Thomas Reynolds

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a little bit of blurry history or rewriting history. I certainly was not here in 1981, as my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) was not, either. But as I recall, there was a minority substitute to a majority bill that the rule affected that the leadership lost, and the minority had a victorious day. In those days, the Republicans were the minority. But when we look at today, I have been here today in both the Committee on House Administration and on the Committee on Rules. It was my understanding that on Wednesday evening, at the insistence of the sponsor of Shays-Meehan that we hold a markup before the July district work period, that was scheduled for Thursday before we left. On Wednesday at 8 p.m. it was agreed upon by both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), who had to produce his bill, and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) that he would produce his bill, and at 8 o'clock we would have the bill so the House, the entire House, 435 Members, would have the opportunity to learn what was in both bills. That was because the Shays-Meehan bill that I knew as a State legislator watching the debate of this great body is now so much different than it was back then. I am a fan of the 1957 T-Bird. It changed so much in the sixties, when I owned a sixties T-Bird, and in the seventies, in the eighties, and in the nineties, so the T-Bird today that is made reference to no longer looks like the 1957 Thunderbird. So you would have to be clarifying exactly what year of Thunderbirds you were referring to if you were an admirer. In Shays-Meehan, this bill before us today is nothing like the Shays- Meehan bill that was constructed years ago and has been debated in this House in previous years. It is substantially different. On the Committee on Rules, I have the opportunity to see managers' technical amendments on a frequent occasion. This bill, when we look at what happened with the Committee on Rules, we granted every single request, 12, of the Shays-Meehan bill. Whether they were technical or they were absolute critical changes that were made in the bill that would not be classified a manager's amendment, we gave it to the Shays- Meehan request. Just as the Speaker said today, this week, we will have the debate on Shays-Meehan and any other amendments on campaign finance reform. It is here today. So the bill introduced by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) reported by the Committee on House Administration will be debated in its entirety. As a matter of fact, they filed after the deadline, 4\1/2\ hours late, these 12 amendments, which were actually put in the rule so they could be debated today in its entirety. However, when we begin to look at special privileges for any Members, that becomes a political concept of what the Committee on Rules is, in fairness. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) is not the manager of the campaign finance bill, it is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the Chair of the Committee on House Administration. The en bloc amendment has been inaccurately referred to as the manager's amendment. The fact is that the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney) is the manager of this legislation, so the amendment requested by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) is not a manager's amendment. Anyway, whether one is a freshman, a sophomore, as I, or a junior member of the Committee on Rules on the majority side, as its most senior Members know, an en bloc amendment has been inaccurately referred to as a manager's amendment in this legislation, and that an amendment en bloc is a clustering of individual amendments. Mr. Speaker, each and every amendment requested by Shays-Meehan is in this rule, to be debated openly and fairly in this House. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce), from the Committee on Rules.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I have the unofficial comments made by my colleague, the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), last night in the Committee on Rules, which I would like to just share with the House as we look at the rule, the debate of the rule, with the balance of the time we have left. The gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) said: ``I just want people to have a fair and open debate on this process. Even if it disadvantage us if we have 200 amendments to go after our bill, I have always believed that the debate is healthy. I have always taken the position that we could be the substitute or the base bill, as long as ultimately you amend whatever is the base bill. ``Obviously, if you take up the Ney bill and he takes us down, we lost. And then you amend the Ney bill. If we survive, then we amend our bill. I have always taken that basic view. ``A vote for the Ney bill is a vote against our bill. And if he is the base bill and we replace him, then we amend our bill. I have always made that assumption. ``This manager's amendment, as I referred to it, I reluctantly call it the manager's amendment, it sounds ostentatious. I am not sure I feel like a manager. But this is an amendment that gets our bill in a form that we are most comfortable defending. And so obviously we like it. Some people have said you might like to divide them up into pieces; however, you decide.'' Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to comment that I am glad my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), addressed the group in the House today, because he was not at the Committee on Rules to present his case before us as we deliberated over the rule. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey), the majority leader.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Horn).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move for a call of the House.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield under his reservation, I am a new guy in the House. I think that some of my colleagues have expressed that they would spend some time expressing their view on the rule. I think some of my colleagues are seeing some different dimensions on the rule in discussions with some of the colleagues after hearing some of the debate on the rule, and I am one of those that believes that before we conclude our business tonight we are going to have a full and open debate on campaign finance reform. I think my colleagues are expressing in the debate of the rule the opportunity of how we will continue having an open, fair debate on campaign finance reform.