Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Minnesota did not have to say ``even.'' Especially in Connecticut.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, sometimes local zoning decisions reduce the value of property and sometimes local zoning decisions increase the value of property. Sometimes it is perceived as a takings. Sometimes it is perceived as a givings. Property owners take certain risks. I agree with editorial criticism that points out this bill undermines the ability of literally every single community in the United States to control its own development at a time when traffic congestion, sprawl, open space, the availability and quality of drinking water, and other land-use issues are taking on increased visibility and importance. I believe in local control of education. I believe in local control of zoning. That is why I support the Boehlert amendment, because it narrows this bad bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of a number of provisions included in the Conference Report to H.R. 1000, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment & Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR-21), including Emergency Locator Transmitters (ELTs) and a study on helicopter noise. Unfortunately, I am voting against the legislation because it provides federal aviation programs budgetary protection not afforded to other equally vital federal programs. I strongly support the ELT section included in this conference report and thank the House and Senate conference committees for including this life-saving provision. On December 24, 1996 a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, 31, of Westport, Connecticut and Patrick Hayes, 30, of Clinton, Connecticut lost contact with the control tower at the Lebanon, New Hampshire Airport. Despite efforts by the federal government, New Hampshire state and local authorities, and Connecticut authorities, a number of extremely well organized ground searches failed to locate the two gentlemen or the airplane until November 1999--almost three years later. The disappearance of the Learjet on Christmas Eve was a true tragedy. In my judgment, what is particularly frustrating about this situation is that had the plane been equipped with a moderately-priced location device, the plane may have been found quickly. While current law requires most planes to be equipped with an ELT, there are several exceptions. For this reason, together with the rest of the Connecticut Congressional delegation and Congressman Neal of Massachusetts, I introduced H.R. 267, to require ELTs on fixed wing aircraft, with a few exemptions, including planes used by manufacturers in development exercises, agricultural crop planes, acrobatic show planes and large commercial planes which already have on-board technology to be quickly located. In a tragedy--where time can play the difference between life and death--it is critical aircraft are equipped with locating devices necessary to find the plane and its passengers. I am extremely grateful for ELT provisions--which will save lives and funds spent on expensive search efforts--are included in the conference report today. I also strongly support helicopter noise study provisions included in the conference report. I understand frustration with aircraft noise. It is loud and disruptive. The noise level can be overwhelming, and diminishes quality of life. I have been working for many years with officials at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and local residents, to control aircraft noise in Fairfield County. During consideration of the House-passed version, a provision I supported on helicopter noise was included in the manager's amendment to H.R. 1000. I am glad to see the conference report retains this provision to require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a one- year study on the effects of nonmilitary helicopter noise on individuals and develop recommendations for noise reduction. In order to combat noise pollution from helicopters it is imperative we understand how it is affecting individuals and how to best reduce it. On budgetary reasons, I cannot, however, support this conference report. AIR-21 authorizes approximately $40 billion over three years through fiscal year 2003 (FY 03) for airport improvements, air traffic control and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) operations. Of this amount, $33 billion is allocated from the aviation trust fund and $7 billion will be ``available for appropriation'' from the general fund. While I am pleased the conference report does not take the aviation trust fund off-budget, I do not support establishing a series of parliamentary points of order designed to guarantee authorized funding levels for aviation. As someone who uses flies on a weekly basis, I understand the importance of a safe, efficient aviation system. But, I oppose affording aviation special protections not given to other important programs. In my judgment aviation programs should have to compete for funds in the overall budget, just as education, healthcare, elderly services and veterans programs are required to do.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 376, the Communications Satellite Competition and Privatization Act, and commend House Commerce Chairman Tom Bliley and Congressman Edward Markey for their work in crafting this important legislation. This bill is yet another feather in their cap--another important step in Congress's ongoing efforts to deregulate the telecommunications industry. S. 376 will enhance competition and open foreign markets for U.S. companies by promoting the privatization of the intergovernmental satellite organizations--called Intelsat and Inmarsat--that dominate international commercial satellite communications. These organizations operate as a cartel-like structure comprised of the national telephone monopolies and dominant companies of its member organizations. The provisions contained in S. 376--which will update policies dating back to 1062--are long overdue. I don't think anyone in this Congress needs to be told the extent to which communications technology has changed in the past 40 years. Back in 1962, it