Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

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

Mr. MEEHAN. No. I wanted to give the gentleman the time.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will yield further, there have been a number of amendments that have passed in the telecommunications bill, the Brady bill, bills that we have passed that the court has said are unconstitutional, and they have stricken that part of the bill. But what the gentleman is asking us to do is pass an amendment where if a comma is unconstitutional, a word, a phrase, the whole bill is gone. It is a poison pill to campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. What do we do about the fact that somebody could offer an amendment that is clearly unconstitutional? If we were to pass this amendment and somebody down the road offers an amendment that is clearly unconstitutional, our bill is dead then.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, the point I also was going to make on severability is, if this amendment were to pass, with all the amendments that can be offered, how easy it would be for the other side to simply offer and pass a clearly patently unconstitutional amendment and the whole bill is dead. So it could not be clearer, could not be clearer, that this amendment is a poison pill to kill this bill. Because even if everything in the bill is totally 100 percent constitutional, unlike the telecommunications bill, unlike the Brady bill, and unlike a lot of bills we pass, all they would have to do is come in with a nongermane amendment that sounds good but that they know is unconstitutional and it is over.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, this has been a long evening. But then again, this has been a long wait. I have been in the Congress now for 6 years trying to find some way to get campaign finance reform passed. And I remember when I first got here, sort of a brash young freshman legislator and I got together with another member from Oklahoma. He is a great Member, had a lot of experience, Mike Synar. Mike had a lot of courage and he was smart. And he sat down with me and he said, ``If you want to work on campaign finance reform, boy, let me give you some tips. The first thing you have to do is you have to work with Republicans. Because if we, as Democrats,'' and we were the majority party then, ``if we, as Democrats, propose our bill, it is not going to have credibility. We have got to get Republicans on board. So the first thing you need to do is find a group of Republicans who are interested in truly passing campaign finance reform.'' And that is what we did. Every year that I have fought for campaign finance reform, I have worked with Republicans so that we could level the playing field equally among Democrats and Republicans. The other thing that Mike Synar said was, ``You know what? My experience is that independent expenditures are the thing that are going to kill American politics because congressional elections are not going to be about the people who live back home anymore.'' Mike Synar knew something about independent expenditures, because the National Rifle Association and other groups spent millions over the years trying to defeat him. So he said, ``Whenever you come up with a bipartisan bill, you got to make sure that you deal with independent expenditures.'' And here we are, 5 years later, finally on the verge of having a vote before this House. And it gets emotional at times because I know how it feels having worked so long and so hard on a bill to have it misrepresented on the floor. It gets frustrating. Members say the bill is unconstitutional. We have been working with constitutional scholars on this for the last 5 years to make sure it does pass constitutional muster. And other Members bring up the campaign reports of whatever Member stands up. It is irrelevant. The bill that is before us does not deal with each individual Member's campaign report. It deals with soft money and independent expenditures. It deals with giving the FEC the teeth it needs to enforce the laws. Why would we want to go after soft money, my colleagues ask? We have spent millions of dollars investigating and having public hearings on the soft money abuses in the system. Everyone in America, whether they be Democrat or Republican, agrees the soft money system is totally out of control. This is relatively new by the way. In 1976, there was not any soft money spent in the presidential election. In 1980, only $19 million was spent. In 1984 there was $22 million spent. In 1988, there was $45 million. 1992 it goes up. In 1994, it goes up. And now it is $263 million. This is a recent phenomenon in American politics, soft money or the expenditures over and above the legal limits that are in force that are in law and that are constitutional. That is what this debate is really all about. That is why we are here. I want to tell my colleagues that I believe we are on the verge of a majority of Members, Democrats and Republicans, who are ready to vote for Shays-Meehan but it is going to be tougher than that. As if it was not tough enough to form a consensus among Democrats and Republicans, a lot who have had great ideas about campaign finance reform. No, it is getting even tougher. We have the potential of 260 to 270 amendments. Tonight we have been debating since 5:30 and we are not through the first one yet. That is what we are up against. It is a challenge. Tempers are going to get short at times, short fuses, when representations are made that are not accurate. But I believe we are on the verge of a historic vote, a vote that will have Democrats and Republicans joining together, not only in a bipartisan way but a bicameral way, because the other body has already voted, a majority, for this bill. We can pass this bill. We can pass this bill. I urge Members of both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment tomorrow morning, because it is a poison pill. It kills the bill. And after we are finished with that, I urge Members to get rid of these poison pill amendments and pass this bill and have the courage to move forward.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, so the gentleman is not in favor of any limits at all?

