Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I believe I have answered the question of the gentleman from Tennessee. The Shays-Meehan bill would provide $30 million to both parties at the State and local level. I do not exactly know what the Ney-Wynn bill would provide in those dollars. But I can say that the Shays-Meehan bill empowers special interests to use independent expenditures, which I really consider underground money, to influence campaigns while silencing average Americans. Most everyone wants to reform our campaign finance laws, but taking away first amendment rights and limiting free speech is not the way to do it.

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

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Linder).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, 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. Speaker, House Resolution 344 is a structured rule providing for consideration of H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2001, with 1 hour of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. I would like to stress that this rule before us was not written by nor is a product of the Committee on Rules. The rule reflects the terms for consideration set forth in the motion to discharge, with the exception of allowing immediate debate this week, versus a later date, as determined by the House rules. The petition calls for amendments to be introduced and printed in the Congressional Record by the close of business today. Equally important, I would like to stress that, essentially, we do not know what amendments we are about to make in order, because the Shays-Meehan, Ney-Wynn and Armey substitutes will not be filed until after this rule is debated and approved. Unfortunately, it is a shame to see this issue come to the floor in such a convoluted manner. The signers of the discharge petition have set in motion a clumsy and awkward debate that could hardly be called a fair and open process. There were no hearings on the language we will see on the floor tomorrow. All this comes as a result of the discharge petition. But since circumstances have afforded this opportunity for debate, let us look at the issue before us and what it means to America. The recent events have forged a true sense of patriotism among all Americans. But we must ask ourselves if we are willing to trample on this new-found nationalism by jeopardizing the most basic of American rights and freedoms, the right to free speech, because in this fourth version of Shays-Meehan, we have gagged Americans, whether in the middle, the right or the left, and will allow only special interests to have access to soft money. It is reasonable to debate strengthening our campaign finance laws, but taking away first amendment rights and limiting free speech is not the way to do it. Real reform means recognizing that curbing the expense of campaigns should not come at the expense of political liberties. Limiting issue advocacy and curtailing who can say what is both unconstitutional and un-American. We would be fooling ourselves if we believed the notion that the Shays-Meehan legislation represents a complete ban on soft money. Let us be honest: In this bill there is no such thing as a ban on soft money. At least the Ney-Wynn proposal ensures that such expenditures are used for political party activities, such as voter registration, get out the vote, overhead and fund-raising expenses. Now, neither this issue nor the bill is new. In fact, the Shays- Meehan bill was in existence even before I came to Congress. But today, Shays-Meehan is in its fourth draft; I repeat, its fourth draft, and is vastly different than what was first proposed. This new bill creates even bigger loopholes than before, creating $30 million per year soft-money loophole, restricting broadcast ads for only 60 days prior to an election that even some of the sponsors admit could be unconstitutional, rather than year-round, and loosening even further the loopholes that allow party committees to shift their current soft money over to nonprofits who, in turn, could use 100 percent soft money for issue advocacy. Mr. Speaker, Shays-Meehan creates a $60 million soft-money loophole for State and local parties. It creates a new loophole to permit a $40 million soft-money building fund for the Democratic National Committee if both amendments are approved by some of the Shays-Meehan supporters. In short, Shays-Meehan establishes a pathway to new and more underground money. Creating loopholes and granting special exemptions hardly seems like reform. Even more preposterous is the fact that some sponsors of the Shays- Meehan bill do not want to curtail soft money right away. That is right. Those supporters say, let us wait until after Election Day, the next cycle, before any of this takes effect rather than the current legislation of 30 days. Why? One simple reason: the rhetoric fails to match up to the reality. The bill's sponsors are now in the newspapers and on the talk shows saying how critical this reform package is. But now they say it can wait. Mr. Speaker, I suspect at some point during this debate my colleagues will attempt to make a correlation between campaign finance reform and the recent Enron scandal. They will demagogue and demagogue again that the corporate downfall of Enron could have in some way been averted had tougher campaign finance laws been on the books. Is there anyone who truly believes this to be the case? Is there anyone who can look those pension holders in the eye and honestly say that campaign finance reform would have prevented Enron's collapse? The only connection between Enron's downfall and campaign finance reform is political convenience. On a side note, I would like to extend my respect to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration. As a member of his committee, I have come to respect his realistic and pragmatic approach to real campaign finance reform. Mr. Speaker, I want to make sure that my colleagues know that today this House will deal once and for all with a major decision on campaign finance reform. It is very important that all Members look very closely and know full well what it is that we may be passing. The Committee on Rules reported out this rule without recommendation, and, in doing so, I hesitate to ask my colleagues to support the rule. However, by signing the discharge petition, a majority of this House has signaled their desire to have this debate. And so, in mirroring the conciliatory actions of the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, I ask my colleagues to vote ``aye'' on the rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 344 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I would respond that I would have to get an expert on that; but I can say that under the Shays-Meehan bill, which the gentleman supports, it could be $30 million to both parties with the State and locals.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the minority leader does not intend to offer amendments. Pursuant to that, I ask unanimous consent that, one, during consideration of H.R. 2356 in the Committee of the Whole pursuant to H. Res. 344, the Chair shall alternate recognition to offer the amendments specified in section 3 between the majority leader or a designee of the majority leader and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) or a designee of either Member only as follows: The Majority Leader for one amendment; Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment; The Majority Leader for two amendments in sequence; Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment; The Majority Leader for two amendments in sequence; Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment; The Majority Leader for two amendments in sequence; Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment; The Majority Leader for two amendments in sequence; Representative Shays or Representative Meehan for one amendment; and The Majority Leader for one amendment. (2) Under section 3(a) of House Resolution 344, a Member listed in section 3(b) may designate another Member to announce, in accordance with section 3(c), the intention to offer any amendment allotted to him under section 3(b).

