Bob Ney

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of House Concurrent Resolution 378, the concurrent resolution just agreed to.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, Whereas, Anna Radu was born on March 8, 1902; and Whereas, Anna Radu is celebrating her 100th Birthday today; and Whereas, Anna Radu, from Garbova, Romania, became a citizen of the United States of America on September 8, 1939; Therefore, I join with the residents of the entire 18th Congressional District in congratulating Anna Radu as she celebrates her 100th Birthday.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, whereas, William Crowe has received the Excellence in Education award from the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools; and Whereas, William Crowe has been with Buckeye Local High School for 29 years; and Whereas, William Crowe has worked to bring the joy of learning into the lives of his students; and Whereas, William Crowe must be commended for his service to the community, taking on numerous leadership roles for the betterment all; Therefore, I join with the residents of the entire 18th Congressional District in recognizing William Crowe as a recipient of the 2002 Excellence in Education Award.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 361) and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. The Clerk will report the concurrent resolution.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Con. Res. 361.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Administration be discharged from further consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 359) providing amounts for further expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence in the second session of the One Hundred Seventh Congress, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 359 is a supplemental funding resolution for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, each Congress passes a committee funding resolution to authorize committee spending. My colleague and I, the gentleman from Maryland, passed a very good and effective committee funding resolution that keeps the House in proper movement. This process normally occurs at the beginning of each Congress. The committee funding process for the 107th Congress was completed in March of 2001 with the overwhelming passage and overwhelming bipartisan agreement of House Resolution 84, a bipartisan initiative which not only provided committees with the necessary resources to carry out their important work, but which also set new standards for allocating funds between majority and minority staffs. I want to again thank the gentleman from Maryland and all the members of the committees, both sides of the aisle, ranking members and Chairs of the committees, for their tremendous and great cooperation. Those funds more than adequately provided for committees to do the necessary work which they are charged to do in the 107th Congress. Unfortunately, because of the tragic and devastating attacks of September 11, we find it necessary to come to the House floor to seek additional spending authority for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The increased spending authority would be used to fund a joint bicameral inquiry with our counterparts from the other body into the activities of the intelligence community before, during, and since the September 11 terrorist attacks. Among the purposes of this joint effort is ascertaining why the intelligence community did not learn of the conspiracy to launch the September 11 attacks in advance and to identify what, if anything, might be done to better position the intelligence community to warn of and prevent future terrorist attacks and other threats in the 21st century. The investigation will principally focus on the U.S. intelligence agencies and their activities, as well as the interaction between intelligence agencies and nonintelligence entities associated with our national security. Based on their findings, the committee may seek to enact changes in order to remedy any systemic deficiencies revealed by the joint inquiry. The decision to conduct a bicameral bipartisan review by the two intelligence committees is supported by both the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), chairman, and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the ranking member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, along with the chairman and ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Review of the activities of the intelligence community through this joint effort is necessary for several reasons. To begin with, the two intelligence committees, House and Senate, are best suited by experience and practice to protect classified information. Since a significant portion of the investigation must include review and access to highly sensitive classified materials in order to fully understand intelligence actions, review by both committees is appropriate and needed. Secondly, due to the fact that our Nation will be involved for some time in the war against terrorism, a bicameral review will allow the most effective use of time and manpower for those agencies that are still involved in protecting, investigating, and compiling information for our continued campaign against terror. Third, by offering to approach the investigation in this manner, the committees have secured White House assurances that access to critical information necessary to do a thorough job will absolutely be provided. And, finally, the unprecedented nature of the terrorist attacks demands an unprecedented response. An inquiry by the elected representatives of the people will ensure that we give the American people the explanation they deserve regarding the events of that infamous day. The inquiry will consist of joint hearings, both open and closed, and will be conducted once the initial data gathering and interviews are completed. The inquiry is expected to last through the 107th Congress and could quite possibly extend into the next Congress, though this resolution only authorizes funds for this Congress. Should the work continue into the 108th Congress, the House rules regarding interim committee funding will be used to continue funding the committee, the inquiry, and all other committees as usual. So, Mr. Speaker, we come to the floor today with a resolution to authorize $1.6 million in additional spending authority for the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Although the committee already received an increase in its funding for efforts regarding terrorism, that effort is looking more broadly into terrorism and our Nation's preparedness rather than