Marty Meehan

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston) will read the quote, though, he will find that it was not----

Mr. MEEHAN

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin) and ask unanimous consent that he may control that time.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to myself. In addition to that, Larry Noble, the executive director/general counsel of the Center for Responsive Politics, the former general counsel of the Federal Elections Commission, clearly states in this letter that I will again have added to the Record: ``It is clear under Federal election law that only hard money can be used to pay off a loan that was used for hard money expenditures. There is nothing in the Shays-Meehan Substitute that would supersede the current Federal law. Under this section, soft money funds on hand after the election could only be used to pay off debts or obligations used for soft money expenditures. That is the law. One of the great things I have really enjoyed is working with my colleague, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), on campaign finance reform. I was just so disappointed, after debating the Ney bill with him over the last year, that when it came time to put in a substitute, we did not get the Ney bill. I was looking forward to that. The letter I referred to earlier is hereby inserted for the Record. Center for Responsive Politics, Washington, DC, February 13, 2002. Hon. Christopher Shays, Longworth Building, Washington, DC. Dear Congressman Shays: This is in response to your question regarding whether a national committee of a political party can use soft money to pay off a debt or obligation that was used to fund expenditures that must be paid for with hard money. It is clear under federal election law that only hard money can be used to pay off a loan that was used for hard money expenditures. I see nothing in Section 402(b)(1) of the Shays-Meehan Substitute Amendment that would supersede current federal law. Under Section 402(b)(1), soft money funds on hand after the election could only be used to pay off debts or obligations used for soft money expenditures. If you have any other questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Larry Noble, Executive Director and General Counsel.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the independent gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Sanders).

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford), and ask further that he be allowed to control that time.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I was just disappointed that it was not a substitute.

Mr. MEEHAN. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the bill before us represents bipartisan, bicameral campaign finance reform. A lot has been said on the floor of the House relative to changes in this bill over a period of the last several months. This bill has been a bipartisan, bicameral work in progress over a period of the last several years. I want to thank my Republican colleagues, particularly the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) for his efforts, as well as our colleagues from both sides of the aisle in the other body. We have crafted a bill that gets at the soft money system that is clearly out of control. All one has to do is go back to one's home district and listen to people talk about unlimited contributions to both political parties, corporate contributions, union treasury dues being used for political campaigns, and wealthy individuals contributing unlimited amounts of money to the parties. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCain once said that it is going to take a scandal to get this bill passed. That was back two or three scandals ago when we were looking at foreign nationals coming in and contributing millions of dollars. The latest one is Enron, $4 million over the last 10 years in soft money; 70 percent of all of the money that Enron has contributed since 1995, soft money, including nearly $2 million in the last election cycle. We face an historic vote. It is time for the votes to be counted. The Congress, the House has an opportunity to fundamentally change the soft money system that has been such an abuse over the last decade. The eyes of this entire country are looking at this House to determine whether or not our bipartisanship and bicameral work will pay off and send a bill over to the United States Senate and get it to the President's desk. I thank all of the Members on both sides of the aisle that have made this moment possible. Now it is time for a gut check. All the Members who have been for reform over the last several years have to look within themselves to show the courage, the independence, the commitment to true reform, to make this reform happen today in the House of Representatives. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), who has played such a critical role in our efforts to pass campaign finance reform.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. The gentleman from Kentucky says this is an incumbent protection bill. Look, under the soft money system in the last election cycle, 98 percent of the Members of Congress who ran for reelection were reelected. The cycle before that under the soft money system, 98 percent of the Members of Congress who ran for reelection were reelected. We could not have a system that is more friendly to incumbents than the system we have right now. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey). (Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) not only for his question but his very important support on this most important issue. I do think the FEC standard should understand that the language reads not identifiable but clearly identifiable. There will be some photographic images that would not meet the clearly identifiable standard. So I do think that the FEC should understand that the language reads not identifiable but clearly identifiable; and there would be some photographic images, as I said, that would not meet the clearly identifiable standard, and I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Price) for his question.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to respond to the gentleman's inquiry, and the answer is yes. Political action committees, commonly known as PACs, raise money from individual donors in amounts that are limited by Federal law. They are subject to the Federal Election Campaign Act, thus they are not affected at all by title II of the Shays-Meehan substitute which relates to electioneering communications. Title II provides that corporations, including nonprofit corporations and unions, cannot use their treasury funds to pay for ads that mention a Federal candidate during the last 2 months of the election cycle. However, PACs, because they are not corporations or unions, can run ads that mention a candidate at any time during the election cycle without any restriction.

