Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Right. Do we have that order available so that we could see what that order is?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know what list we are following in terms of order. I am not suggesting that the gentleman is out of order. I just do not know. I thought we were going from the Smith amendment to the Rohrabacher amendment, which is the amendment which eliminates the individual contribution limits. I thought that was the next amendment in order. Is there an order that we are following?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment on two grounds. I first oppose this amendment on the logic that says, because when you go to the supermarket and pay money, you sometimes have to show your license; and I oppose it on the logic that says when we go to get an airplane ride and we pay money, we have to show our license. Good grief, this is a constitutionally protected right. We do not have to pay money to vote, and why should we have to show a picture to vote? On that ground, the logic of comparing this to airline traffic, or when we go to supermarkets, is beyond me. This is a constitutionally protected right. We should not have to pay money and we should not have to show our picture. But I oppose it on other grounds, as well. The bottom line is, this is campaign finance reform we are debating. This legislation does not deal with campaign finance reform, it deals with motor voter. We are in the majority as Republicans, and we are pushing this proposal, this amendment. Just bring it out on its own separate merit and vote it up- or-down. Do not tie it in with campaign finance reform.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the Meehan-Shays substitute bans soft money, and then what we also do is we recognize that the sham issue ads are truly campaign ads, and that is the key point. They are not sham in the sense that they do not have a right to speak, but they are not issue ads, they are campaign ads, and we call them such. One of our provisions is obviously already in existing law. Vote for or vote against it; it makes it a campaign ad. And people get around the sham issue ads by not saying vote for or vote against, but they might as well based on what they say. When they mention the name or show a picture of a candidate by radio or TV, we call them campaign ads; that is true. The fact is, though, that these voter alerts, we do not impact the voter alerts through that process of the picture or the name. The bottom line is, this is an amendment that is an exemption that truly does swallow the rule. It abolishes any attempt whatsoever to deal with sham issue ads. It is a gigantic loophole that is intending to deal with something that is not a problem. Now my colleague used the word ``manage.'' I do not agree it is managed. I think it is simply saying playing by the same rules. People have a right to speak out. They can do their legislative alerts. But if they are on radio or TV 60 days to an election, it is going to be a campaign ad and they come under the campaign rules with all the voice that is allowed under that process.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen), a distinguished freshman Member of Congress.

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

Mr. SHAYS. The bright line test is emphatically what we do have, and the name or the picture of the candidate has been what is expanded to it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Rivers).

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First off, we do not ban anything. This is just totally a misstatement. The issue is whether it is an issue ad or a campaign ad. The issue is whether you come under campaign rules or do not come under campaign rules. First and foremost, Mr. Chairman, we ban soft money. I do not think that there is any amendment to try to deal with that, so that is off the table. The issue is dealing with sham issue ads that are truly campaign ads. It is not that they do not have a right to do it, but they are campaign ads and should come under the campaign rules. Organizations and labor unions and other interest groups have tried to get around the campaign laws by simply pretending that they are issue ads, by not saying vote for or vote against, but mentioning the name of the candidate and showing a picture. We have the bright line test expanded by the name of the picture or the name of the candidate. That is for radio and TV. This is not radio or TV. This does not ban it based on the issue of 60 days before an election. Now, there is the issue of unambiguous and unmistakable support for or opposition to a clearly identified Federal candidate can run at any time. Telling an individual that he should vote for something or vote against to me does not meet that test at all. It does not meet the unambiguous and unmistakable test that would affect this paper. So the bottom line is radio and TV, yes. Name or the picture of the candidate 60 days to an election, that is right. We are trying to get at these campaign ads so people do not get around disclosure of them and are not able to use corporate and dues money. That is the purpose of it. The bottom line to the gentleman's amendment is it is an exemption that totally swallows the rule. He basically abolishes by this amendment any attempt to deal with the whole issue of not dealing with the recognition of sham issue ads. It basically allows for this loophole because all you have to do is say, ``Contact your representative,'' and then two days before the election you can then say, ``Contact your representative and say whatever you want,'' which is the reason why I have objection to it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. SHAYS. Then should there be two unanimous consent motions?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to state that, first, this is a fairly comprehensive amendment, but we are not sure whether or not it is in conflict with the amendment of the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor). So what I am going to be suggesting to this Chamber is that we have a vote. I will be voting ``no'' tonight. I will be suggesting that we go over in depth line by line the gentlewoman's amendment to see if it is an amendment that, when we have an actual rollcall vote, it will be one that we can accept or not. Because the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) is not here tonight, I am uncomfortable in suggesting that it meets the conflict that he had. The bottom line is that his amendment said that any American citizen had a right to contribute. That was implicit, and that was whether or not they worked for an American company or a foreign company. Our concern is that a company like, for instance, Chrysler, that now has significant ownership by German interests, that the employee still be allowed to organize a political action committee, still be allowed to contribute, still be allowed to fight for things they think are important for Chrysler and its workers just as the employees of Chrysler, to make sure that we have that same process that the workers have when they organize as well. I am not passing judgment because we still just are not sure of it. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Kelly).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, could I claim the 5 minutes in opposition?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, evidently, I have misinterpreted the gentlewoman's amendment. I would like for her to describe what she thinks her amendment does, and I would respond to that. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to explain what she feels her amendment does and does not do.

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, when the gentlewoman says take it out she means she leaves the clearinghouse in and take out the other parts?

Mr. SHAYS. If I can reclaim my time, if I can say to the gentlewoman, as the amendment is described, I am comfortable and I think other Members are. I do think it will be healthy to have a vote on this tomorrow. I am not going to oppose it if there is all yeses. I still ask for a rollcall vote. I think it is important for us to sit down with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) and others and make sure that we are clear as to our recommended vote to our colleagues when they vote on the floor. So I am not going to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I would suggest we get to a vote, but I will ask for a rollcall vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we will have a vote on the floor here tomorrow and by then it will be resolved. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just would like to say that Meehan-Shays does three primary things: It bans soft money, the unlimited sums of money that go from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups; it deals with the sham issue ads and calls them what they should, campaign ads; and it also has FEC enforcement and disclosure. It does not have a lot of things. We did not deal with issues that some Members would like us to deal with, in-state, out-of-state. It does not deal with motor voter and Voter Rights Act. There are a number of things we do not do. We do not deal maybe with the need to increase PAC contributions or individual contributions but this only limits and allows individual contributions to be increased, and I would oppose it.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to control the 5 minutes, since I do support the amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.