focusing in, in a comprehensive way, on the specific day of September 11. As I stated earlier, the resources made available to the committee which were allocated in the beginning of the committee funding process for the 107th could not have possibly taken into account what happened to this country on September 11. That is why it is necessary for us to augment both the funding levels and staff levels for the committee so that they may conduct a proper inquiry. The amount being requested is approximately one-half of the total amount needed to hire staff and cover related administrative expenses, such as office supplies, travel, and computer systems. The other body, in separate action, has already allocated funds to its committees for the same purposes. With that, Mr. Speaker, I ask for support of this resolution. We all know if we fail to learn from the mistakes of the past we are doomed to repeat them. I hope this inquiry will help us to learn from our mistakes so we can avoid a recurrence of these horrific events. In closing, I would also note that this House was ahead of its time. Because last year, when we did the funding resolution, we gave the proper increases to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence before we ever could have dreamed what would have happened here in the United States. This, again, I think, is ahead of its time so that we can look back into what happened to help us in the future, not only to protect the United States but to, frankly, protect the world. I thank the distinguished gentleman from Maryland for not only his cooperation but for yielding to me.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, The following information I wish to submit for the Record on this matter of Campaign Finance Reform. Ney-Wynn Is The Effective Soft Money Ban Perhaps the best way to explain the difference between the ``soft money bans'' is to elaborate on comments by the President of Common Cause, Scott Harshbarger, panning Ney- Wynn. As you may know, Common Cause strongly supports Shays- Meehan, and was apparently heavily involved in drafting much of its language. He incorrectly asserted that Ney-Wynn is just like Senator Hagel's bill, and that Ney-Wynn continues to let in unregulated and unlimited soft money. Both are false--Ney-Wynn does ban (as opposed to cap) soft money for Federal election activity. First, with respect to Senator Hagel's approach, I have reviewed both bills, and am of the view that any comparison to Ney-Wynn is an oversimplification. Senator Hagel's bill merely put a limit on the amount of non-federal funds the party committees could accept. It put no restriction whatsoever on how the money could be spent, and would not have dramatically altered how party committees currently operate. Party committees would have still been free to run so-called ``soft money issue ads'' and engage in other similar activities. It would not have forced the party committees to use federal money for federal election activity. On the other hand, the Ney-Wynn bill would radically alter how party committees on both sides of the aisle operate. Unlike Hagel, it bans soft money for federal election activity. It bans us from doing so-called ``soft money issue ads.'' In short, Ney-Wynn actually accomplishes what the reformers want--an end to party committee soft money being used in Federal elections via the back door. With respect to soft money, Ney-Wynn bans the party committees from using it for any Federal election activity. As for the limited amount that party committees will be allowed to accept, all the Ney-Wynn bill does is treat party committees the same as corporate and union PACs, allowing us to use limited soft money contributions for fundraising and administration. And that's all--it can't be transferred, used for issue ads or the like. In fact, Senator McCain himself voted to let this use of soft money continue. Moreover, Ney-Wynn is consistent with the recent decision in Colorado Republican II, where the Court said that ``[a party committee] is in the same position as some individuals and PACs.'' It also avoids the issue presented in Jacobus v. Alaska and a recent opinion letter from the Attorney General of New Hampshire (finding total contribution bans are unconstitutional). So as to ensure that the Ney-Wynn ban is truly a ban, even voter registration and get out the vote conducted within 120 days of a federal election must be paid for entirely with federal hard dollars. But critically, this limitation still allows the party committees the ability to do voter registration and other outreach. Several state laws already ban soft money in this way, most notably Texas and New York, and to a certain extent, Florida and California. States that have taken the Shays-Meehan approach tend to be left-of-center, and eventually try some form of public financing. The current Shays-Meehan actually mandates that public financing be studied. As someone who has intimate knowledge of the financial and political operations of party committees, I believe Ney-Wynn is a radical change. It will force the parties to use hard dollars for our activities, but still allow us the resources to assist our candidates in getting their messages heard. The party committees will remain able to drown out special interest ads, albeit with hard dollars. In sum, Ney-Wynn achieves what ought to be everyone's common goal: allowing the candidate's voice to be the central voice in American politics. Shays-Meehan will have the opposite effect--it simply attempts to emasculate the political parties, and leave candidates to fend for themselves. It does not make any effort to ensure that parties continue to register voters and involve people in the process. Once the Shays-Meehan experiment inevitably makes matters worse, reformers will then insist that public financing of all Federal elections is the only option left. As for soft money, Shays-Meehan does not constitute a soft money ban with respect to federal election activity. Contrary to what has been repeated time and time again, ``soft money'' is neither unlimited nor unregulated. Over 30 states have passed limits or outright bans on corporate and union money, including contributions to state political parties--laws that Shays-Meehan actually preempt. In fact, when the full impact of the two bills is analyzed, particularly in light of the application (or preemption) of state law and the $30 million soft money loophole, Ney-Wynn constitutes the more effective soft money ban. It has the added advantage of requiring disclosure of third-party issue ads that is consistent with judicial precedent. Please contact me with any questions or concerns.