was widely believed that only governments could finance and manage a global satellite system. Today, however, two companies in my own district--GE Americom and PanAmSat--are among the private companies that offer high-quality international services. These companies have launched private sector ventures that must compete with Intelsat, an intergovernmental behemoth. Yet, we still have the same structure for international satellite communications that was designed before Neil Armstrong walked on the moon. The result is a distorted marketplace, stifled competition and innovation, and increased prices for consumers. Mr. Speaker, the promotion of a competitive satellite communications marketplace is a goal we should all support and I urge my colleagues to support this pro-trade, pro-consumer bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, my colleague Marty Meehan of Massachusetts and I rise to commend 91 year old Doris Haddock--known throughout the country as Granny D--for her cross-country trek in support of campaign finance reform. Granny D began her crusade on January 1, 1999 in Pasadena, California and walked 3,200 miles across the country until she arrived at the Capitol on February 29, 2000. She traveled through the snow in Maryland, dust storms in California's Mojave Desert, and heat of a Texas summer--all the way to Washington, DC. We are happy to place the attached statement into the Congressional Record, which in Doris' own words, describes how she chose to undertake such an amazing feat. A native of Dublin, New Hampshire and an activist since the 1960s, Granny D felt compelled to push for campaign finance reform--and thus began her idea for walking cross-country. She has walked 10 miles a day, six days a week and stayed with people she met on ``the road.'' Granny D inspired citizens from around the nation to walk with her for a day or so as she helped raise awareness of such an important issue-- campaign finance reform. In an age where cynicism and low voter turnout has become a norm, Granny D has demonstrated that civil activism is alive and well in America. We join Granny D in support of reforming our campaign finance system by eliminating the unregulated, unlimited campaign gifts known as soft money, applying our campaign laws to sham issue ads, and increasing disclosure. Combined together, these reforms will slam shut the open door that currently allows anyone--corporations, labor unions, wealthy individuals, even foreign nationals--to purchase limitless influence in our political system. We believe this is a crucial first step to protect our democracy and thank Granny D for raising awareness of this issue by courageously walking across our nation in support of campaign finance reform. As Helen Keller stated: ``I am only one; but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; I will not refuse to do something I can do.'' Statement of Granny D I have been asked to speak briefly this morning about the spiritual side of my journey across the United States. I would like to share three brief thoughts. The first thought is that God often speaks to us with crazy ideas. He is full of them, I think. When I first received the thought of walking across America for campaign finance reform, I knew it was a rather crazy idea. It would have been easy to brush it off as such, and to change the subject as my son and I drove along that Florida highway where the thought first came. What is calling, anyway? It is a picture window that suddenly appears, revealing a possible alternative life. Possible, yes. I indeed might be able to walk the country-- as I have kept up my physical conditioning with cross-country skiing and walking. Possible, yes--for such an undertaking (if it were not in fact an undertaking!) might bring some needed attention to the issue. And possible, yes--it might in fact be more interesting than staying at If God sends us a crazy idea and we toss it off as such, I think He understands. He will be happy to send it along to someone else, or try some other ideas on us later. If it keeps coming back, slightly revised, earmarked, highlighted, perhaps it is a calling. So we consider it more seriously. If it seems immediately appealing, however, and we jump for it, is there some test to know if it is a proper calling and not just our own harebrained senility? Well, I think there may indeed be a test, and that is the second spiritual aspect of my journey that I would like to share. Despite all my best efforts before I left on my walk to arrange help along the way, I got almost no response from the churches or police departments along the way to whom I sent a thousand letters of self-introduction. So my first steps were little leaps of faith into the kind heart and soul of America, and my faith was of course rewarded. Most remarkably, though there were troubles along the way, and a hospital stay and so many breakdowns of my support van and so many little traumas and troubles, what I saw on the whole was an opening up of heaven, and a flowing down of all the resources and all the right people I needed. After my difficult crossing of the Mojave Desert in California, I crossed the bridge into Parker, Arizona on my 89th birthday. The Marine Corps Marching Band was at the bridge, playing Happy Birthday to me. The remarkable part of that story is that they just happened to be there on other business. It also happened to be Parker Days, and they were delighted to have me lead the parade and tell the whole city about campaign finance reform, which I did. When, some days later I walked into Wickenburg, Arizona, it happened to be Wickenburg Days and again I found myself in a parade and telling everyone about campaign reform. Now, the parade organizers did not know me or care about this issue, but the family who kindly put me up there, after my stay in the hospital for dehydration, happened to be good friends of the parade chairman. It was like that every step of the way--always just the right person at just the right moment. It continued across the country. Let me remind you that last Sunday it rained heavily in Washington, and last Monday it was very cold and windy, and Tuesday, when a nice day would be