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would just point out that any money that is spent in America to influence an election ought to be disclosed. That is a basic premise in our bill. If money is spent 60 days before an election to influence that election, the public has a right to know who spent that money. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), who was just elected to this House in March in a special election to take her husband Walter's seat. The very first piece of legislation that the gentlewoman signed on to was the Shays-Meehan bill.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dooley).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this second rule on campaign finance reform. As the New York Times editorialized yesterday, ``Newt Gingrich and other foes have lined the road [to reform] with mines and booby traps.'' The Washington Post reported yesterday that ``the House leadership continues to mock its promise to allow a clean vote on campaign finance reform.'' Mr. Speaker, this rule will result in 250 amendments potentially being offered to the Shays-Meehan bill. It is an attempt, and no one is fooled by this blatant attempt to drown the Shays-Meehan bill by frivolous amendments. Just as anti-reformers in the other body have filibustered the McCain-Feingold bill, it is clear that the defenders of the status quo in the House hope to manipulate the legislative process. As I listen to the debate and as we prepare for the debate, this going back and forth where they check all the Members' reports and then come out and attack every Member for how much money they raised and where they raised it from, the reality is all that serves to do is undermine the debate. Why do we not have a nice, clean, honest debate about the need to reduce the role of money in politics? But instead, we are scurrying around doing 1\1/2\ minutes' worth of opposition research trying to embarrass any Member of the House who comes to the floor to fight for reform. This reform legislation which is going to come before the House has nothing to do with the campaign finance reports of any Member of this House. What it has to do with is making soft money illegal. What it has to do with is making the independent expenditures that are polluting campaigns all across America not illegal, but to allow disclosure so people in America know who is funding what in terms of ability to influence elections. The Shays-Meehan bill is bicameral. It is bipartisan. We deserve an up-or-down vote. We should not have this vote cluttered by 250 amendments.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as we begin this debate, one of the difficulties that we face is trying to deal with so much information that comes to the floor of the House about the Shays-Meehan proposal. I had mentioned earlier that there was a quote up here from the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt). There was a quote made on February 7, 1997, and there were correlations made by a number of speakers that this statement was made, and it is in conflict with the Shays-Meehan bill that we are dealing with today. The Shays-Meehan bill that we are dealing with today was not even filed until March 19, 1998. Now, there have been other statements made about limits in spending not being constitutional. But I want to make it very clear that the first amendment implications of spending limits does not even apply to this debate because the Shays-Meehan bill does not include spending limits. Now, the previous speaker made some comments about problems with our campaign finance system. He must believe that there are problems, because there have been millions of dollars spent investigating those problems and bringing up those problems. But when this campaign finance reform passed, after Watergate, in the 1976 Presidential election there were zero dollars spent of soft money. And then it increased to about $19 million the next year, and then it increased from there, and it increased from there, and now we have hundreds of millions of dollars in soft money being spent, circumventing the disclosure laws and the limits that have been in effect since that time. So this is not a problem that we have had for the last 25 years with regard to soft money. It is a problem that has grown over a period of the last 25 years. Mr. Chairman, there has been a debate about issue ads. Opponents of campaign finance reform tell us that we must protect free speech. But when they say free speech, they mean big money. The fact is that the Shays-Meehan bill does not ban any type of communication. It merely reins in those campaign advertisements that have been masquerading as so-called issue advocacy. And according to the Supreme Court, communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate can be subject to regulation. There is a lot of misinformation on the floor of this House relative to what this bill does with labor. The United States Supreme Court made a decision stating that workers cannot be forced to pay for political advertisements. Nonunion employees who pay for union representation do not have to finance political union activities. This bill includes a codification of Beck. It is a compromise that was reached between Democrats and Republicans. So this talk about this bill not dealing with unions simply is not so. This bill improves FEC disclosure and enforcement. This bill has franking provisions to limit franking to 6 months before an election. This bill has foreign money and fund-raising on government money provisions. It is a good strong piece of legislation that is the result not of partisanship, not of attempts to divide Democrats and Republicans, but rather an attempt to bring Democrats and Republicans together. Not only Democrats and Republicans in the House, but Democrats and Republicans in the other body. We have a unique opportunity to change history and pass historic campaign finance reform. Let us vote for Shays-Meehan.