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 188 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to 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 the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 188 is a fair, structured rule that provides for the consideration of H.R. 2356, the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. I would like to point out that this is not an unorthodox rule; rather, this rule is what is known as ``regular order.'' The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate to be equally divided between the chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule makes in order 20 amendments that were printed in the report accompanying the resolution. In addition to the full consideration of these amendments, the rule makes in order two substitutes, one offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), which is debatable for 30 minutes, and the other offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), which is debatable for 60 minutes. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, as well as all points of order against the amendments. After passage of H.R. 2356, the rule provides that it shall be in order to consider in the House Senate 27. It waives all points of order against the Senate bill and against its consideration. The rule makes in order a motion to strike all after the enacting clause of the Senate bill and insert in lieu thereof provisions of H.R. 2356 as passed by the House. Furthermore, the rule waives all points of order against the motion to strike and insert. Additionally, the rule provides that if the motion to strike and insert is adopted and the Senate bill, as amended, is passed, it shall be in order to move that the House insist on its amendment and request a conference with the Senate thereon. Finally, the rule provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions. Mr. Speaker, before we begin what is certain to be a very passionate debate, I would first like to commend the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the Speaker of the House, on his efforts to bring this issue before us today. The Speaker pledged a fair, open, and timely debate on this measure and, as has been the hallmark of his leadership, today has made good on that commitment. I would also like to acknowledge the great strides that have been made to ensure that this rule be made as fair as possible and to ensure a healthy debate on this important issue. As this rule was developed, the committee honored numerous requests from the gentleman from Connecticut to ensure a proper and complete debate. In short, we are here today because the Speaker has facilitated a fair and open process. Additionally, I would like to commend the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney), the chairman of the Committee on House Administration, for his fair bipartisan handling of this matter. The willingness of both the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Ney) and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert) to accommodate all parties involved by supporting alternative measures and open debate is a true testament to their leadership on this measure. I thank both the gentlemen. Mr. Speaker, I have had the unique opportunity to hear testimony on this issue from all sides, both as a member of the Committee on House Administration and as a member of the Committee on Rules. I have witnessed firsthand the process that has brought us to this day, and I stand here before my colleagues proud of both the process and the rule. Mr. Speaker, when we peel back the layers of debate on the issue before us today, when we remove the emotion and the hyperbole, when we separate the rhetoric from the reality, there is a fundamental question before this Congress today: how far will this Congress go in restricting the rights of the American people, whether individually or collectively, to participate in their political process? It is ironic that as this Congress and this country have achieved so much economically and socially by breaking down government regulation and intrusion, there are those who would have us impose excessive restrictions and undue burdens on the most basic of all human rights: the right of free speech. That we can improve our current campaign finance system is something upon which we can all agree, but to do so by destroying the very fabric of this Nation's political system is not an improvement, nor is it reform. There are a number of important issues that we face in our shared desire to improve and reform campaign finance in these United States. Most important, we must ensure that we encourage rather than stifle citizen involvement in their political process. The freedom to express one's views in the form of political speech is one of the inherent rights that this Nation was founded upon. Government restrictions which would limit that speech strike at the very core of our rights and liberties as Americans. We should recognize, too, the freedom of political parties to encourage voter enrollment and participation. A vibrant party system has been and must continue to promote the free flow of ideas and debate that have shaped this Nation over the past 225 years. By definition, Webster's dictionary says that ``reform'' means ``to make or become better.'' What we do today must ensure that our campaign finance system does become better, and it can only become better if we recognize that curbing expensive campaigns should not come at the expense of political liberties. That is why I urge support of this rule and the support of the Ney-Wynn bill. While neither the Shays-Meehan nor the Ney-Wynn bill bans so-called ``soft money,'' Ney-Wynn at least ensures that such expenditures are used for party activities such as voter registration, getting out the vote, overhead, and fund-raising expenses. Such a provision will ensure that candidates cannot circumvent set limits, while ensuring a continued vibrant party system. Ney-Wynn also contains broader reporting requirements. People have a right to know who is supporting candidates for political office, and under the Ney-Wynn bill they will have that information quickly and completely. Further, Ney-Wynn does more to restrict the influences of special interest groups. Political parties will be restricted from fund-raising and spending soft money while special interests would still be allowed to spend funds in virtually unlimited amounts, increasing, rather than curtailing, their influence over the electoral process. Mr. Speaker, there is a solid reason why the Ney-Wynn bill has enjoyed a growing bipartisan support over these past few weeks. That is because it is better, more responsible legislation that, as Webster defines, reforms our campaign finance system by making it better. Mr. Speaker, let me once again remind my colleagues that our business here today is being conducted under regular order. This fair, standard rule is before this body because of the tireless efforts of both the gentleman from Illinois (Speaker Hastert) and the gentleman from Ohio (Chairman Ney). Let us proceed with open debate on both the bill and its amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this rule. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. REYNOLDS. I think there are conversations going on everywhere.