good for the big march across town to the Capitol steps, why, the weather here was a perfect springlike day. The blessings have been uncountable. I do not mean to suggest that the Lord makes doing the right thing easy. My walk was not easy. But he seems to clear the field for you when you are ready to do serious battle. He does appreciate, I think, our moments of courage and He does not mind showing His hand at such times. Finally, let me make a spiritual note regarding the issue itself. Is it not so that we are charged in this life with doing God's work where we might? Are we not the keepers of our brothers and sisters? Are we not to be agents for justice and equality and kindness? Surely we cannot fulfill our high role if we do not have the power to manage our collective resources. Surely, only a free and empowered people can properly take care of one another. If we allow ourselves to lose our ability to manage our considerable common wealth to best address the great needs of our people, we abdicate our earthy responsibilities to our God, do we not? If we allow the greedy and the inhuman elements to steal away from us our self-government, because we did not have the energy or the courage to fight for it and to use it as a tool of our love and our wisdom, how shall we answer for that? Is campaign finance reform a religious issue? It is one of the central religious issues of our times, and I of course speak to the condition of the entire world, not just our few states. If we are to do the right things for our people and for the lovely home given us by God, then we must, as free adults, have the power to do what is right. I do not mean that churches and states should mix: it is enough that our civic values, which we all share with only a few arguments around the edges, are informed by our deeper beliefs in the equality of people and basic rights of all God's creations.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my esteemed chairman for yielding me the time. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Government Waste Corrections Act. In my judgment, this is simply common sense legislation. It is another important step in Congress's ongoing efforts to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in Federal agencies and programs. I mean, let us face it, in a Federal budget that exceeds $1.7 trillion, there will be some waste, quite a lot in fact. If we focus our efforts on rooting out this waste, we are better able to focus our limited resources on otherwise underfunded requirements. For example, the Department of Defense, which I oversee, will be able to direct this money to spare parts, training, and other critical needs. Getting our financial house in order means more than simply passing a balanced budget. It means ensuring the money is spent the way it is intended, not wasted through overpayments and billing errors. Recovery audits are a way for the Government to better manage its finances. This is the same tool used by the private sector firms across this country to assure their expenditures are also in order. These audits pay for themselves. Because agencies can use a portion of the amounts collected back to finance their recovery audit costs, they will not have to appropriate their own limited funds to audit activities. Audits are also a way to pass savings on to taxpayers. In fact, this legislation requires a minimum of 50 percent of the money collected to be returned back to the U.S. Treasury. I thank my colleagues for working on this legislation. It is a pleasure to be on the Committee on Government Reform, and I am happy they brought out this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. The challenge we had, there were others who came from districts that were very poor and had to reach out across district lines who were supporting the legislation where we were able to build consensus with our colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This truly was bipartisan, and with respect to my Democrat colleagues, there were more Democrats who supported this legislation than Republicans, but there was a large number of Republicans as well that did. Bipartisan bill: Ban soft money, call the sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads, and by doing that we eliminate the loophole and enforce the 1908 law that bans treasury corporate money, the 1947 law that bans union dues money, and the 1974 law that makes it illegal for foreign governments to contribute to campaigns. It just seems to me such a sensible way to proceed. One of the things, in closing; we do not have to use all of our 14 minutes left, or now 10, but I would say to the gentleman that I am excited by the fact that campaign finance reform has proved to be an issue the American people want debated. It is not just about the issue of campaign finance, it is about something a little deeper, and that is what do we do to protect the integrity of our democracy; what do we do to protect the integrity of the House and the Senate and the White House. These are very big issues. When I asked this question in my questionnaire, I made a statement, I asked my constituents to say whether they agreed or not and 15,000 responded. In this number, a total of 82 percent of my constituents believe this statement: that our democracy is threatened by the unlimited sums contributed by corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups, and they are right. I am excited, because we are going to hear a debate tonight on our side of the aisle, and I think campaign finance reform is going to be a major factor. I hope both candidates will support banning soft money and calling the sham issue ads what they are and having people advertise campaign ads and pay for them as campaign ads. If we see that happen, I think we will see our democracy not under the thumb of so many special interests. If I could have the courtesy of my colleague just to say to him that some of our colleagues take offense by my suggesting that somehow, we have been compromised. But the fact is, when we get $100,000 or $500,000 or $1 million that goes to one group on one issue, one has been compromised. This system slowly corrupts everyone that is in it.