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Kennelly).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that the date that those statements were made by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) was February 7, 1997. The Shays-Meehan bill that we are debating today was not even written, nor filed, until March 19, 1998. Mr. Chairman, before we get into a lengthy debate over the First Amendment implications of spending limits, let me make one thing perfectly clear. The Shays-Meehan bill does not include spending limits. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) who has worked so closely with us on this bill. (Mr. LEVIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the rule for campaign finance reform was pulled off the floor. It is now June 18, and we still have not had an up or down vote on the bipartisan Shays-Meehan campaign finance reform bill. On the same day they pulled the bill and the rule over in the United States Senate; they killed the tobacco legislation designed to protect America's children from tobacco. It is interesting. Six million dollars from the tobacco companies to the Republican National Committee, $100 million in a campaign to try to get the Congress to do nothing on tobacco. The American people get the correlation between the amount of money the tobacco companies have invested and the inability to get campaign finance reform. There is a connect, and people get it. We have a bipartisan campaign finance reform in the House that we need to vote on; that is, Shays-Meehan. And we have a bipartisan tobacco bill in the House; that is, Hansen-Meehan-Waxman. Let us move on this legislation and protect America's children.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for a vote on campaign finance reform now for literally years. Years. My question to somebody on the other side is, how in the world could the debate on the rule on this bill have possibly been canceled again? My understanding through the grapevine is that we are actually not going to do the rule again tonight. In other words, my understanding is that we are going to walk away tonight again not having done the rule, again not having started debate on the Shays- Meehan bill that we were promised a vote on over and over and over again. Mr. Speaker, I hope someone on the other side can give me some justification, just a little bit of justification as to why we are canceling this debate on this rule again. It is outrageous. Mr. Speaker, this has been canceled five times, this rule. And I cannot believe we are going to walk out of here before we vote on this rule. The American people are demanding a vote. I will yield to whoever can explain this to me.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order for 1 minute.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, the ruling was already made.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I take the floor today certainly not to defend the status quo or the present system we have, but rather to rise and thank my colleagues, especially the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney), and all of the other sponsors, my friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Franks), the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), who have been fighting for the commission bill. And I also want to suggest that by voting ``present'' rather than ``yes'' on their own amendment, both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Carolyn Maloney) will help us shore up the necessary majority to pass the Shays-Meehan bill. Three years ago Frank MacConnell stood up at a town meeting in Claremont, New Hampshire and asked Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton to commit to passing a campaign finance reform bill. The Speaker and the President shook hands on that. One year later, after no commission, Frank MacConnell came to Washington to ask Speaker Gingrich and President Clinton to commit to passing the McCain-Feingold, Shays- Meehan bill rather than establishing a commission. The bottom line is that voting to solely establish a commission rather than a commission as part of the Shays-Meehan bill will further delay action on campaign finance reform until next year, despite the fact that we have an historic opportunity to pass real campaign finance reform now. By incorporating the commission bill into the Shays-Meehan bill, we really have the best of both worlds: Number one, we have campaign finance reform this year, plus a mechanism through which we can look for bipartisan routes to achieve additional reforms down the road. If my colleagues support campaign finance reform, I am asking them to join with the lead Democratic sponsors to vote ``present'' or ``no'' on the commission bill as a stand-alone substitute. I believe that we have a majority of the Members of this House who are ready to pass real campaign finance reform. I