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

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the rule be extended for 20 minutes, equal time between the majority and the minority.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield under his reservation, I ask unanimous consent that the debate on the rule be extended 20 minutes, and for equal time between the majority and the minority.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my unanimous consent request.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. 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 House Resolution 188.

Mr. REYNOLDS

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 myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, the time is here. We are going to have a vote on this rule. This is a fair rule. It allows for full debate on Shays-Meehan, along with the 14 changes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) want to make to their own bill. It provides an opportunity for an amendment of the Ney-Wynn bill, the Doolittle bill and the Linder bill, along with numerous other amendments of Members who appeared before the Committee on Rules. It is a fair rule, one that allows for a full, balanced debate on this very important legislation. This will bring about, once and for all, a great debate, a debate that the entire House can participate in. The rule that is provided before us, if it is voted up, we have the debate; if it is voted down, it is for those who opposed it to live for another day to demagogue it, rather than vote on it.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The call was taken by electronic device, and the following Members responded to their names: [Roll No. 227] Abercrombie Ackerman Aderholt Akin Allen Andrews Armey Baca Bachus Baird Baker Baldacci Baldwin Ballenger Barcia Barr Barrett Bartlett Barton Bass Becerra Bentsen Bereuter Berkley Berman Berry Biggert Bilirakis Bishop Blagojevich Blumenauer Blunt Boehlert Boehner Bonilla Bonior Bono Borski Boswell Boucher Boyd Brady (PA) Brady (TX) Brown (FL) Brown (OH) Brown (SC) Bryant Burr Burton Buyer Callahan Calvert Camp Cannon Cantor Capito Capps Capuano Cardin Carson (IN) Carson (OK) Castle Chabot Chambliss Clay Clayton Clement Clyburn Coble Collins Combest Condit Conyers Cooksey Costello Cox Coyne Cramer Crane Crenshaw Crowley Cubin Culberson Cummings Cunningham Davis (CA) Davis (FL) Davis (IL) Davis, Jo Ann Davis, Tom Deal DeFazio DeGette Delahunt DeLauro DeLay DeMint Deutsch Diaz-Balart Dicks Dingell Doggett Doolittle Doyle Dreier Duncan Dunn Edwards Ehlers Ehrlich Emerson Engel English Eshoo Etheridge Evans Everett Farr Fattah Ferguson Filner Flake Fletcher Foley Forbes Ford Fossella Frelinghuysen Frost Gallegly Ganske Gekas Gephardt Gibbons Gilchrest Gillmor Gilman Gonzalez Goode Goodlatte Gordon Goss Graham Granger Graves Green (TX) Green (WI) Greenwood Grucci Gutierrez Gutknecht Hall (OH) Hall (TX) Hansen Harman Hart Hastings (FL) Hastings (WA) Hayes Hayworth Hefley Herger Hill Hilleary Hilliard Hinchey Hinojosa Hobson Hoeffel Hoekstra Holden Holt Honda