Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time. Mr. Speaker, on December 24, 1996, a Learjet with Pilot Johan Schwartz, who was 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. Their airplane did not have an ELT, an emergency locator transmitter device, and this plane has never been found. Countless time and money was spent trying to locate these two individuals and to locate the plane. This is because they did not have an ELT. I would like to see provisions from H.R. 664 to require emergency locator transmitters, ELTs, on fixed wing civil aircraft included in H.R. 4057, the Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Act. ELT provisions are included in section 504 of the Senate version of the bill, S. 2279, the National Air Transportation System Improvement Act, and I would look forward to working with the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Chairman Shuster) and the gentleman from Tennessee (Chairman Duncan) about the possibility of adding this important provision in the conference report. The bottom line is, an ELT plays a vital role in search efforts, where timing is so critical in any rescue mission. These men may have been alive for a period of time, yet we could never find them. The cost of these devices ranges from approximately $500 to $2,500, although less costly technology is now evolving. I hope that this provision will be added in the conference report. I understand it is not in this bill. I do support the bill and look forward to voting for it, but hope in conference we can add an ELT provision.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, to close debate, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Zach Wamp), really a hero on campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds to thank the minority leader, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt), to thank him because time and again the Democrat Conference has been there as straight-shooters, playing no games with those of us on this side of the aisle. They have been true to their pledge for this bill and campaign finance reform. I want to thank both the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior) and the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for that, because they have been straight-shooters on this issue.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 45 seconds to respond to the comments just heard from the majority whip. Madam Chairman, first off, this is not disarmament, and it would be an absurd thing to suggest unilateral disarmament. How could it be unilateral disarmament to ban soft money to both political parties? Is the inference that Republicans benefit more from soft money than Democrats? Why would it be unilateral disarmament when we call sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads? It is not a freedom of speech issue. We do not say you cannot advertise. We do not say people cannot say whatever they want. They are just campaign ads, and you call them campaign ads. When you call them campaign ads, two interesting things happen; you cannot use corporate money and you cannot use union dues. How could it be unilateral disarmament to improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement? How could it be unilateral disarmament to allow the commission to deal with other issues that we have not yet dealt with? The bottom line to this bill, it is about restoring integrity to the political system. Both parties, individuals, corporations, labor unions, everybody has to play it by the same rules.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to totally disagree with what we just heard. The bottom line is the Beck decision was a decision by the courts that if someone paid an agency fee, were not a union member, they did not have to have any political money go to the union, that they did not have to have any of their agency fee go for political purposes. I know this for a fact. My wife was a teacher. She quit the union. Her agency fee does not go for political purposes. It is true there are other parts of the Beck decision that we did not codify because they did not relate to campaign finance law. We only codified what was Beck as it related to campaign finance law.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), who speaks a little more slowly.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle), the former Governor.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Smith), who has been a campaign reform person going way back to her State days as well and has been really in the forefront.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell), the professor from Stanford, really one of the most important leaders in this effort for campaign finance reform.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds to say to the Members of this Chamber and to all my colleagues that this is truly an historic opportunity to restore integrity to the political process and vote for the Meehan-Shays substitute, which will ban soft money, the unlimited sums, from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups, recognize sham issue ads for truly what they are, campaign ads, improve FEC disclosure and enforcement and establish a commission to further study reforms to our campaign system. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) so that he would be allowed to control 10 minutes of time.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, tonight this Chamber has the opportunity to vote for meaningful campaign finance reform. Tonight, Members of this House will cast one of the most important votes of their careers in this House: To help restore integrity to our democratic system of government. That is what this debate is about tonight, to help restore some integrity to our democratic process. Mr. Speaker, the vote we will be casting tonight is on legislation that was introduced by Senator McCain and Senator Feingold in the Senate, and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and myself in the House, along with a number of other sponsors. The McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate had a majority of Members who sought to support this legislation, but were not able to break the filibuster because they felt that the House would never deal with this issue, so why should the Senate take it up. But tonight, this House has the opportunity to pass the McCain-Feingold legislation, the Meehan- Shays legislation as it is referred to in the House. Mr. Speaker, this legislation bans soft money. It completely eliminates the soft money contributions, the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups that go to the political parties. In recent years these contributions have been rerouted right back down to help the individual candidates. This