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in the remarks of the gentleman on the other side, I just want to correct the gentleman, it is a refundable tax credit for the purchase of health insurance, contrary to what the gentleman's remarks were according to our information. I think it might be a good time to talk about the fact that health care is something that the Thomas legislation reaches out to all Americans affected as they are displaced workers, not just a select few under COBRA, and there are an outline of a number of those. When I think about middle America, the fact of reducing the current 27.5 percent tax rate to 25 percent effective January 2002 will strengthen working families across this country. There are a number of extensions of important pieces of legislation that are incorporated in this bill that are time sensitive, 2 years and 1 year, and permanent extensions of others. When we look at this, not only have we looked across America, but the 2 months that the New York stimulus package has been kicking around that authorizes $15 billion of tax exempt bonds and bonus depreciation deductions, reduce the recovery period for leasehold improvements, increasing small business expensing and increasing time periods for reinvesting gains, many of those are right in the aspect of revitalizing New York City and the lower Manhattan area which has been so devastated. Also in this legislation is victims' tax relief. That is going to the Oklahoma bombing and the anthrax attacks that have occurred in this country. I also remind Members before when we listened that this was not enough and this was a Republican plan, we look at the Thomas plan which is a consensus, a bicameral approach of reaching consensus, in many aspects supported by the President of the United States, bringing forth solutions of compromise that is not just one fashion. It is a consensus of the best ideas. If we pass this rule, we will bring this legislation before the House and then see the will of this body as we consider this legislation tonight. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence). (Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), the ranking member of the Committee on Rules, pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for purposes of debate only. (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the great President Ronald Reagan when he would have to say, ``There you go again.'' Because some of those new ideas we are talking about, I think that the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means was a co-sponsor of that with the Liberty Zones in New York and rebuilding the lower Manhattan and those 15 blocks that bring 15 percent of the revenue to the State of which we both hail. That was a new idea. Maybe it worked a little different from some of the other ones going back to enterprise zones and other concepts. That was a new idea that was joined by many New Yorkers as a solution that the governor put forth and that many of us, including in my recollection, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel). But when you look at the failed ideas, Mr. Speaker, the failed ideas, I have talked about the last 40 years of liberal Democratic vision, the recommit proposal that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel) has before us again, takes and raises taxes again. We spend our time trying to bring the tax rate down. We try to tell America that we want to have you invest your money, save your money but have you have control of it. And about the time we take our eyes off it, we have the Democratic minority on a recommit bill that want to raise that top rate right back up and raise taxes. Make no mistake about it. This is not some slick or other type move around here. This is a move that if you vote to recommit, you are voting to raise taxes in America. That is the same failed ideas that brought us a lot of problems. It is so difficult around here to look at tax cuts as part of the solution to get America moving again. And that is the problem we face here in our Congress is looking at philosophical differences from those who want to have a smaller, smarter government and let people have control of their own destinies and their own money, and those who want a large, bigger government that has more regulations and more control over the American viewpoint. When I say with the Thomas legislation that is coming before us tonight, if we pass these rules, is a compromise. It is a compromise that not all Members in this House are going to want to look at. They are going to look at it as a compromise, a consensus. Not a Thomas bill, not a Rangel bill, a bipartisan bill that brings the solution of the best of those ideas before the House and to have it pass the House and move forward as it goes to the Senate and have the other body make its consideration and its will under what the President has brought in his leadership is the best bill possible to get America moving again to protect and create new jobs and protect displaced workers. