Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. English), who is the Chair of the Congressional Steel Caucus.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula). (Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, while I am waiting for some of my remarks, first, I would like to welcome our new colleague on the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), who will be managing the rule for the minority. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 414 is a unique rule providing for the disposition of House Joint Resolution 84, a resolution of disapproval. Under the rule, the House Joint Resolution 84 would be automatically tabled. House Joint Resolution 84 disapproves the action taken by President Bush to impose temporary tariffs on some types of steel products. Under the Trade Act, Congress has the authority to disapprove of such actions within 90 days. Such approval resolution is highly privileged, not amendable, and floor debate is limited to 20 hours. To put it simply, a vote in favor of this rule will lay on the table the disapproval resolution and conclude further deliberations. Responding to concerns within the steel industry, President Bush instructed the International Trade Commission on June 2001 to begin an investigation under section 201 of the U.S. Trade Law. This investigation would study the effects of steel imports on the U.S. steel industry. The ITC released their findings in October of 2001, making an affirmative determination of injury on the American steel industry caused by steel imports. The ITC further relayed recommendations to the President for relief that would prevent or remedy such injuries. On March 5 of this year, the President put in place trade remedies based on the ITC findings. President Bush announced trade remedies for all products on which the ITC had found substantial injuries except two specialty categories. Under present law, the President, not the ITC, makes the final decision whether to provide relief to the U.S. industry, as well as to the type and amounts of relief. Passing the disapproval resolution as written would not undo the remedies imposed by President Bush. Rather, it would merely put in place the tariff levels suggested by the International Trade Commission. While congressional disapproval is certainly allowed under this statute, this rule recognizes that the circumstances in this case simply do not warrant such action. Even the measure's sponsor noted in committee markup that the resolution was not the best solution. Laying this resolution on the table does not hurt the steel industry. In fact, it will keep intact the President's remedy that the industry favors. The disapproval resolution could potentially be even more harmful to the industry, nor would the resolution not eliminate tariffs on steel imports. It merely replaces one set of tariffs with another. Mr. Speaker, let me reiterate that a vote in support of this rule will table the disapproval resolution, keep intact the President's current enacted remedy, and conclude debate on this issue. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to mark the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce in Ontario County, New York. When the Rev. Ninian Remick first assumed the chairmanship of the Geneva Chamber of Commerce in 1902, he and the group had a simple yet important mission: ``foster and promote the trade, manufacturing and other business interests of Geneva and . . . to enjoin upon our people the necessity of a wise and conservative expenditure of the public money.'' The Chamber's initial membership of 148 businesses began a bedrock commitment to promoting economic opportunity in the Geneva area and improving the quality of life of the community's residents. Throughout their first century, the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce has sponsored a wide-variety of programs and events showcasing the area, and have continually worked to promote and revitalize the city. Today, under the leadership of incoming chairman Tom Bowers and its 580 members, the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce is continuing a great tradition of commitment to community. Mr. Speaker, on Friday, March 22, 2002, the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce will hold its One Hundredth Annual Dinner Meeting, and I ask that this House of Representatives pause in its deliberations to salute the men and women, past, present and future, of the Geneva Area Chamber of Commerce on their proud record of service and accomplishment.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. It gets down to the bottom line we are not going to hide from this vote anymore. We are going to have a vote tonight. The Democratic majority had 40 years to bring about true campaign reform. It is going to be passed by Republican votes tonight. I only can ask for a level playing field. I ask that we ban it right now, right here, February 14, reform. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Toomey).