Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. No, I would object to that. There are people who are waiting to have 5 minutes, and I do not object to the gentleman asking to strike the requisite number of words and have 5 minutes, but there are people who are waiting to have time to speak, and the gentlewoman has already had 7 minutes. Mr. Chairman, I just need to know what the process is. The gentlewoman had 5 minutes, and we extended 2 more minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. I am reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, and ask this question: I am asking if the gentleman is asking to strike the requisite number of words and use his 5 minutes. Could I request that the gentleman strike the requisite number of words and we can proceed that way?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from New Jersey (Mrs. Roukema).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to point out, before the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) leaves, that the first bill in the Contract With America, the congressional accountability bill which he advocated and supported and took pleasure in signing, had a severability clause.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Sanford).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the gentleman asking for 5 minutes. I did not know I had asked for 5 minutes.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman and say that in the near future when we will be discussing a number of amendments, it is possible that we will support some of those amendments. We certainly are going to support the amendment on the commission bill offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney). And it is also possible we will support some other amendments. But we hope that this legislation, the Meehan-Shays legislation, remains intact. We hope to pass this bill to ban soft money, to recognize the sham issue ads that truly campaign ads, to codify the ``Beck'' decision to improve FEC disclosure enforcement, to deal with the franking problem, and to provide that foreign money and fund- raising on government property is illegal. I urge support for the Meehan-Shays substitute.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from California (Mr. Bilbray).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Metcalf), and I am happy he is here.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time I have remaining?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. This is the beginning of, I think, a fairly long and comprehensive debate, and I would first thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for the integrity with which they present their views, but to say, with no reluctance at all, that it is clear to me that the Meehan- Shays proposal will have to deal with a lot of misinformation about it. For instance, it was stated, we do not allow scorecards. We specifically provide that scorecards are allowed. It says we do not deal with labor dues money. We deal with it in two ways: codification of Beck, and calling the ``sham issue'' ads what they are: ``campaign'' ads. By doing this we forbid corporate and union dues money to be used 60 days to an election in the campaign, because it is against the law to use corporate or labor money in an election. When oppoents talk about federalizing State elections, that is just bogus. All we do is say we cannot raise soft money on the Federal and State levels for Federal elections. When opponents talk about a gag rule, that also is bogus. We provide that third parties can spend what they will. That is the Supreme Court's decision. But when it is a campaign ad, it comes under the campaign law. We have freedom of speech under the campaign law. I hope and pray that during the course of this debate, we will get down to what is in the bill and what is not, and we can truly argue those disagreements. But most of the complaints we have heard were not technicalities or little complaints, they were just misinformation about the bill. I again want to thank my colleague the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Marty Meehan) and so many on his side of the aisle for taking a very strong position on campaign finance reform, and I encourage all to vote for the Meehan-Shays substitute. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time; and, Mr. Chairman, do I need to ask to move the amendment at this time?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am fully prepared to go to a vote on this legislation.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I have not asked for my 5 minutes, but I will just say that we have strayed a bit from the amendment, and I am concerned that we have the potential for hundreds of amendments, so we maybe should try to come to a debate on certain amendments and then go on to the next amendment. We can still make some of the same points, because they are related. But what the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) proposes is to strike the severability clause, which basically says that if any provision in this act or amendment made by this act, or the application or the provision or amendment to any person or circumstances is held to be unconstitutional, the remainder of this act and amendments made by this act, and so on, are still constitutional and remain in effect. That is a clause that is in most bills. It was in the congressional accountability bill, under the Contract With America, voted for by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and other Republicans, all other Republicans. It was in H.R. 65, the Victim Restitution Act. The gentleman from Texas voted for that as well. It was in the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995 as well as in our Contract With America. This was introduced by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Tom DeLay). It is the same severability clause, and it passed as well.