Mr. MEEHAN. If the gentleman will continue to yield, that is absolutely correct. Organizations may run any ad they wish at any time at all if they use hard money. Federal PACs, such as those in corporations, labor unions, or groups like the Sierra Club or the NRA have set up, are hard-money entities. All their fund-raising and spending is governed by Federal law. So PACs can run ads that mention candidates during the last 60 days of an election cycle.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself \1/2\ minute. This amendment seeks to protect workers, farmers, and families, because we all know that workers, farmers, and families have these big soft money accounts. They raise millions. As I sit back and think about it, the workers, the farmers, and the families are the reason why we need to pass this bill. The workers, the farmers, and the families, without these big multinational soft money PACs, soft money operations, are the reason why we have to pass campaign finance reform. This unlimited soft money is the reason why we do not have a patients' bill of rights, the reason why we do not have Medicare prescription drug coverage for seniors, and the reason why workers are getting the shaft day in and day out because of this soft money system.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this poison pill amendment. It would break apart our coalition. It is an amendment designed to destroy the sham ``issue ad'' provisions of the Shays-Meehan bill by purporting to create a targeted exception, which in fact would exempt any possible advertisement paid for with soft money from these provisions. It is simply bad public policy offered by opponents of reform, and it would blow a hole in the sham issue advocacy provisions in this bill by allowing unlimited soft money to be spent on any ad that mentions an individual. Let me be clear. Nothing in the Shays-Meehan bill would ban an outside group or a political party or a wealthy individual from running an advertisement on workers or farmers. Simply put, there is no ban on ads in this bill, and nothing in this bill would apply to written voter guides. This bill simply says if you are a corporation, a 501(c) tax exempt or a union and want to broadcast cable, broadcast satellite ads 60 days before the Federal election, hard money has to be used rather than soft money. That is what this bill does. This means that if the NRA, the Sierra Club, National Right to Life, NARAL, the AFL-CIO wants to fund these ads mentioning Federal candidates proximate to Federal elections, they can fund them through their PACs. In fact, the sham-issue ad provisions that are now in the bill are much narrower than ever before. And, previous versions of this bill passed the House with 252 votes. We narrowed the provision to focus only on broadcast, cable and satellite ads proximate to Federal elections to make sure this provision stood on stronger constitutional grounds, and to ensure that the bill would have no impact on voter guides. The provision now is not only narrower in scope but more likely to pass constitutional muster--because it supplies the bright-line test the Court prefers for distinguishing between campaign advertisements and pure issue advocacy. We have found the right balance--as a matter of policy, and as a matter of Constitutional law. Indeed, 9 former ACLU leaders have said that our approach to sham issue advocacy is constitutional. We need to put teeth back into laws long on the books preventing corporate treasury money or union dues from being used for campaign ads. It is time for this sham to end. It is time for those who pay for campaign ads to play by the rules--and for the American people to know exactly who is filling the airwaves with ads attacking candidates every second Fall. Vote ``no'' on this poison pill amendment. It's a cynical ploy designed by opponents of this bill. Don't be fooled by this sham amendment.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman thinks soft money is okay, why does she oppose the $10,000 limit?

Mr. MEEHAN. Can I answer the question?

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Michigan for yielding me this time. It is about 10:35 at night, and the amendments continue. This is an amendment, another attempt to destroy the coalition that we have held together over a period of the last several years. There have been negotiations that have taken place that have been bipartisan and bicameral. We have a historic opportunity here in this House to pass a bill that will fundamentally change the way elections are held in this country. A historic opportunity. The only way we are not going to have this opportunity is if the opponents of reform are able to pass an amendment that is designed to kill the bill. We have faced a series of those amendments, all taken in last night at about 12 o'clock and all designed to break up the coalition. Sometimes they try to break off Democrats, sometimes they try to break off Republicans, sometimes they have amendments that the Senate will never go along with. Sometimes it is Senate Republicans they are trying to offend. Anything and everything that can be proposed to try to defeat McCain-Feingold/Shays-Meehan has been proposed this evening. This is nothing more than the latest attempt. But I want to tell my colleagues something. The American people get it. The American people are watching this debate tonight waiting to see who is for real reform, who is trying to break up the coalitions, who wants to pass a bill, and who wants to kill a bill, because every person in this House knows that if we pass a bill designed to go to the conference committee, it is going to die in conference, just where a patient's bill of rights is dying. Just where campaign finance reform in the past has died. That is why we have preconferenced this bill with the Senate, to design a bill that is balanced and fair to both political parties. Now, if my colleagues want to defeat campaign finance reform, they will have yet another possibility to do that. That is this amendment. And after this amendment, we will have other amendments designed to kill this bill. But I believe a majority of the Members of this House are ready to stand in a bipartisan way, whether it takes until 11 o'clock, 12 o'clock, 1 a.m., 2 a.m., 3 a.m., or 4 a.m. we are going to stand tall, opposed to any amendment that will break up our coalition. I ask all Members on both sides of the aisle to defeat this amendment and pass campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, here we have another amendment, it is about 10 minutes of 1:00, another attempt to try to break the fragile coalition, but let us be clear. Soft money has always been available for party-building. It has always been available for physical buildings. Now, would not the Republicans be so lucky if we are going to enact this bill the day after the next election. Does anyone really think the parties are going to commit soft money not for television ads, but to build parties? The reality is this was put into the bill in July so that either party who had expenses relative to buildings could pay them. Now, if this bill does not go into effect until after this election, I hardly think that it will be an advantage to either party if one of the parties keeps soft money and, rather than put them into 30-second spots, pays off a building with it. The reality is the soft money influence has ballooned by 100 percent every 4 years because of television ads. The reason why soft money is an issue is because of television ads, 30-second spots. That is what we attempt to eliminate, and we do.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. MEEHAN. In its current form.

Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I have a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee on House Administration forthwith with instructions to clarify language related to the effective date, specifically how national parties may spend soft money on hand after November 6. It was clearly our intent that such soft money could not be used to pay off hard money debt. In fact, I continue to believe our language accomplishes that. However, others have argued that the language was ambiguous on this issue. Accordingly, this motion to recommit would make it crystal clear that the national parties could not used any leftover soft money to pay off hard debts. I ask that the Members who so kindly pointed this out to us join me in voting for this motion. In addition to that, as we end this debate, I want to thank all the Members for their cooperation, including the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), last night and also this morning. I want to thank all the courageous members of our bipartisan coalition. I want to thank the minority leader and the minority whip. I want to thank all the Members who signed the discharge petition. And, lastly, I want to thank my partner in this effort, the leader of our effort on the Republican side, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays). In addition to that, I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) and the others who were so gracious in giving people time tonight, and thank all the Members for their cooperation in this most difficult but historic occasion. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.