makes a mockery of our campaign laws which, under our constitutional form of government, provide for limitation of campaign contributions. Those limits are ignored because of our failure to ban soft money to the political parties. The second thing this legislation does is it recognizes the sham issue ads for what they truly are: campaign ads. They are not sham campaign ads; they are truly campaign ads. They are sham issue ads. In other words, issue ads are able to circumvent the campaign law, because they do not say ``vote for'' or ``vote against.'' Yet they are clearly campaign ads. Under our bill any ad run 60 days to an election that names or pictures a federal candidate is a campaign ad and is called such. In addition, any ad that expresses ``unambiguous and unmistakable support for'' or ``opposition to'' a clearly identified Federal candidate, is a campaign ad and would come under campaign finance laws not just 60 days to an election, but 365. Mr. Speaker, the bottom line is we seek to call these sham issue ads what they are: Campaign ads. One of the significant side effects of that is that by doing so, we prevent both corporate and union money being utilized in these advertisements. Right now, it is the law that corporate money and union dues money cannot be used in campaign ads. The third thing we seek to do is to improve the Federal Elections Commission's disclosure and enforcement. We provide for disclosure on the Internet electronically, and that within 20 days to an election, contributions and expenditures of $1,000 or more must be disclosed every 24 hours. We have other miscellaneous aspects to the bill. We ban ussolicited franked mass mail 6 months to an election, and we make sure that foreign money is illegal, and that fund-raising on government property is illegal. The reason why it has not been illegal today is that soft money is not viewed as campaign money and, therefore, it does not come under the campaign law. The bottom line is: we ban soft money, the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups; we recognize the sham issue ads for what they truly are, campaign ads; and, we improve FEC disclosure and enforcement. We have debated this bill for a long time. This is not a new piece of legislation that is coming to the floor of the House. We were promised a vote last year, but did not receive it, in February or March. We were then finally promised a vote, and under what is clearly a very open and frankly fair process, we were allowed 60 amendments to our bill. Some of those were gutting amendments, and some of those were ``siren call'' amendments that one would want to vote for, but then it broke apart a coalition. Fortunately, we have repelled every one of these amendments. Now the question is will we pass Meehan-Shays legislation; will it become Queen of the Hill in competition of the other substitutes that will follow this week? Will, at the end, when it becomes and if it becomes the Queen of the Hill legislation, will it be sent to the Senate? Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray we will do our job and send this bill to the Senate. We can begin that process by voting for it tonight.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The bottom line is if a wealthy person spends $1 million under my colleague's proposal, he could raise $1 million from another wealthy individual. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have left?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. With the 1 minute I have remaining, I would just like to acknowledge the fact that the amendment that our colleague wants to offer is offering an amendment that would allow unlimited contributions from an individual; he can raise $1 million from one individual. This is contrary to the reform measure that we are bringing forward. We ban soft money that goes to the political parties, the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups. We call the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads, and we have FEC disclosure and enforcement. We are against allowing unlimited sums from individuals, and that is why we oppose this, and that is why it would break apart the coalition that exists between Republicans and Democrats to pass this bill. This amendment is offered in good faith by my colleague, but the bottom line is, it will kill Meehan-Shays.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers), our distinguished colleague.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains for both individuals?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this amendment which was, frankly, one of my amendments. I do think that Congress needs to deal with how we respond to those who have unlimited wealth, and one way is to do it the way the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) has suggested. Unfortunately, his amendment, an amendment that I offered on another bill, would kill the coalition that exists for passing bipartisan reform. Let me explain to my colleagues that the Meehan-Shays bill does three basic things. It bans soft money, the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups that go to the political parties and then get rerouted right back down to individual candidates. It secondly calls the sham issue ads what they truly are, campaign ads, which means we cannot use corporate money or dues money from labor 60 days from an election. It means that we have to report our expenditures. The third thing we do is we have FEC enforcement, Federal Election Commission enforcement, and disclosure by way of electronic means in the Internet. This amendment seeks to do something beyond the scope of our basic bill. I will also say that our basic bill includes the commission bill, the commission bill brought forward on a bipartisan basis. We would suggest that the very issue that the gentleman is presenting to this Congress should be dealt with by the commission. We have 37 amendments, if no more are withdrawn before we deal with the Meehan-Shays substitute and deal with the various amendments. Sixteen are poison pills, seven are ``no'' votes in our view, four are leaning ``no'', seven are neutral, three are ``yes''. The bottom line to the amendment of the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), he is one of the 16 poison pill amendments that will kill our coalition. On that basis, I have to encourage defeat of it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I believe it has the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), which is unanimous consent No. 16 to be followed by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), which is unanimous consent No. 17, again with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Paul), unanimous consent No. 18. That is what I had down as the order.