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to say that this is the first night of extended debate, and I would say we are all learning from this process. We are all learning as to how much time we should be asking for. We have Members who come and others who are waiting. I kind of hoped that the way the process would work was that we would ask for 5 minutes, and if we asked for an additional 2 minutes, it would be granted without objection, and if there is a reason to extend even further, that it will be the same for both sides. But I think there were some moments where we probably erred in that process. Also, there were times in this debate where I heard some strong attacks and concerns with other Members, and we just started to go to it and forget what we are debating. We have lots to debate here, and I truly believe we will cover all the territory by the time we do all of the amendments. But right now, what we are debating is the severability clause and whether we should take it out of the Shays-Meehan amendment. In some cases we pass bills with the severability clause and in other cases we are silent. And when we are silent, the court basically follows the process of considering a severability clause included. But this is a case where the amendment is actually saying that if any part is unconstitutional, the whole bill should be eliminated. There are only a handful of times in a number of years that this provision has been offered. That is my understanding. And so I say, first, I believe the severability clause should be included, like it was in with most of our Contract With America, like it was with the bill that the gentleman from Texas introduced in the Contract With America, the Regulatory Transition Act of 1995. He introduced it, we voted on it, it passed. It was in the telecommunications bill, thank goodness, because one small part was declared unconstitutional and the rest remained intact. It was in the Brady bill, thank goodness, because one part of the Brady bill was declared unconstitutional, but not the rest of it. I believe that some want this amendment because they think that this whole bill that we have--which deals with soft money, which deals with recognition of sham issue ads, which codifies Beck, which has improvement of FEC disclosure and enforcement and deals with franking and foreign money and fund-raising on government property not being allowed--some think they are all intertwined. I do not. I think some parts can stand on their own. Obviously, everybody will make up their mind. We are going to vote on this tomorrow. But I believe that the other danger is that other amendments will be attached. We will oppose some amendments, but some will be attached because nobody will have the courage to vote against certain amendments because they will be difficult politically. And I would not want to risk the chance that those amendments in particular would then disqualify the rest of the bill. So I would conclude by saying that we need to oppose this amendment. It is a provision that is in most bills and it certainly should be in this one. And when I see parts of the legislation in 1976 that were declared unconstitutional and other parts that were not, I thank goodness the other parts still stayed there. We can always come back and make changes where we think there is an unconstitutional element that has been taken out, and just come back and address that issue. So I strongly oppose taking out the severability clause and, in particular, replacing it with a statement that says if any part is unconstitutional, the whole bill goes. That, to me, is just an attempt to kill meaningful campaign finance reform.

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

Mr. SHAYS. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman did make that case, but in addition, acted like this was a very extraordinary event and that somehow, by our putting the severability clause in the bill, we feared that another part was unconstitutional. What is fair is fair. I do not believe that when my colleague introduced and voted for the Contract With America, those various bills, that he feared that various parts were unconstitutional. I just want to say that this is a very usual clause to be in a bill. It should stay there. And I hope tomorrow, when we all come to this Chamber, we vote to defeat this amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Express advocacy involves----

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I wonder what the process is to encourage the Chair to ask for a vote on this issue, and then I think we will have a rollcall vote tomorrow. What is that process?