Hooley Horn Hostettler Houghton Hoyer Hulshof Hyde Inslee Isakson Israel Issa Istook Jackson (IL) Jackson-Lee (TX) Jefferson Jenkins John Johnson (CT) Johnson (IL) Johnson, E. B. Johnson, Sam Jones (NC) Jones (OH) Kanjorski Kaptur Keller Kelly Kennedy (MN) Kennedy (RI) Kerns Kildee Kilpatrick Kind (WI) King (NY) Kingston Kirk Kleczka Knollenberg Kolbe Kucinich LaFalce LaHood Lampson Langevin Lantos Largent Larsen (WA) Larson (CT) Latham LaTourette Leach Lee Levin Lewis (GA) Lewis (KY) Linder Lipinski LoBiondo Lofgren Lowey Lucas (KY) Lucas (OK) Luther Maloney (CT) Maloney (NY) Markey Mascara Matheson Matsui McCarthy (MO) McCarthy (NY) McCollum McCrery McDermott McGovern McHugh McInnis McIntyre McKeon McKinney McNulty Meehan Meeks (NY) Menendez Mica Millender-McDonald Miller (FL) Miller, Gary Miller, George Mink Mollohan Moore Moran (KS) Moran (VA) Morella Murtha Myrick Nadler Napolitano Neal Nethercutt Ney Northup Norwood Nussle Oberstar Obey Olver Ortiz Osborne Ose Otter Oxley Pallone Pascrell Pastor Payne Pelosi Pence Peterson (MN) Peterson (PA) Petri Phelps Pickering Pitts Platts Pombo Pomeroy Portman Price (NC) Pryce (OH) Putnam Quinn Radanovich Rahall Ramstad Rangel Regula Rehberg Reyes Reynolds Riley Rivers Rodriguez Roemer Rogers (KY) Rogers (MI) Rohrabacher Ros-Lehtinen Ross Rothman Roukema Roybal-Allard Royce Rush Ryan (WI) Ryun (KS) Sabo Sanchez Sanders Sandlin Sawyer Saxton Scarborough Schaffer Schakowsky Schiff Schrock Scott Sensenbrenner Serrano Sessions Shadegg Shaw Shays Sherman Sherwood Shimkus Shows Shuster Simmons Simpson Skeen Skelton Slaughter Smith (MI) Smith (NJ) Smith (TX) Smith (WA) Snyder Solis Souder Spratt Stearns Stenholm Strickland Stump Stupak Sununu Sweeney Tancredo Tanner Tauscher Tauzin Taylor (MS) Taylor (NC) Terry Thomas Thompson (CA) Thompson (MS) Thornberry Thune Thurman Tiahrt Tiberi Tierney Toomey Towns Traficant Turner Udall (CO) Udall (NM) Upton Velazquez Visclosky Vitter Walden Walsh Wamp Waters Watkins (OK) Watson (CA) Watt (NC) Watts (OK) Waxman Weiner Weldon (FL) Weldon (PA) Weller Wexler Whitfield Wicker Wilson Wolf Woolsey Wu Wynn Young (AK) Young (FL)

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. REYNOLDS

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 178, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to close. Madam Speaker, this is an open rule. It is a fair rule. It is a rule that allows the transportation legislation of the Committee on Appropriations to come before the House. There has been consideration, with the will of the Committee on Appropriations passing a second degree amendment to the Sabo amendment offered by the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers). That amendment passed 37 to 27, reflecting the will of the Committee on Appropriations in the amendment. Madam 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. No, I do not. It is obvious I have been reserving the balance of my time to close the debate on our side when the gentleman is ready.

Mr. REYNOLDS. Madam Speaker, if the gentleman wishes to yield back, we will close this and move to the vote.