Mr. SHAYS. So, Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is, we would like to restore some sanity to this process and a majority of Members in this House want to, a majority in the Senate want to, but not enough to end debate and to have an up or down vote on campaign finance reform. But the American people are being exposed to this issue and candidates, all four of the major candidates now are coming forward with their versions of campaign finance reform, and in every instance touching at least on soft money as it relates to corporations and union dues; some reluctant to deal with the sham issue ads. It is a healthy debate, it is one that the American people are paying attention to, contrary to what some of our colleagues here said that the public just does not care. They care a whole lot about this issue, of restoring integrity to our political system. I really thank my colleague for letting me join him in this colloquy and for the opportunity to speak, and I thank our Speaker for his patience in allowing us to have our full time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this issue, there are so many responses one can make as to why someone would support legislation or not. Actually, there is a part of me that thinks that makes sense and the gentleman does not. It is a wonderful illustration of how we came together on the four key points. Because there were a number of people, particularly on my side of the aisle, and I happen to agree with them. I think most of the money should be raised in State. I do not think one should raise most of the money out of State.

Mr. SHAYS. And the Beck decision was this: it was a decision that if you were not a member of a union, you did not have to have your money go for political purposes. It was not a decision that said if you were a member of a union that you did not have your money go. You had to leave the union, and then your money did not go for political purposes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, that is true. The point I need to make is issue ads can continue as campaign ads. It is a real surprise to me that people said, if we do not allow an issue ad, we have deprived people of their voice. No. They can still advertise. If one is a strong believer in right to life, one can raise as much money from one's members under the requirements of the law, and whatever one raises, one can spend. Does anyone doubt that the right to life organization has the ability to raise millions and millions and millions and millions and millions. A good example, actually, Right to Life right now is attacking one of the candidates who is supporting the bill that we support. They are saying that he has denied them their voice. The interesting thing is, this time, they are using PAC contributions. So they have affirmed that they can do exactly what we said they could do. They are right now campaigning against one of the candidates in South Carolina. This is an individual that they campaign against who is pro-life, but they do not like the fact that they support legislation to ban soft main and sham issue ads, campaign ads, and they are advertising against that person, not with sham issue ads, they are doing right up front. They are doing it with political action committee money.

