Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I am for malpractice reform. I am for product liability reform. I think we have too many lawsuits. But I do not believe HMOs should cause the injury or death of someone and escape liability, and neither do any or most of my constituents. I have been having community meetings the last few weeks. I asked Republicans. I asked Democrats. I asked the young. I asked the old. I asked conservatives. I asked moderates. I asked liberals. And almost everyone says HMOs should not escape liability. I believe we need a patients' health care bill of rights, and I am going to support one. I think it is long overdue that we are addressing this issue.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 202, the Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families into the 21st Century Act. By making the bipartisan, common-sense reforms necessary to provide affordable housing for seniors and the disabled, this legislation is helping many individuals retain their independence while living in safe housing. There is a great need for affordable housing for seniors and the disabled. This important bill aims to provide affordable senior and disabled housing at a time when the need is high, and ever increasing. The General Accounting Office (GAO) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) have determined at least 1.4 million seniors are experiencing ``worst case'' housing needs. This need is combined with a growing senior population--projected at 53 million people by 2020, or one in six Americans. Additionally, the Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities Housing Task Force determined more than 4 million individuals with disabilities suffer from an acute need of affordable, accessible housing. This bill requires HUD to convert all direct loan contracts for pre- 1990 projects into interest-free capital advances and five-year renewable project rental assistance programs. These changes are designed to help preserve senior and disability housing by preventing residents from being forced from their homes of more than 20 years or paying additional rent. These provisions are especially important steps to make housing affordable, given the more than 500,000 units of Section 8 housing at risk of being lost to ``opt outs'' as contracts expire in increasing numbers. By allowing multi-year Section 8 contract renewals, this legislation gives seniors and the disabled the peace of mind to know that their contracts will not be at risk of being canceled each year. This provision is especially important to seniors in Connecticut who have advocated for multiple-year renewals in order to ensure greater housing stability. I also support provisions to promote the use of service coordinators used to help elderly and disabled residents gain access to local community services and promote independence. This greater flexibility of funds--including ``enhanced vouchers'' and assisted living programs--will help seniors and the disabled live independently in safe, affordable housing and increase quality of life, while saving taxpayer dollars. In conclusion, I urge support for the Preserving Affordable Housing for Seniors and Families into the 21st Century. This is a bill which goes a long way in making smart, flexible reforms to provide safe, affordable housing for seniors and the disabled.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 20 seconds to say that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is right. This is about not buying elections. It is about making sure that that cannot happen in a democratic form of government and making sure that everyone plays by the same rules. It does not restrict speech. It provides for all the speech my colleagues want under the campaign laws. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). (Mr. GILMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. SHAYS. I yield to the gentleman from Kansas.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to my colleague, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ramstad).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) has remaining versus the three that are dividing up the other time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time to say one of the difficult things in this debate has been that it is very personal to each and every one of us, but it gets frustrating when the facts are so clear and someone just cannot see it. The bottom line is it is illegal for corporations and unions to contribute to campaigns, except through PACs. But there is a loophole, and it is soft money and sham issue ads. We ban soft money and we call the sham issue ads what they are: campaign ads. As soon as they are campaign ads, out goes the corporate and union dues money and all of the big expenditures. Mr. Chairman, we need a fair system. We do not limit freedom of speech. Everyone has freedom of speech. We live within the guidelines of the Supreme Court ruling.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema). (Mrs. ROUKEMA asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. I just want to explain to the gentleman that it has been against the law since 1907 for corporate treasury money to be used in campaigns and since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns. The way they do it, the way they go after you, either corporations or unions, is through soft money, because it is not called campaign money, and sham issue ads, because it is not called campaign money. We abolish both. That is the basis, the very center of our bill. The gentleman wants to give unions permission in their union dues to do it if they agree; we do not even allow it. It has been against the law since 1947. And so, sir, it would be an impossibility for those advertisements to run against the gentleman if our legislation passed, and that is why I am so dumbfounded why the gentleman would oppose it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and I thank this Congress for debating this issue. This is legislation that clearly has bipartisan support. It is a team effort, and it has probably been one of the more satisfying activities that I have been involved in. I just want to say that I disagree strongly with the gentleman from Mississippi talking about it being one party. It is not about one party, and it is not about freedom of speech because we retain freedom of speech. It is about ending corrupt politics. That is what it is about. It has been against the law since 1907 for corporate treasury money to be used in campaigns, but it happens. It has been against laws since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns, but it is happening. It has been against the laws since 1974 for foreign nationals to contribute to campaigns but they are, and they are because of two loopholes: Soft money, the unlimited sums of money from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups; and the sham issue ads which are truly campaign ads. We do not prevent those ads for money. We just call them campaign ads. What that means is, out goes the corporate treasury money, the union dues money, and the foreign national money. That is what this debate is about. It is about having a fair system, where everyone has a right to speak out, and where we enforce the 1907 law, the 1947, law and the 1974 law. I would want to just end by saying this is a fair rule, but it is a fair rule that gives the opponents of our legislation seven shots to kill us as amendments and three shots to kill us through substitutes. It is still a fair rule. It is a rule, though, that does not allow for one amendment, and that is the Thomas amendment. We wanted it as a perfecting amendment rather than as a substitute because it is a very good piece of legislation, but it is process, not reform, in our judgment. So I salute sincerely the chairman of the Committee on Rules for making sure we have a debate that will not go on for months, giving us time limits, letting us know what is coming, and I thank him for doing it; and I thank our Speaker for living up to his word.