it was a precise violation of current finance laws with respect to campaigning, and if they are not going to obey the current laws, how can we expect them to obey any future ones? Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson).

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

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) the Majority Whip of the House.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes 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. I would like to begin by saying it is my understanding that the only debate tonight will be on the rule with a prospective vote perhaps on the rule, and all general debate will be tomorrow. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 442 provides for the consideration of H. J. Res. 119 under an open amending process with one hour of general debate equally divided between the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and a Member in favor of the joint resolution. The rule authorizes the Chair to accord priority in recognition to Members who have preprinted their amendments in the Congressional Record and allows the chairman to postpone votes and reduce the voting time to 5 minutes if the postponed vote follows a 15-minute vote. On the joint resolution, the rule provides for one motion to recommit with or without instructions. The rule also provides for consideration of H.R. 2183 under a modified open amendment process any time after the adoption of the rule. H. Res. 442 provides for two hours of general debate equally divided between the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Oversight. Following the two hours of general debate, the rule provides for consideration of the 11 amendments in the nature of a substitute specified in the Committee on Rules report. In order to allow for consideration of as many alternatives as possible, the Committee on Rules has waived all points of order against each of the amendments in the nature of a substitute. Under this very fair, open rule, each amendment in the nature of a substitute may be offered only in the order specified, may be offered only by the Member who caused it to be printed in the Congressional Record or his designee, shall be considered as read, and shall not be subject to a substitute amendment or perfecting amendment carrying a tariff or tax provision. Mr. Speaker, we have provided one hour of general debate at the beginning of consideration of each of the 11 substitutes, which shall be equally divided and controlled by the Member who caused the amendment to be printed in the Record or his designee and an opponent. The rule permits the Chair to accord priority in recognition to preprinted amendments and allows the Chair to postpone votes during the bill's consideration. Mr. Speaker, we do not allow the King of the Hill rule that the Democrats instituted for 40 years in an effort to subvert popular legislation and undermine free and open debate. Under H. Res. 442, the substitute that receives the most votes will be reported to the House. If more than one amendment in the nature of a substitute is adopted, then only the one receiving the greater number of affirmative votes shall be considered as finally adopted and reported to the House. I am certain that I did not see this kind of process on campaign finance reform when the Democrats controlled the House. In fact, in my first year in this House, former Speaker Foley and the Democrat Committee on Rules muzzled the minority and forced a closed rule upon us. Not only were we allowed to offer only one amendment to the entire bill, but the Democrats refused to allow us a basic right to offer a motion to recommit with instructions. A quick glance back in history shows that this was not simply an isolated incident but a pattern of suppressed debate on this issue in Democrat Congresses. In the 102nd Congress, for example, the Democrats again stifled open and free debate with a similarly closed gag rule. I expect that the calls today will again be for a return to the days of closed rules and limited debate. The opponents of this open debate want us to close down the process, allow consideration of only one bill, and foreclose all other opinions on this subject. Mr. Speaker, it is only fair that we present the House with a wide open amending process that allows each Representative the ability to amend and perfect each of the 11 campaign finance reform bills. This rule will create the most open debate process in the history of campaign reform, as was promised by the Speaker. Although I am not as cynical as some on the subject of campaign finance reform, I agree that the system can be improved. However, the first amendment guarantees our right to express ourselves, and that right extends to political expression as well. Therefore, the right of Americans to contribute to political campaigns should not be infringed. Clearly, it is important for voters to know which individuals and which groups are financing a candidate. I have cosponsored legislation that ensures that voters know where that money is coming from and can act accordingly. On the subject of free speech, the rule allows for consideration of a constitutional amendment that was originally introduced by the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), that would give Congress new power to regulate campaign expenditures. The Member offering that amendment, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), opposes it because it basically gives the Congress the authority to enact any legislation that may abridge an array of free speech and free association rights under the First Amendment. Nevertheless, under this open amendment process, the Committee on Rules wanted to allow a full debate on the measure. I also think it should be noted that we need to deal with the problem of union money being funneled into races across the country. Despite their calls for reform, the $400 million in union money that was dumped into the 1996 elections has been protected by Democrats against the will of hard-working American union members. If we are truly going to talk about reform, then we need to address how unions are using, for partisan political purposes, the paychecks of the union workers. While I do not believe that major changes are necessary to the existing campaign finance laws, I do, however, believe that these existing campaign finance laws have been under assault since early 1996. We have now found that two major Democrat donors benefited from an administration policy change that improved the accuracy of missiles pointed at American cities. Even some in the administration believe that the decision to provide American technology to China has put American national security at risk. Personally, I believe it would be more useful if we could get some kind of assurance that the current laws we have on the books are going to be honored. Nonetheless, the administration is calling for new reforms. However, it should be noted that it is already illegal to funnel millions of dollars in foreign money into the United States electoral system as the Chinese did. It is already illegal to make fund-raising calls from Federal property. It is already improper to use the Lincoln bedroom and Air Force One for fund-raising activities, and it is also already illegal under current law to go a Buddhist temple and accept illegal campaign funds. These actions are already against the law, and they were shamelessly violated in 1996. Mr. Speaker, nothing in this new campaign reform legislation will matter if one party or the other simply decides that the law does not apply to them. That is why our focus today should be on how current campaign finance law was so flagrantly violated. Unfortunately, we cannot get to the bottom of the 1996 campaign finance scandal because 91 witnesses who know the truth about campaign violations have either fled the country, refused to testify, or have taken the Fifth Amendment. Amidst this enormous left wing coverup come the artificial calls for campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, if we are going to consider campaign finance reform, this majority is committed to a process that allows for a full debate on the pertinent issues. This rule provides for that kind of open debate. The rule for the campaign finance bill was favorably reported out of the Committee on Rules. I urge my colleagues to support the rule so that we may proceed with the general debate and consideration of each of the substitute campaign finance reform bills. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 442 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, is it the regular order of the House for the gentleman to ignore the Speaker and to ignore the time limits and speak as long as he did?

Mr. LINDER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order.