Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Of course people are going to vote for this amendment. But the sad thing is the gentleman who is offering this amendment is not going to vote for the bill. We are faced with 55 amendments, most of them intended to embarrass or imply that a problem just exists on one side when the bottom line is we know we have problems on both sides of the aisle and we have got to deal with them. I would just rise again to say what I have said before, I really believe that some on the other side of the aisle need to be willing to do a little more investigating but a lot on my side of the aisle need to do more about reforming the system. We do ban soft money. Once we ban the unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups, once we ban that, we take away a gigantic incentive to call someone from any government property or to reward someone with any government activity, plane, boat, house, you name it. A $5,000 PAC contribution is not something that most people would probably seek a reward for or take the time of important people. But when one is seeking to raise soft money, $100,000, $200,000, $300,000, a half a million, a million or more, it does become somewhat of a distraction. The Meehan-Shays substitute bans soft money. It recognizes those sham issue ads as what they are, campaign ads, and then they come under the campaign laws. People have a voice but under the campaign law. We codify back. We have FEC disclosure enforcement. We ban the franking 6 months to an election. And we make it clear in our legislation that you cannot raise foreign money and you cannot raise money on government property. We already make that clear. This legislation reinforces it and seeks to suggest it happens on one side of the aisle, and I am sure my colleague believes that most does. But the bottom line is that we have got to keep together a unity between Republicans and Democrats who want campaign finance reform and not get baited into getting in arguments over which side does it and which side does not. I agree with the gentleman from California (Mr. Fazio), campaign finance reform is important. The focus that I have and I hope others have is on a bipartisan basis to eliminate many of the abuses we see.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Farr), my Peace Corps friend.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that I may claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just would say that I am very comfortable accepting this amendment. It is a sense of Congress. And I think it is very clear, and I agree with the comments of the gentleman, we need to clarify the law. The bottom line is that if we ban soft money, it is rare that we are going to have a President and Vice President, a Speaker, whomever, seek to raise money on government property for a $5,000 PAC contribution. So I think we get at the problem by substantive change in the law. So I just make that point to my colleagues. But I do think the sense of Congress is correct that even if the Vice President did not think it was illegal, I think it was clear that he knew it was wrong and it should not have taken place.

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

Mr. SHAYS. We do not need to be in opposition to claim the time, if no one is in opposition. So is the gentleman claiming time in opposition or just claiming the 5 minutes?

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

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that we are again debating campaign finance reform and our effort to restore integrity to the political system, and the bill that is before us would ban soft money, the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations and labor unions and other interest groups give to the political parties that then get rerouted right back down to candidates. We require that the sham issue ads be noted as campaign ads and legitimate campaign ads and that it come under campaign law. We codify Beck, which gives individuals, not a member of a union, the right not to pay an agency fee for political activity, and we improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. In addition, we ban districtwide frank mailing 6 months to an election. Finally, we require that foreign money and fund-raising on government property be illegal. The amendment before us offered by the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) is a good faith attempt to make sure that the intention of this bill is carried out, and we concur with it. We concur with the language that he has chosen to use, which is instead of ``a high probability,'' that contribution originated from a foreign national, we would strike out that and say the individual ``should have known.'' We concur with that. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment and should be adopted. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for yielding. Mr. Speaker, the purpose in my participating in this dialogue is to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his participation. I know that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Solomon) has played a major role in terms of the rule, and we do know that time is becoming tighter and tighter. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) would acknowledge that if we are able to have a schedule that includes more than just Monday, other unanimous consents may not be necessary, but working together, I hope that we can continue this process, but, again, to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) for his work and his commitment that will get the job done with cooperation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, in my capacity as chairman of the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight I oversee HUD, and I believe strongly in what the Lazio amendment does. It removes us from a caretaking society to a caring society where we give people back control of their lives. Welfare reform must work. It is going to work if we provide better job training, better child care, transportation to work, and better housing. This bill will give us better housing because it will give people control of their own housing conditions.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, first I wanted to say to my colleagues that this afternoon we continue the effort to restore integrity into the campaign process. The substitute proposed before the chamber, the Meehan-Shays proposal and McCain-Feingold in the Senate, seeks to ban soft money, the unlimited sums by individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups. It seeks to recognize sham issue ads as they are, campaign ads, and put them under the campaign law. It seeks to codify Beck. It seeks to improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. It seeks to ban district-wide franking 6 months to an election. And it seeks to ban foreign money and fund-raising on government property. We have an amendment before us right now which basically seeks to gut the second part of our proposal dealing with the sham issue ads. Now, the voter guide that the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle) put forward is legal under Meehan-Shays. The language in our bill is clear. In printed communication the term express advocacy does not include. In other words, it is not a campaign ad, does not come under the campaign law if it is a printed communication that, one, presents information and educational matter solely about the voting record or position on a campaign issue of two or more candidates, and, two, that is not made in coordination with a candidate, political party or agent of that candidate or party, or a candidate's agent or a person who is coordinating with a candidate or a candidate's agent. That voter guide is not done in coordination. It is showing the voting record of a candidate. What the gentleman from California seeks to do is take out the very language that I read that is in the Meehan-Shays substitute. So we need to recognize that, one, he is incorrect when he states it would not allow for the voter guide. It would. And the language is in our substitute to allow it. He, in fact, seeks to take it out. Mr. Chairman, we have lots of amendments that are going to come before us, and it is difficult to try to describe amendments that are totally gutting of our proposal; those that, while we would recommend they not pass, would not do serious harm. There are others that would actually maybe help the bill and we would urge their being supported. This is an amendment, however well intended, that is gutting Meehan- Shays, which would then break down the coalition that exists of a majority of Congress to pass Meehan-Shays, and it needs to be defeated. It would gut the sham issue ads. The sham issue ads are those ads that are clearly campaign ads. They are the ads that seek to have someone vote for or against an individual, and they should come under the campaign law. When they come under the campaign law, those groups can advertise and encourage someone to vote for or against, but they do it under the campaign law. So I sincerely request this chamber and the Members who are paying attention outside this chamber to recognize that the Doolittle proposal is a gutting proposal. It would destroy the integrity of the Meehan- Shays amendment and would not do what it says it would do. And what it says it would do is the allow for the voter guides. In fact, the bill presently allows for voter guides.