Mr. NEY

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. It was mentioned that this bill has changed slightly at the beginning of this debate. This bill is a different species. It has morphed all the way through the system. And the sad part about it is that it has not done it at the desks of the committees, it has done it in the back rooms. We can do communication these days, I guess, in the back rooms and change something, but, oh, if we want to do an amendment on the floor of the House, it is a poison pill, even if it is a good amendment. And that was quoted in the newspapers. For my colleagues who want to ban soft money, Shays-Meehan does not ban soft money. We can drive an Enron limousine, $60 million worth, across this country through this bill. It does not do what the original Shays-Meehan did, what they said it would do. So if we want to ban soft money, it does not do it. It does not ban all the issue ads. It only prohibits broadcast ads. It is unconstitutional. An issue ad ban is likely to be struck down. Then what are we really going to be stuck with? It weakens the national parties, but it makes special interest groups and individuals stronger. We have a great two-party system, and any other party that wants to come onto the scene in this country will be weakened by this bill. They will have to come begging for their approval and money from the incumbents. It treats House and Senate candidates differently. We have talked about that. The charity money-raising that is going to go on here and the influence-peddling that can come out of that is going to be absolutely amazing. If we truly want to clean the system up, this goes in reverse. I am asking people to vote ``no,'' because my colleagues are going to have some amendments and alternatives in the Ney-Wynn proposal that is coming up that has disclosure and the good things I think we need to do and which embark upon reform. This does not do it. This is a different animal today that we are dealing with. Above all, the worst part of this bill, I believe, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the American people understand, that as we stand here and debate this today is the fact that we have the greatest democracy in the world, where people speak out, they say what they want to say, groups push either direction for advocacy, for what they think is right in this country, but this does gag groups, make no bones about it. Groups can spend all the soft money they want in the newspapers. If they want to speak for the second amendment from an NRA perspective, if they want to speak for gun control, they are going to have a problem. Millions of people involved in the labor movement are going to have a problem. Millions of people that work in small businesses, the people of this country, Mr. Chairman, that go out on the treadmill every day trying to figure out how on Earth they are going to feed their families and keep their communities going, the people that have a right to speak out are going to be gagged. I ask my colleagues to look into their hearts. They know we are right on these issues. They know this has changed. We can do the right thing. We will have some alternatives coming down the road today. That is what we need to do, vote ``no'' on this. This is not the same bill. This is a sham bill. It has the loopholes; it does not do what we thought it was going to do. It does not do what they said it would do last year. We need to be able to let the American people speak freely. Do not gag Americans. Vote ``no'' on this measure.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the House on the motion to recommit, and on behalf of the Committee on House Administration, I report the bill, H.R. 2356, back to the House with an amendment.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, again, I stand to advise my side that I agree with this motion to recommit. Let me just say that this has been an energetic give and take of public debate for quite a long time through the committee process, and we have many people that we can thank for giving of their spirit and their energy and their time, whichever side of the issue they were on. We all will move on, but I just want to thank everybody involved with this on the floor today. Our democracy works through debate, and that is what makes us great. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to agree with the gentleman.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, we have heard all day about ``sham issue ads'' that are really just attack ads designed to influence the election. It is said that these ads have ``undermined the intent'' of the 1974 Federal Election Campaign Act which was supposed to regulate campaign-related expenditures. I will tell my colleagues something. I am not too concerned about what the Democrats who controlled this Congress in 1974 intended when they wrote the Federal Election Campaign Act. I am concerned about what the founders of this country intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights in 1791. I want my colleagues to consider something. Imagine if King of England had written to James Madison and said, ``James, this whole revolution thing has been a big misunderstanding. I have seen a draft of your proposed Bill of Rights and I think we can resolve our differences. I do not have any problem with freedom of speech, and I am willing to let you criticize me and my policies any way you want. All I ask is that you report to me the names of all people who share your opinions. Also, while I am willing to let you say anything you want about me, I would ask that you not disseminate your criticism too widely. One hundred critical pamphlets is enough; 1,000 is just piling on. If you have to send 1,000 I just ask that you raise the money to finance the printing costs in small chunks from a broad group of donors. I know this may be inconvenient and could hinder your ability to get your message out, but I really do not think it is an unreasonable request. Please, let us be reasonable and work together on this issue.'' We all know what Madison's reaction would have been: No thank you, Your Highness. That is why the first amendment to our Constitution begins, ``Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.'' The freedom of our citizens to criticize their elected leaders makes us the greatest democracy in the world, and that is what makes us different from dictators. Yet, now today in the name of ``reform,'' we are asked to turn our back on that great legacy. Well, I am not going to do it. Like every Member of this body, I took an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. I do not intend to break the oath to satisfy the editorial board of the New York Times, and neither should you. Support Ney-Wynn.