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

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, this should be a time that I really feel great, and I do not, and I have only myself to blame. What I do not feel great about is the sense that somehow this is going to be a brutal fight and we are going to make lots of enemies in the process. For me, I believe with a passion in the Meehan-Shays bill. I believe passionately for this bill because it bans soft money, both at the Federal and State level, for Federal elections; that it, for once, recognizes that the sham issue ads are truly campaign ads and treats them as campaign ads and comes under the campaign laws; that we finally codify Beck, which makes it clear that a nonunion member does not have to pay money in his or her agency fee for political activity; that we improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement; that we deal with franking and ban it 6 months to an election district wide; and that we make it clear that foreign money and raising money on government property is illegal, which it is not right now, if it happens to be soft money. I believe passionately in this bill. I believe it is bipartisan and I believe it should pass. I also believe that the commission bill has a role to play but it does not have a role to play if it replaces the Meehan-Shays bill. I heard my colleague, who is a very outstanding Member of Congress and has tried to elevate the debate, talk about blame yourself and take responsibility. I think when we take responsibility, we take action. And action is to ban soft money; to recognize that the sham issue ads are campaign ads and treat them that way. I believe that that is taking responsibility. I think it is not taking responsibility to say that our leaders will appoint members who will supposedly come out with a bill that my colleague believes we can all support. I do not know what they will do. I wish my Speaker had lived up to his word and moved forward with a commission bill 3 years ago, because we would now have a commission before us and we could vote it up or down. But that was 3 years ago. I do not intend to wait another year to take action, because I want to take responsibility for my vote. So I encourage my colleagues to vote ``present'' on the commission bill. I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on the rule. I encourage them to vote ``yes'' on Meehan-Shays and oppose all amendments except one, attach the commission bill to the Meehan- Shays proposal. Attach the commission bill and we can frankly have the best of both worlds: We can take action now on soft money and on these sham issue ads and we can deal with all the host of other issues that my colleague feels we have not addressed. If my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr. White), feels we have not addressed it, then he too should support an amendment to Meehan-Shays that puts the commission bill into the Meehan-Shays bill.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this chamber 11 years and I have seen days that are very satisfying and days that are not. I, obviously, am very proud to be a Republican Member of this Congress and am proud that in 1994 that Republicans had an opportunity to lead this Congress, to help get our country's financial house in order, to save our trust funds, and to move from a caretaking society to a caring society, where people have their hopes and dreams more likely to occur. I was also proud to be part of a 1994 Congress that took office in 1995 that was able to move forward with congressional accountability, getting Congress under all the laws that we had exempted ourselves from. Congress had exempted itself from the civil rights law, it had exempted itself from fair pay, the 40-hour workweek, time and a half. The private sector had to do it, Congress did not. Congress had exempted itself from OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Act, which basically meant that the Congress did not have to abide by safety procedures for its employees. A Member of Congress could not be sued by an employee for sexual harassment. We exempted ourselves from things that the private sector came under. We did until the 104th Congress, the last Congress, in which we passed congressional accountability. But we did not stop there. And we did it, candidly, on a bipartisan basis, which is the best way to get reform through. We did not just try to ram it through. We worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle and got wide support for it. We did the same thing with gift ban and lobby disclosure. We banned, frankly, all gifts, something that was long needed certainly to bring them under control, because Members could receive unlimited gifts of meals and wine and so on. They did not even come under the gift ban. They could get $100 at a clip, $250, during the course of a year. We wanted to bring it down to what the Senate had, but the Speaker wanted to ban all gifts, and I concurred in that. We also, for the first time since 1946, we also amended our lobby laws to really get people who are lobbyists to register and to report who they try to influence and how much they spend. And it has made a significant difference in identifying who really is trying to influence this place. These were reforms that happened under the 104th Congress and, to its credit, on a bipartisan basis. But we did not deal with campaign finance reform. I guess three out of four is pretty good, but it was my hope and my expectation that a reform-minded Congress would deal with campaign finance reform; and that we would reform our laws, the unlimited soft money that has contributed to the political parties, the over $260 million that was given collectively to both parties that was not used for party building, was not used for registration, but was used to influence directly individual races, circumventing