Mr. SHAYS

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

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

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

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I understand the intent of the gentleman from Mississippi and agree with a good number of his remarks, but I would like him, if he would, to describe to me the term of art in section sub (b). It shall not be a defense to a violation of subsection (a) that defendant did not know that the contribution originated from a foreign national if the defendant was aware of a high probability that the contribution originated from a foreign national. Is this a term of art that is used that the courts have defined? Because I am not aware of it and, if so, I would like to know where it is used.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the Chairman, and I do request that.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, if I could know the proper request. I am not sure I oppose this, but I would like to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. SHAYS. I do not think they did.

Mr. SHAYS. The gentleman may have some concerns. I have little concerns about whether corporate or union money can be declared unconstitutional when it is a campaign ad. That has already been determined. So the issue, to be fair to the gentleman, the issue is, is a campaign ad a campaign ad that has the picture and the name of an individual, as we define it? And I think yes, and I think the court will uphold it. There is the other issue of whether the Supreme Court will agree with the Ninth Circuit or the First and Fourth, which talked about, essentially, that if it walked like a duck and quacked like a duck, it is a duck, it is a campaign ad, and two lower courts have gone in different directions. The court is going to have to decide which side they are going to come up with.

Mr. SHAYS. I talked about the Beck decision. The gentleman I think is clear on three things, but maybe some of my other colleagues are not. Soft money can be union dues money. We ban it, so all union dues money cannot be contributed as soft money because it is not allowed, nor can corporate money that is soft money be allowed. We do both corporate and union. The second thing we do is we call those sham issue ads campaign ads. Once it is titled a campaign ad, union money and corporate money cannot be used, because we by law now define an advertisement and forbid dues money in a campaign advertisement and corporate money in a campaign advertisement. Then which get to the third part. This is the part the gentleman is most interested in. The Beck decision was a contest by someone who was not a member of the union who said his money should not be used for political purposes. The court made a ruling in the Beck decision that if you were not a member of the union, your money could not be used. That was the decision of the court. Now, what my wife did was when she complained that her money, and my wife was a teacher and a member of the union in New Canaan, Connecticut, was going to a Democrat candidate who she opposed, she supported the Republican candidate, she said she did not want her money going, and the union said, you are a member of the union and we can spend it the way we want. She said, well, I no longer choose to be a member of the union, then. She was able to deduct her political contribution and pay less union dues than that amount that was political. That was her right under the Beck decision. We codify it into law.

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