Mr. SHAYS. Exactly, Mr. Speaker. The key is that if one calls it a campaign ad, how goes that corporate treasury money and the union dues money, which is, it seems to me, what both sides of the aisle should want to have happen.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would be derelict in my duty if I did not acknowledge that the gentleman too has played a major effort in this, and in many cases more than I have in the gentleman's constant effort and his own personal experiences in dealing with the flawed campaign system.

Mr. SHAYS. The difference between soft and hard money, soft money is unlimited, hard money is limited campaign contributions. The Supreme Court said clearly, they just affirmed it in the Missouri case just a few weeks ago, it is constitutional and proper to limit what individuals can contribute. In the limited dollars, which we do not impact, Democrats raised in 1996 $221 million. That is a lot of money. What do you think the Republicans raised? Democrats raised $221 million. Republicans raise $416 million. So we saw $195 million raised more by Republicans than Democrats in hard money, and we do not change that law. Now, I will say what I think evens it out is my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a lot of friends in Labor. While Labor cannot under our bill contribute soft money, and while they cannot have the sham-issue ads where they can use union dues money, they can still have ads; but they have to use political action committees. They still have a plethora of union workers to go to the polls and stand outside. So they have a clear advantage there. We have a clear advantage in the hard money contributions. They have a clear advantage in the number of workers they can get out on election day and make some calls beforehand. But our bill prevents all that. Corporate treasury money that goes to both parties, all the union dues money that goes, it is illegal. It has been against the law since 1907 for corporate treasury money to be contributed to campaigns; it has been against the law since 1947 for union dues money, and against the law since 1974 for foreign national money.

Mr. SHAYS. The current law is it is illegal, and I have a hard time understanding why my side of the aisle wants to legalize a process where if we are just talking now as Republicans who are being criticized for somehow allowing unions to do something that Republicans do not want; it is against the law for union dues money to be contributed to campaigns.

Mr. SHAYS. Right. So some years we might raise more; some years they may. But just comparing 1996, what my side of the aisle does not want people to know, those people who oppose campaign finance reform, in hard money, this blows my mind, Democrats raised $221 million in hard money contributions.

Mr. SHAYS. That is another issue. I would just like to respond to that. Let me make this point, and I will get right to that point. I have a personal example to respond to your question. The point that I first want to make is, paycheck protection, I voted for it. But paycheck protection would allow a union member to use his union dues in campaigns when the 1947 law makes it illegal. I am hard pressed to understand why my side of the aisle, that professes not to want to see union dues money in campaigns, why they would want to allow union dues money to be used if a union member says fine, because it is not necessary. A union member can contribute to a PAC. Why would they want to overturn the 1947 law that makes it illegal? They should want to enforce it by banning the sham-issue ads, out goes the corporate and union dues money, and enforcing the 1947 law that says the corporate money goes out. What I am talking about is a very interesting issue, the Beck case. I can give you a real live example. Someone in my family, a schoolteacher, supported the Republican candidate. Before the Republican candidate could even be interviewed by the labor unions, her teachers' union, the CEA, the Connecticut Education Association, they had already endorsed the Democrat candidate. My wife was a Republican and supported the Republican. She was outraged that they did not, ``outraged'' is a strong word, she was unhappy. She voiced her unhappiness, rightfully so, and she learned that she did not have to have her union dues money go to this. She just simply said, Take me off as a union member; I will pay the agency fee. Now, that is the way the Beck law works. The problem is, and we have it in our bill that passed, we need the unions to proactively tell their employees that they do not have to see any money go for this.

Mr. SHAYS. Yes. And the bill that we passed in the House made it a proactive responsibility of the union to notify their members that if they did not want their union dues money to be going to any campaign through the soft money, that loophole, and the sham-issues ads, that other loophole, they could say they did not want it and withdraw as a member of the union and still pay the agency fee, which is the union dues money minus what goes for political purposes. My wife took advantage of it. She took advantage of it, and for a number of years her money was not contributed to places she did not want. The sad thing clearly was that she was forced to have to withdraw from the union.

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

Mr. SHAYS. I would love to just talk about the actual numbers. So you and I do agree that the first issue should not be does it help or hurt one party; it should be what is in the best interests of our country to save our democracy from these unlimited sums of corporate and union dues money and other special interest money, the unlimited sums. But I could ask it in reverse and say how would this have hurt our party? Well, you could say well, just take the 1996 presidential election. Republicans raised in soft money $138 million. Democrats raised $124 million. Both raised a significant sum of money, which, by the way, certain people can direct just to the places they want to direct it to. So Republicans would have lost that $14 million advantage. But it is $14 million. When you are looking at numbers of $124 and $138 million, it is a small percent. By the way, right now our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have raised more soft money in the DNC, in their congressional committee, than Republicans have.