the campaign law, unlimited sums by individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups. I was hoping that we would deal with sham issue ads, the truly campaign ads, call them that and place them under the campaign laws, freedom of speech, under the rules that everyone else has to abide by; that we would codify Beck and make sure that nonunion members do not have to pay political costs to a union for a political activity they do not agree with; improve FEC disclosure enforcement; deal with the abuse in franking and require that foreign money and fund-raising on government property stop. Because right now it is illegal to do that for campaign money, but it is not illegal to do it for soft money. So we need to make sure people know that, one, we ban soft money, but if there is money that is not under hard money, that foreigners cannot do it and they cannot raise this money in government buildings. It had been my hope and expectation we would deal with this issue last year, but we did not. There was a promise we would deal with it in February and, at the latest in March, but we did not; and then a promise we would deal with it in May, and we have not. And so promises are becoming empty words. It is important that my side of the aisle live up to its agreement, live up to its agreement to deal with campaign finance reform. I fault my colleagues on the other side for not wanting to deal with the abuses in the White House, I fault my colleagues on this side of the aisle for not wanting to reform the system. We need to do both. We need to hold the abuses of the White House accountable, and we need to reform the system. We need to do both to be truly credible. And I hope and pray that in the days and weeks to come we do that.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the Chamber, and I, for the benefit of those who follow, I suspect that I will be about 20 minutes. I will not be using my full hour. I would like to talk about 2 issues. I would like to talk about the problem that our Gulf War veterans faced when they returned home, and I would also like to touch as well on the whole issue of reform, campaign finance reform, and other reforms that this chamber has sought to deal with. Mr. Speaker, I have the incredible opportunity of chairing the Subcommittee on Human Resources which oversees the Departments of HHS, Labor, Education, Veterans Affairs, and Housing and Urban Development, HUD. In my capacity as chairman, we have looked at the issue of Gulf War illnesses and have had 13 hearings in the last 3\1/2\ years. We have called in the Department of Veterans Affairs, we have called in the Department of Defense, we have called in the CIA, to try to get a handle on the problems that our Gulf War veterans have faced when they returned home. Out of the 700,000 that have returned, almost 100,000 have had some types of physical problems to deal with and have sought to have their illnesses be dealt with by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bottom line to our investigation is that we want our troops properly diagnosed, effectively treated, and fairly compensated, and to this point, we do not feel that this has happened. Our investigation found that a combination of exposures were most likely the cause of illnesses, and these exposures are chemical and biological warfare agents, experimental drugs and vaccines, pesticides, leaded diesel fuel, depleted uranium, oil well fires, contaminated water, and parasites as well. Sadly, our Federal Government has not listened to our veterans. Our Federal Government has had a tin ear, a very cold heart, and an extremely closed mind. When we completed the 11 of our 13 hearings, we issued a major report and had a number of findings, 18 in total. We determined that the VA and the Pentagon did not properly listen to sick Gulf War veterans in terms of the possible causes of their illness. We believe exposure to toxic agents in the Gulf War contributed to veterans' illnesses. We believe there is no credible evidence that stress or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder caused the illnesses reported by many Gulf War veterans. Among the 18 recommendations in our report was that Congress should enact legislation establishing the presumption that veterans were exposed to hazardous materials known to have been present in the Gulf War theater. That the FDA should not grant a waiver of informed consent requirements allowing the Pentagon to use experimental or investigational drugs unless the President signs off and approves. These were just a few of our recommendations. Believe it or not, Mr. Speaker, our troops were ordered to take an experimental drug referred to as PB. This was a drug that was intended to ward off the degeneration of the nervous system and our troops were being required to take this drug as a prophylactic to protect them from any possible chemical or biological agents. It was used, in other words, as an experimental drug to do something it was not designed to do. Our troops did not have the option to decide whether or not to do this. They were under order. If they did not live by their order, they would be prosecuted by the military. We have come forward now with three bills to deal with not just the use of experimental drugs but also to deal with the potential of chemical and biological warfare agent exposure, to deal with pesticides, to deal with leaded diesel fuel, to deal with depleted uranium. Depleted uranium is the material that is used to protect our military equipment, our tanks and our armored vehicles. It is a very hard substance. It is in fact depleted uranium. It is also used as the shell, as the projectile to penetrate armored vehicles. When there is penetration of an armored vehicle, the projectile disintegrates into powder and this is depleted uranium. Mr. Speaker, we had our soldiers who were not told about the dangers