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to my distinguished colleague, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is the Ney-Wynn amendment, and this will be the last chance tonight, and this is not a poison pill. This amendment embodies campaign finance reform principles that respect our Constitution. It does not seek to punish or discourage those citizens who exercise their constitutional rights to participate in the political process. This amendment bans the national parties from raising or using soft money for Federal election activities, including broadcast issue advertising. However, it would permit the national parties to continue to raise and use soft money for generic voter registration, which I believe we all know is important, and get-out-the-vote activities. The parties would also preserve the right to use such funds for fund- raising and overhead expenses. The principal complaint leveled against so-called soft money is that it is unlimited and unregulated. This amendment addresses that complaint by limiting it and regulating it. With the passage of this amendment, no donor could contribute an amount over $20,000 to any political committee. As I previously indicated, the use of the funds would be restricted to certain activities. Shays-Meehan does absolutely nothing to restrict how unions and corporations spend soft money. Under current law, unions and corporations can spend unlimited amounts of soft money communicating with their members, soliciting those members for contributions and engaging in such political activities as registering voters and getting out the vote. Shays-Meehan would not stop these groups from using their soft dollars in this way. What Shays-Meehan would do is prevent the national parties from using so-called soft dollars in a similar fashion. I really do not think we should restrict the ability of our parties, the existing parties and any parties that want to rise up and blossom in our country, from registering and getting voters to the polls while leaving unions and corporations free to do so without restriction. Hamstringing our parties, and thereby enhancing the power of unions and corporations, does not accomplish the stated goal of some to reduce the power of the special interests. I think we should be making our parties stronger, not weaker. There is no rationale for denying our national parties access to funds that we are willing to allow States to receive. The principal difference between this amendment and the bill before us is that this amendment would allow the national parties to raise some soft dollars, while the Shays bill would allow only the State and local parties to do so. The choice is not between one bill that allows soft money and a second bill that bans it. I think that is perfectly clear tonight. Shays-Meehan, as we know, has soft money. Both the Shays bill and this amendment permit limited amounts of soft money. This amendment simply says if we are going to allow the State parties to accept soft dollars, we ought to allow the national parties to do the same. Members need to be aware that the contribution limits in this amendment have been significantly reduced in comparison to the previous amendment we had in the summer. Inflated claims about the usual amounts of money that could be donated under this amendment do not apply to this amendment as it is drafted. It has to be pointed out there are thousands of State and local parties, and there are six national parties to which the contributions can be given. So if you support the underlying bill, but oppose this amendment, you are basically saying it is perfectly acceptable for a corporation to give millions of dollars to a multitude of State and local parties, but it is somehow corrupt for them to give a limited amount to six national party interests. There is no logical reason that I can find for this distinction. This amendment also provides for increased disclosure, which we all want, for targeted mass communications. The person who pays for the communication would have to disclose their identity within 24 hours of the purchase. That I believe is what the American people want. I would note that this disclosure provision is broader than that contained in the underlying bill, which applies only to broadcast communications. Disclosure provisions in this amendment would apply to all forms of communication, including newspaper ads, phone banks, et cetera. Having described what is in the amendment, I take a moment to describe what is not in it and why. Most importantly, this amendment does not seek to ban issue advocacy. Twenty-five years of court decisions, from the Supreme Court on down, have made it perfectly clear that our Constitution does not permit the Federal Government to regulate issue advertisements. Our first amendment protects the right of every American to speak out on issues of public concern, and it has been that way since the creation of this Nation. Politicians may want to use the power of government to attempt to silence their critics, which is what Shays- Meehan does, but I do not believe we should participate in that endeavor. Real campaign finance reform encourages citizen participation. Real campaign finance reform protects our cherished rights to freely speak and associate. Real campaign finance reform preserves the important role our political parties play in our democracy. This amendment accomplishes these goals. I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) for drafting this and supporting it. I urge support of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me the time. This, of course, what my colleague is trying to correct, this is the Enron limousine part of Shays-Meehan, $60 million-some with the Levin amendment. We call it the Enron limousine. They could have spread around $60 million-some. I think we have heard it all tonight. I do not know if it is because it is getting late or because we have just got to create more on the floor of the House. We have heard it all. Now eliminating soft money, which is what this amendment does, is a poison pill. We have really evolved. Somebody said this bill has barely changed. It is not the same species. I cannot believe that we are talking about doing something good with the elimination of the soft money, it now becomes a poison pill; but back-room deals can be cut all the time to evolve this bill. We bring up good amendments and all of the sudden they are just not good enough. In defense, somebody said tonight it can only be used for good purposes. It is still influence-peddling when someone is going to throw that money around. From our point of view, this is what my colleagues have said hundreds of times about this type of soft money. 501(c)(3) too is also in here, the 501(c)(3)s, and there is a building fund. This is so full of soft money, and my colleagues know it. This is a good amendment, makes a good correction. I urge support of the amendment.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would note that we are not afraid to give up soft money. If it is bad next year, it is bad now. Let us do it immediately instead of waiting till next year. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker).

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. NEY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.