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 319 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 319 waives clause 6(a) of rule XIII requiring a two-thirds vote to consider a rule on the same day it is reported from the Committee on Rules. The rule applies the waiver to a special rule reported on the legislative day of December 19, 2001, providing for consideration or disposition of the bill to provide tax incentives for economic recovery, any amendment thereto, any conference report thereon, or any amendment reported in disagreement from a conference thereon. The rule also allows this body to once again take up stimulus legislation, making it possible for prompt consideration of this much- needed and long overdue measure to create jobs and promote long-term economic growth. This body passed an economic stimulus bill nearly 2 months ago, but our colleagues in the other Chamber have not yet acted; and in failing to act, we put American jobs and the stability of our economy at risk. The downward trend we now face has been over a year in the making, and it has been compounded by the recent attacks on our Nation. Americans deserve this relief, and not just because of September 11. We owe it to them to proceed without further delay. I can think of no better holiday gift for America than an economic stimulus bill. It is imperative that we move forward at once. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule so we may proceed with debate on this time-sensitive legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I came to the Congress as a majority member only 3 years ago; but before that I spent 10 years in the State House, overwhelmingly Democratic, where I could not even get a name on a bill as a cosponsor. Or in the 6 years before that in the Erie County legislature where I served in the minority, and having the opportunity to serve in leadership in both of those, I could hear the frustration of many, many years of being in the minority. As I sit here, I have to remember and remind my colleagues that in 1995, when the Republicans became a majority in this House, they said that they would guarantee a motion to recommit on every single bill; take it to the bank, one bite at the apple. No matter what bill it is, we will have a motion to recommit, as we have today. I would remind the gentleman who spoke that that was not always the case when the Republicans were in the minority for 40 years before that. But it also looks at the fact that I see hope that this majority will be permanent, because I am listening to grousing on process. I am listening to the fact we are going to ram through, and only the first part of this year, with a majority of six, we were not going to be able to pass anything. The reality is that this House time and time again as a Republican majority brought together an agenda of new ideas and vision for the American people on the mandates they were given by its President and by its Members in the Congress. So when I listen to ``ram through'' tonight or listen to some of the other things, it was only so few months ago when it was said of this body that we will be stopped in our tracks as a majority, bringing new, fresh ideas, rather than the failed liberal policies of the past. So I am optimistic that the minority and some of those who will speak tonight see it as the fact that they are in a permanent minority; they are in a permanent minority because of some of the failed policies they have had over the last 40 years. I look forward to moving through the rule tonight on same-day, moving forward to the rule to bring forth the legislation on economic stimulus in a bipartisan, bicameral approach so that the debate can be held, not for a half hour, not for an hour; but for 2 full hours we will have that debate tonight. We can let America judge for itself as we conclude our work on the economic stimulus if we are moving forward in order to help put people back to work and create private sector jobs and take care of displaced workers, or whether we are going to talk about it and try to dismantle it here in the Congress. I have faith in my colleagues, and I have faith in the American people that we will get the job done tonight. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cunningham).

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 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller). (Mr. WELLER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon) for 3 minutes.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would like to just bring the debate back to perspective where we are. We are on a rule for same day consideration. If that rule passes, it will allow us to consider a rule which will bring the economic stimulus package before this House tonight. I would like to remind not only the Members, but for those who might be observing the Congress, we have been here all year. We have had a stimulus package before Congress for 2 months that has been stalled in the other body. We are now approaching the holidays. We are now getting ready to conclude our year's work and go back to our families and our States. So time is of the essence as we consider this legislation before us tonight and have the will of the House speak as we conclude. 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. REYNOLDS

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