of depleted uranium. Some of them went in actual tanks that had been destroyed to witness the carnage firsthand and to take souvenirs. In fact, they exposed themselves to depleted uranium. Their exposure to oil well fires is well documented. Contaminated water, parasites and pesticides. But they were also exposed to defensive use of chemicals. When we had our hearing and had the Department of Defense and the VA come before us, we were told that our troops were not exposed to any offensive use of chemicals. The word ``offensive'' is important because at the time that the DOD and the CIA told us this, they knew that our troops were exposed to defensive use of chemicals and potential biological agents. They knew this because they knew of Khamisiyah which was a Iraqi depot that our troops blew up not by bombs from planes and rockets from planes, but by actually coming and destroying these facilities by setting charges. We had set a hearing on a Tuesday. The Tuesday hearing was going to expose the fact that our troops were exposed in Khamisiyah. So our Department of Defense announced that they would hold a press conference on Friday at 4 o'clock in which they announced that our troops may have been exposed to the defensive use of chemicals in Khamisiyah. This was a press conference called at 12 o'clock for 4 o'clock on a Friday to frankly disclose this information before it would be disclosed at a hearing that we had on Tuesday. The reason why it was disclosed is that we actually had pictures of the chemicals before they were blown up. At first, the Department of Defense said that possibly 500 of our soldiers were exposed. They jumped that to 1,000, then they jumped it to 5,000, and then jumped that to 10,000 and then 20,000 because the plumes went well beyond the original range that they had discussed when they originally disclosed that our troops were exposed. So we had our troops exposed to defensive chemical warfare agents. They were ordered, all 700,000, to take an experimental drug and vaccines as well. They were exposed to pesticides, leaded diesel fuel, depleted uranium, well-oil fires, contaminated water, parasites. And when our soldiers came to talk about their maladies, they were told it was all in their mind. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think we are beyond that point. We are at the point now in which I would like to talk about three bills. One bill introduced by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) reflects the recommendation of our committee that an agency other than the Department of Defense or VA should control Gulf War research agenda. One of our recommendations was the DOD and the VA had been part of the problem and they should not control the research agenda, because basically they had put no faith in any of the potential sources of Gulf War illnesses and had been very reluctant, for instance, to have any research done on chemical exposure until just recently. Their premise was that if our troops did not basically drop dead on the spot, they were not exposed to chemicals. They did not accept the fact that low-level exposure to chemicals could ultimately lead to sickness and death. So our committee supports the proposal by the gentleman from Massachusetts to take the research from the Department of Defense and the VA. Last week our subcommittee introduced two other bills to implement our report. The first is the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of 1998, H.R. 4036. This would establish in law the presumption of service connection for illness associated with exposure to toxins present in the war theater. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, VA, would be required to accept the findings of an independent scientific body as to the illnesses linked with actual and presumed toxic exposures by establishing a rebuttable presumption of exposure and the presumption of service connection for exposure effects. The bill places the burden of proof where it belongs, on the VA, not on the sick veterans. The bill would also require the VA to commission an independent scientific panel to conduct ongoing health surveillance among Gulf War veterans. We basically put the burden of proof on the government to prove that a veteran who is in fact sick, no one disputes that, was sick due to their illness in the Gulf War theater. The presumption is with the veteran. The Department of Veterans Affairs would have to prove that this veteran was sick for some other reason. If they cannot prove it, the presumption is with the veteran. The second bill, the Drugs and Informed Consent Armed Forces Protection Act of 1998, H.R. 4035, would amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to require presidential concurrence in any Department of Defense, DOD, request for a waiver of informed consent in connection with the administration of an investigational or experimental drug to members of the Armed Forces. The bill would also amend a section of last year's defense authorization bill to require DOD to provide detailed written information about investigational or experimental drugs to U.S. forces before being administered. The current provision allows DOD to require use of any investigation or experimental drug and only provide basic information such as the name of the drug, reason for use, side effects, and drug interactions within 30 days after initial administration, which by the way the DOD did not do. The DOD gave 700,000 of our troops, with the consent of the FDA, an experimental drug that may in fact have caused serious illness with our soldiers. They were ordered to take this drug. They were not told of the dangers and the DOD did not keep records as to who took this drug and did not make any examinations afterwards to determine the effect of this drug. So we would require the President of the United States of America to sign off if our troops were forced