Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. We are concluding debate on all of the amendments that have come before us, and I think it is almost symbolic to have an amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas), and I appreciate him waiting so late to offer it, an amendment that I think we can support. It makes logical sense that if money that was donated was not donated properly and may not be that individual's money, it should not be returned to that individual, it should be rushed to the FEC to determine whose money it is and if it properly should be returned, and so I compliment the gentleman on his amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan.)

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time. Modification to Amendment No. 53 Offered by Mr. Gekas to the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute No. 13 Offered by Mr. Shays

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I be clear that all amendment have been dealt with under Shays-Meehan?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Salmon) is next. I am sorry. I thought that amendment had been withdrawn. Okay.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object. I first did not understand what the Chair cannot entertain.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman from Arizona yield to me?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to agree that this is an amendment that we can accept, and I apologize to the gentleman. I thought he had withdrawn it, but I think this amendment does no harm to the bill.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully request that we have an understanding. We are eager to try to comply with the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, and also to welcome him back into the Chamber, because he has had some very difficult things to deal with with the death of our two colleagues who guard this place. But I would like to take each of those items so we can see what does not remain.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know. We have gone from Amendment 19, and now we are going to Amendment 21. Does that mean Amendment 20 has been dropped?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the people of the Fourth Congressional District of Connecticut, my family, and staff, I want to express our love and admiration for ``two heroes of democracy,'' as our Speaker described them, Detective John Gibson and Officer J.J. Chestnut, and to their dear families, John's wife, Evelyn, and his three children, Kristen, John, and Daniel; and Officer Chestnut's wife, Wen Ling, and his five children, Joseph, Janece, Janet, Karen, and William. To them I say, your husband and father was required, as protector, to guard this place, and at the same time, as ambassador, to welcome with open arms the people to their House, all the people. John and JJ fulfilled both tasks with extraordinary distinction. I thank them for protecting our majority whip, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay), and his devoted staff, and for protecting all of us who serve here and all who visit here. Behind the Speaker pro tempore is the American flag, with its 50 white stars embedded in a sea of blue and outlined by brilliant red and white stripes. As we look at our flag we could think of how those stars came into being. As we look at our flag we could think of the great history of our nation. If we were a veteran, we might think of our buddies who fought for this flag and never came home, and of their families who never got to talk or hug them again. When I look at our flag and pledge allegiance to it when we begin each session, I will think of Detective John Michael Gibson and I will think of Officer Jacob Joseph Chestnut, and I will think of their families, with deep humility, gratitude and love.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, the government has an important role in funding the arts. Two years ago some of us thought we could combine two good principles; fund the arts, but do it by replacing the NEA with a block grant directly to the State arts commissions. We thought we had a viable compromise that would end the annual debate; an honorable effort to broaden the base. That failed. The block grants are not viable. We need to fund the NEA and we need to increase the funding for the NEA. I appreciate the efforts of my colleague from Connecticut in making sure that will happen.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, there is a Democrat health care bill and there is a Republican health care bill, but ultimately, if we are to have a bill, there will have to be a Republican and Democrat bill. I urge both sides on this issue, once the posturing of our various positions is known, to work in a bipartisan agreement to pass meaningful health care reform. Mr. Speaker, I stand before the Members to thank this Chamber for its support for campaign finance reform legislation that is moving before the House; the Meehan-Shays bill as it is sometimes referred to, or McCain-Feingold. We have had an extraordinary process that has allowed Members to debate this issue fairly extensively, and before last night we had 55 amendments. We have dealt with 20 of them. We dealt with the one that would have been a killer amendment, and I appreciate the House defeating it. The bottom line to campaign finance reform is that we need to ban soft money, not just on the Federal level but on the State level, for Federal elections. Soft money are the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups give to the political parties, unlimited sums. They ultimately get rerouted right back to the candidates to help them in their election, making a mockery of our campaign finance laws. The second major element, and the Meehan-Shays bill deals with soft money both on the Federal and State level, for Federal elections, it also deals with the sham issue ads and calls them what they are, campaign ads. It does not mean that if it is a campaign ad, people do not have their voice. They just come under the campaign law. They have to disclose contributions. Contributions are limited but expenditures are not, because the Supreme Court has found that you cannot limit expenditures. What we do is recognize that a sham issue ad that clearly is a campaign ad, 60 days prior to an election is a campaign ad if it mentions the name of the person or shows a picture or the name of the individual, and is intended to affect the election. We also codify the court decision on Beck. That was the decision where an individual who was not a member of a union argued that he should not have to make political contributions in his agency fee to the union to be used for candidates that a person opposed. The court heard this case and determined that if you are not a member of a union, your money does not have to go for political purposes, and therefore, your agency fee is less than what the union fee would be. We also significantly improve FEC disclosure and enforcement, particularly as it relates to disclosure. Any expenditure over $1,000, 20 days to an election, has to be noted within 24 hours, and then is put on the Internet. We require, and in terms of enforcement, we give the FEC the ability to dismiss cases that do not have any merit, and to take up cases more quickly that do, before an election, and we also provide for audits of campaign expenditures. In addition, we make sure it is clear in the law that foreign money cannot be raised, and that we cannot raise money on government property. Members may think that is the law today, but soft money is not deemed campaign money, and therefore, does not come under the Pendleton Act. So many have argued that they can accept soft money from foreigners, and on government property they can raise money. They do not want people to know they are doing this, because they know morally it is wrong, but legally and technically it is not. That is why we need to amend the law. Mr. Speaker, we have, as I said earlier, 55 bills or amendments coming before this Chamber. We dealt with 20 last night. I would like to say that we have dealt with a few before. One of the things we are trying hard to do is, as both Republicans and Democrats, to find where we have common ground. We found common ground with those who supported the commission bill, and urged them to vote against their own substitute commission bill, but then support the commission bill, attach it to our bill. Also the gentlewoman from Washington (Mrs. Linda Smith) took her 6 amendments last night and put them into one, and helped us write a better bill to guarantee, without question, and to satisfy those groups that are concerned, that voter guides are in fact legal and do not come under the campaign law. There is no ambiguity on this issue. She wrote the law in a tough way. We accepted her six amendments into one, and thank her for her work in this area. She really has been a leader on campaign finance reform, and has played a tremendous role in helping us move this bill forward.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry, for the sake of this debate.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I claim that 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify how we are allocating time, are we under the requirement of 10 minutes? And does someone need to claim time if not in opposition, at least claim the time?

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I once again thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his efforts to try to expedite the process to enable the majority leader's word to be honored and that we complete campaign finance reform, and to acknowledge that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith) had requested three amendments, and one of them was, in fact, duplicated and therefore we needed to make that correction, so I thank the gentleman.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).