believe that that majority is ready to make the commission bill part of the Shays-Meehan bill. The only way that we can do that under the present rules is if we join together. And I am delighted at the way reformers from all parts of the country, who have been working over the last several years, are coming together to form a critical mass at a critical point in time to establish the majority we need to pass real campaign finance reform. Let us not miss this opportunity. Let us join together. Vote ``present'' or ``no'' on this particular stand-alone bill and then let us amend the Shays-Meehan bill and get real campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I fully expected that we would be debating the rule on campaign finance reform at this time, but, unfortunately, there has been a delay. I do want to say that I think the debate today was enlightening at times, entertaining at other times. There were many Members of this body who have done great work on campaign finance reform, bipartisan work on campaign finance reform over the last 3 or 4 years: The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), people like the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella), the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Barrett), the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin), the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn), the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema), the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray), new members like the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Adam Smith), effective Members who have sat down to try to come up with a bill that is fair to both political parties. That is all we are trying to do here. We do not have the perfect bill. We do not have the special magic wand that is going to make the system perfect. But let me tell you what we do have. We have a bill the Democrats and Republicans have worked on in a bipartisan and bicameral way. This bill is McCain-Feingold in the United States Senate, where Democrats and Republicans have been working together in that body. In fact, they, even when it came to a vote, got a majority of the Members of the other body to vote for the bill. Unfortunately, under Senate rules, they need a 60-vote majority to get by the filibuster. In the House of Representatives, we have a golden opportunity. I have felt over the period of the last months more and more Members are willing to take on a special interest, fight for bipartisan campaign finance reform. The number of Members on both sides of the aisle committed to the Shays-Meehan bill has been growing every day. I might add that it seems that every time the leadership on the other side of the aisle puts up another obstacle to passing true meaningful bipartisan campaign finance reform, it seems that we get more Members supporting our effort. So I am not sure that the strategy to complicate the matter, the strategy to delay and procrastinate and capitulate, frankly, I do not think that it is working. In fact, more Members are supporting the Shays-Meehan bill today than have at any point in time over the last several years. They have joined with editorial boards all across America, the Los Angeles Times, New York Times, U.S.A. Today, the Christian Science Monitor. They have joined with the League of Women Voters and Common Cause and Public Citizen and people in public interest groups who have been fighting to find a way to reduce the influence of money in American politics. Critical to our proposal is making soft money illegal. I do not know how we could have spent millions of dollars over the last several months conducting investigations and having hearings, politically charged hearings about the abuses of soft money in the last Presidential election, and now we have an opportunity to have a bill that bans soft money, and the leadership is procrastinating, delaying, promising a vote, no vote, pulling rules. Time and time again, you will hear opponents of reform argue that soft money is not a problem. Let us be clear. When they are defending soft money, they are really defending big money. That is where the American public clearly disagrees. The soft money loophole allows corporations and labor unions to bypass Federal election laws and tap into their treasury accounts to funnel millions of dollars into the parties, money that is then spent to influence Federal elections. The fact is that, as long as soft money is allowed, our campaign finance system will be the type of system that invites corruption. That is why we are trying to change this system. The sham ads, issue ads, opponents of campaign finance reform tell us that we must protect free speech. But when they say free speech, they mean big money. The fact is that the Shays-Meehan bill does not ban any type of communication. It merely reigns in those campaign advertisements that have been masquerading as so-called issue advocacy. According to the United States Supreme Court, communications that expressly advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate can be subject to regulation. The question is not whether the Federal Government should regulate campaign advertisement. It already does. The real question is whether or not the current test adequately identifies campaigns advertisements. The answer is simple. No, it does not. The Shays-Meehan bill will give us an opportunity to make these corrections.