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, when I woke up this morning, I tried to prepare myself for the fact that we might lose. There were seven amendments that would kill us, and there are three substitutes that would replace us. I thought it is up to each and every one of us just to make our decisions, and we can live with the results. But we are so close. We have to defeat this substitute. It is a good amendment as a perfecting amendment. As a substitute, it kills us. So we have to kill it. I just would want to say to all of my colleagues that this has been a bipartisan effort, and it has been a tremendous pleasure. I remember working with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) when we tried to pass congressional accountability. It took us 6 years. We did not say after the second year we were going to give up. We did it on a bipartisan basis. I was proud of how we passed it. We got Congress under all of the laws. We are going to have campaign finance reform. I hope it is in the form we are suggesting, but we are going to see it happen. We are not going to give up on the Senate. We have got to ban soft money. It is just a perversion that is distorting the whole system. It is allowing corporations and labor unions to give unlimited sums and work their will in a way that should not happen. We have got to call those sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads, so we have disclosure and not have corporate money and union dues money flowing in. We need FEC enforcement and disclosure which our bill does, and then we have a commission to look at some of the things that we do not do. This is a sensible bill. It is not a radical bill. We have only passed it once. I hope we do it again and send it to the Senate. Then we have a year to work on the Senate to try to get them to do the right thing. Fifty-two have already agreed, and hopefully we will get that 60.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to refute, especially since my wife is in the gallery, that I am chasing the prom queen. First off let me say that whenever the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) is involved in starting the flow of the debate, it always starts in a tone that to me is what makes me proud to be in this chamber, Republicans and Democrats talking about what we agree and disagree on. I just appreciate what he and his fellow freshmen have done. They have had an important role in helping us. They could have an even more important role instead of giving the Senate an excuse to vote against campaign finance reform if their amendment fails, their substitute, that they then vote for our bill to enable it to have more support in the House and more impact in the Senate. The bottom line is that we have two loopholes in our campaign law. One is soft money, the unlimited sums contributed by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. The gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) and his colleagues deal with part of that. They ban soft money on the federal level. But they do not ban soft money on the State level for federal elections, and that will still allow corporations and labor unions to provide unlimited sums through corporate treasury money and union dues money. We shut that off. The other thing they do not deal with are the sham issue ads. We do not outlaw them. We just simply call them what they are, campaign ads. Something interesting happens when we call them a campaign ad. We cannot use corporate money, and we cannot use union dues money. So we really believe that we need to deal with those issues. We did not reach for the stars. This is not public funding. We did not reach for the stars. This is not half-price radio and TV. This is a middle-ground bill. And I really believe we can pass it in the Senate. But even if we pass it in the Senate, do my colleagues really believe the Senate is going to vote for any bill exactly the way we send it to them? They are going to vote for their bill. So I encourage my colleagues to vote against the Hutchinson bill and send this bill to the Senate.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske). (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me, and as the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) was speaking, I, for one, thought how good it was to have him come back after his surgery but how I disagreed with him on his basic point. The bottom line is this bill eliminates soft money, the unregulated money from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. It calls the sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads, which means to run them free speech, but have to have disclosure, and that is something that is not in the substitute offered by the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle). He does not want the sham issue ads to be disclosed even though he says he is for disclosure. Mr. Chairman, the third thing it does is we require immediate disclosure on the Internet of expenditures, and we provide for stronger FEC enforcement; and then anything we have not dealt with in our bill, we deal with in the commission bill. It has been against the law since 1907 for corporations to contribute to campaigns. It has been against the law since 1947 for union dues money to be used in campaigns. It has been against the law since 1974 for foreign countries to contribute to our campaigns. But all three take place, and they take place through the absurdity of soft money and these sham issue ads. Mr. Chairman, I believe that dirty disclosed money beats no money any day, and what we do is we provide for disclosure, and we provide for an even field for all who wish to participate in the political process.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, when we drafted this bill, we wanted to be true to Beck. We did not want it to be less. We did not want it to be more. We wanted it to be just what the Court said. What we had was a situation where Harry Beck, who was an employee of AT&T but was not a member of the Communications Workers of America, the CWA, objected to his agency fee also including political activity, and this ultimately was brought to the Supreme Court. And they said his political activity, since he was not a member of the union, should not be covered and he should only pay for true collective bargaining. That is what the Beck decision decided, and that is what we did in our bill. This is not paycheck protection, but we also didn't think we needed paycheck protection because we eliminate the sham issue ads and call them campaign ads so one cannot use union dues money. We eliminate soft money, which is the other way union monies get into campaigns. So we thought that was even more powerful than even paycheck protection. I have personal experience in this legislation. My wife was a member of a union, and her money was going to support a Democrat candidate for governor and she supported the Republican candidate. And she objected. They said, well, you are a member of the union; and this is what we are doing. So she then said, well, then I resign from the union; I do not want this money to go for candidates I do not support. She ended up only paying the agency fee for collective bargaining, and her political contributions were refunded to her. This is true to the Beck decision, and I encourage my colleagues to recognize that.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, in our legislation we do nothing to impact voter guides at all. But because there was a concern that we might, we put in language that makes it a certainty that voter guides are allowed. They do not come under the campaign law at all. All these printed documents do not come under it. They are allowed. What the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) is doing is using this as an opportunity to then eliminate the provision on sham issue ads. And we cannot do that. Sham issue ads are the vehicle in which corporations and labor unions bring big money into the ads. We call them ``campaign ads,'' as they are, and they can still make their voice heard through their campaign ads.