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, throughout this day I have listened to many of my colleagues rail on the evils of soft money. That is why it is time to ensure the rhetoric matches the reality. And I am doing just that by introducing an amendment that reverses a slick attempt to manipulate existing law and which will end soft money now rather than election day. By enacting this amendment, soft money will be banned tomorrow, Valentine's Day; and that is fitting because it would put an end to sweetheart deals being advanced by many of the supporters of Shays- Meehan. I can certainly see why my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not want to end soft money now. They want a grace period that will allow them to spend tens of millions of dollars in soft money this year. Just take a look at last year, where nearly 54 percent of all contributions to Democrat committees were soft money contributions, compared to only 35 percent for Republican committees; and I can see why they may not want to close the loophole that would allow them to use a $40 million soft money building fund as collateral for hard-money dollars they could use in this year's campaigns. If we do not approve this amendment, not only will it fail to do what Shays-Meehan originally intended to accomplish, we would allow a perversion of current law restricting the use of soft money. Without this amendment, we would actually weaken current law, think about that, weaken current law by allowing national political parties to borrow hard money and repay it with soft money. That is right, according to the commissioners of the Federal Election Commission, and I am reading verbatim, the transition rule allowing national party committees to spend soft money between November 6, 2002, and January 1, 2003, does not prohibit the use of soft money to pay debts related to Federal elections. It is clear that this Congress would weaken existing law because, and I am again citing FEC officials, the proposed bill effectively invalidates the Federal Election Commission's soft-money allocation regulations. That is just one opinion. So let us hear another. According to Common Cause lawyer Trevor Potter, former counsel to Senator John McCain, the national parties may spend excess soft money to pay off any outstanding debts, noting that the tax provides that soft money could be used to retire outstanding debts, incurred solely in an election occurring by November 5, 2002. It does not make reference to contributions or expenditures or non-Federal, joint or allocated activities. Yet another opinion from election law expert Benjamin Ginsberg of Patton Boggs: The lack of specificity in the language means that a portion of hard dollar debt or obligations could be paid with soft money. As a practical matter, the plain wording of the proposed language would allow national party or committee to borrow hard dollars, spend those dollars in the upcoming election, and then use the remaining soft dollars to repay that debt. With this kind of creative bookkeeping on the part of the Shays- Meehan supporters, I cannot help but wonder if Arthur Andersen helped draft it. Mr. Chairman, Webster's defines reform as to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses. Without this amendment, there will not be reform because we do not remove faults or abuses. In fact, this bill allows manipulation and subversion and gives preferential treatment and sweetheart deals to many of those who claim today that the system was fraught with those very vices. Frankly, I do not see how making an exception to allow the Democratic National Committee to manipulate a $40 million soft-money account to help fund campaigns this year is reform by any definition, especially when they would be prevented from doing so under the current law that we stand under today. I do not see how allowing parties to pay back hard-money campaign expenditures with millions of dollars in soft money represents a ban by any stretch of anyone's imagination. A few months ago, the chief sponsor of this measure said, and I quote, ``There is no reason to delay the demise of this indefensible soft money system,'' end quote. Christopher Shays, May 1, 2001. If soft money donations to national parties are as evil and corrosive as Shays-Meehan proponents proclaim, then they should be stopped immediately. I realize that Shays-Meehan today, in its fourth incarnation, is not the Shays-Meehan that was first introduced. In fact, these two bills have about as much in common as a Ford Escort and a Ford Explorer. It is the same manufacturer, the same brand name, but completely different vehicles. Worse, it weakens existing laws that Shays-Meehan supporters claim are already too lax. To my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who support Shays- Meehan, I ask only that they demonstrate that they believe in what they told the American people today, by really, truly banning soft money and banning it now. To my colleagues on this side of the aisle who support Shays-Meehan, I ask only for fairness and that they level the playing field by making this an honest soft-money ban rather than creating special exemptions and special deals for the other party. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to end soft money, then let us end it once and for all. Let us end it now, not months from now, when it is more politically convenient. If we are going to stop using soft money in campaigns, then let us make sure it is stopped in every campaign. Without this amendment, the supporters of Shays-Meehan are saying that while soft money may be bad, it is not bad enough to ban right here, right now. There is a word for that, Mr. Chairman, and it is hypocrisy. I urge approval of the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. My colleagues keep getting confused between hard and soft money. Last I knew a primary was won on hard money, not using soft money. I also recollect that basically on some of the ambitions of some of the Members of the other side of the aisle they killed the bill the last time we had it in July, when we did not pass the rule, which I managed on this very floor. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey). THE CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