Mr. SHAYS. And you do not know who is a part of that.

Mr. SHAYS. If it comes from the political parties, if it comes from some leadership PAC, it is probably soft money. But the union dues money and all the special interests, they do it primarily through the sham-issue ads.

Mr. SHAYS. Who knows.

Mr. SHAYS. I am going to hope the gentleman will be patient with one aspect of this. Congress last year passed in early September campaign finance reform. It was a bipartisan effort. It dealt with four basic issues. First, it banned soft money, thereby getting rid of the loophole that allowed corporations, labor unions, and foreign money to filter itself into campaigns because soft money was not defined as campaign money even though you have clearly illustrated it is. Second, we called the sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads. We do not ban them. We call them campaign ads. As soon as you do that, out goes the corporate money, the union dues money, and foreign money. And really what you were faced with in a technical term, soft money goes to the political parties, and it goes to the leadership PACs. You were faced with the unions taking, frankly, union dues money, and spending it on a sham issue ad, but because it was not called a campaign ad. The 1947 Taft-Hartley law did not come into effect. You were basically faced with this almost unlimited sum of money that kept coming in. The third thing that we did is we required FEC enforcement, Federal Elections Commission enforcement, right away, and we had disclosure on the Internet right away, filing on the Internet and disclosure on the Internet, so the FEC could hold you accountable before the election, rather than 6 years after. There is that wonderful memo, I call it wonderful, from Mr. Ickes to the President that said to the President, we are going to be fined about $1 million because of campaign violations. He said this while the campaign was going. The President, this is what I consider wonderful, the President wrote next to it, ``ugh,'' in his signature. He knew they were breaking the law, he was not happy about it, but he also knew it would be dealt with 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 years later and the public would not be focused on it. The last thing we did was establish a commission to look at all the things we have not dealt with. Without getting into a lot of detail, maybe the individual contribution limit should be increased, maybe the amounts contributed to the political parties should be increased, maybe 50 percent or more of your contribution should be in State or not. We did not deal with those issues, because when we started this conversation, we were trying to build a consensus on a bill we could pass. This bill went to the Senate, and this bill had more than 50 percent of the Members supporting it, 55. The bottom line to it was it needs 60 percent. So you had 52 members supporting it, 53, 54, 55; but you need 60 to break the closure, that would invoke closure, so you could then vote on the bill. So a majority in the Senate support campaign finance reform. I would love to get into this area that I just think is the reason why I am really out on this floor today. You are a Republican; I am a Republican. We could have invited our Democrat colleagues to participate. But we supported this bill. One of the things we are hearing is quote-unquote ``This bill will hurt Republicans.'' Well, I would like to make a few comments. First off, that is truly an irrelevant statement if in the end we are doing what is right for the country. Now, it is not irrelevant that it should treat both parties fairly; one should not gain an advantage over the other. That is clearly the implication of the argument. But it is not really about that, and I believe that some of the opponents who say that really do not believe it. What I think they think is it will hurt certain people in the party. It will hurt those who have been able to amass great sums of money; and then they, some leaders, the national parties, get to dole it out to the candidate who is doing what they want. So not only are you seeing a corruption of this process with big corporate money and big union money and foreign money, which is made legal through the sham-issue ads and the soft money, not only have you seen that kind of corruption; but we are seeing another kind of corruption, because some people get this money, and then they are able to direct it to the people they want to have it. You know what, you may not get that money, Mr. Ganske, because you may not be in the image that they want you as a Republican. The Democrats may not see some money, certain Democrats, because they are not in their image, even though you are representing your constituents exactly the way you should. Let me get in more detail, if you would allow me.

Mr. SHAYS. I am torn by this feeling that I want to kind of clarify and be a little more precise between soft money and what I call sham issue ads which are really good campaign ads, much like you might want to correct me in some of the intricacies of HMO reform.