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

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I have listened to whether this has constitutional questions. This bill is riddled with constitutional questions. Even the sponsors have said some of it will be thrown out by the courts. But I do know this: Without this amendment the supporters of Shays- Meehan are saying that while soft money may be bad, it is not bad enough to ban right here right now. There is a word for that, Mr. Chairman. It is hypocrisy. I urge approval of the amendment, and I will ask for a recorded vote.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, it is great at 2:45 a.m. to see a Committee on Rules member at the rostrum, because it is usually you and I and the distinguished staff around you; but tonight we are joined by the entire House as I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 2356, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I listened carefully to my friend from Tennessee, and he kind of wants it both ways. I am never afraid to go home. I go home every single week to my district in western New York to talk to my voters and listen to what they have to say, as they send me to Washington. But the gentleman cannot have it both ways, to where we ban a little bit but we do not really have a level playing field and we just kind of set up the rules. That is why I am a cosponsor of Ney-Wynn, because it is pretty straightforward. It is pretty straightforward on reform. It is pretty straightforward on quick and accurate information on what is being raised and spent. And I listened to Andy Card, the Chief of Staff to the President, when he talked about the credentials that he looked for in a bill: a level playing field, banning soft money on both labor and corporations, paycheck protection and instantaneous reporting.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) is correct, that is exactly why I am a cosponsor of his legislation, because his bill does a better job. It talks about meaningful reform and instantaneous reporting, and it takes a special kind of guy to look in front of a camera and make a statement that the Shays-Meehan bill ends all soft money. It just is not true. The Shays-Meehan bill empowers special interests to use independent expenditures, underground expenditures to influence campaigns while silencing average Americans. Most everyone wants to reform our campaign finance laws, but taking away first amendment rights and eliminating free speech is not the way to do it. Make no mistake about it, the Shays-Meehan bill does not ban soft money. Instead, it creates a new road for cash to travel to political parties, allowing up to $60 million in soft money per donor nationwide via the States. Funneling is not reforming, and if the supporters of Shays-Meehan were serious about campaign finance reform, the bill would completely ban soft money and take effect immediately. It does neither, raising questions about its intentions. Matter of fact, the first Shays-Meehan bill in 1999 banned all soft money, did not allow State and local political parties to get at soft money. It banned labor, it banned corporations, and it banned the wealthy from being able to put money in. So we talk about a change of what a bill had to do to get 218 motion-to-discharge signers, take a look at the different bills in the fourth draft we are now having before us in Shays-Meehan. If the Shays-Meehan does not raise hard-money limits for House candidates and combine with other restrictions on finances, it will make the House of Representatives a millionaires' club. Take a look at some of the candidates we have had to recruit through our political parties that had wealth in order to run for public office. Wealth, individual wealth, and then we try to find some gimmicks on how we can have a millionaires' amendment or some other solution. My colleagues should live in fear, all 435 of us, that a wealthy American decides to run, and we have no available solution to get our message out. The Shays-Meehan campaign finance legislation is no reform at all, rather some mechanism to limit free speech while turning over power and decisions to parts of the media and the wealthy. Limiting issue advocacy and curtailing who could say what and what can be said is definitely unconstitutional, and I have sat in the Committee on Rules where some of the sponsors have admitted it is unconstitutional. The time has come. We have used a motion to discharge to get this bill on the floor. By gosh, we are going to have the debate tomorrow, maybe into the next day, but there is no longer anyplace to hide that the Senate will take care of it or the White House will take care of it. It is going to be settled right here in the House of Representatives. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Some say that what killed campaign finance in July was not the Republican leadership, it was the Presidential ambition of some of the leadership in the minority. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.