to take a particular drug that was, in fact, experimental. Mr. Speaker, I just would conclude my comments to say again that what we support our troops being properly diagnosed, effectively treated, and fairly compensated for their Gulf War illnesses. We would hope and pray that this House would take action on the three bills that I described: The one presented by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) that would take the research away from the DOD and VA, which has been part of the problem, and give it to another agency; that we would require the President to sign off on any experimental drug being administered to our troops under order; and that we would place the presumption of illness with the veteran and force the VA to do its job in proving that it was not an illness caused in the Gulf War theater. Campaign Finance Reform Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I have a very good transition to my next issue, but I would like to briefly talk about campaign finance reform and to say that this is an issue that the House of Representatives has put off dealing with for the 11 years that I have been in this Chamber. In an effective way, we have not had a fair and open debate. It was my expectation that this House, this Republican Congress of the 1994 election, this first Republican Congress elected in 1994, taking power in 1995, would deal with a number of reform issues. Praise the Lord, we dealt with congressional accountability. We require Congress to live under all the laws that we impose on the rest of the Nation. We did that under our rule, under our leadership, but we did it on a bipartisan basis. Republicans and Democrats working together passed congressional accountability. Now Congress comes under all the laws it exempted itself from for so many years. The civil rights laws that we were not under. The OSHA laws, Occupational Safety and Health Act. The various laws that require us to have a safe working place. The sexual harassment laws that Members of Congress were not under with its employees. The 40-hour work week with time-and-a-half over 40 hours. We exempted ourselves from all of those acts that we imposed on the rest of the Nation. But now we are under them, and we should be. Congratulations to Congress and the Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the aisle for making sure that happened. That was a true reform. We also passed a gift ban that basically says Members of Congress cannot accept gifts. Maybe a hat, maybe a certificate, a book. We can accept that. But the meals, the wining and dining, the various expensive gifts that Members were given that could go up to $100 and $250 cumulative, we banned them. That was done under a Republican Congress, but on a bipartisan basis. It did not happen years ago. The ban took place after the 1994 election, but on a bipartisan basis. For the first time since 1946, we passed lobby disclosure. Now we know there are far more individuals who lobby Congress who are now having to register than in the past. We have over 10,000 that have to register. Before it was literally 1,000 or 2,000. We have many people who are lobbyists and that is part of the law and part of the process. But now they have to register and disclose information as to how much they spend and the contacts they make and who they try to influence and why they are trying to influence it. It is a disclosure that makes sense and it happened under this Congress, a Republican Congress, but on a bipartisan basis. Mr. Speaker, the one issue we failed to deal with in the last Congress was campaign finance reform. We failed to deal with it. We dealt with three issues: Congressional accountability, the gift ban, and lobby disclosure on a bipartisan basis, and we did it. But campaign finance reform remains to be dealt with in a fair and open process. It was the expectation of many of us that while we would not do it with the last Congress, that we would do with it the next Congress, the 105th Congress, the Congress that took over in the beginning of last year in 1997. It was our hope and expectation that Republicans and Democrats on a bipartisan basis would want to deal with campaign finance reform. There was a lot of debate and dialogue on the bipartisan and historic budget agreement and many of us did not push campaign finance reform because we felt that was the issue that we first needed to deal with. But by the fall, it became clear to us that we could in fact deal with this issue and that leadership did not want to. There was a petition drive. There was an effort on the part of Republicans and Democrats to get this Republican Congress to deal with campaign finance reform and a promise that we would deal with it in February or at the latest March. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, that has not happened. We did not have a debate in February. And towards the last week in March, it was clear that leadership did not want to deal with an amendment, a major bill, the McCain-Feingold legislation that was in the Senate and referred to in the House as Shays-Meehan or Meehan-Shays. This bill bans all soft money. Soft money is the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups can give to the political parties which was supposed to be used for party building and registration. But elected officials and party officials found ways to just bring it right back to individual candidates and circumvent the campaign law. A second issue, besides banning soft money, and we would in fact ban it all, money that goes to the Democratic Party and money that goes to the Republican Party, because it has been an abused system that has simply allowed unlimited sums from individuals, corporations, and labor unions to go to your individual candidates. We would recognize that the sham issue ads are truly campaign issue ads, are campaign ads and treat them as campaign ads. We do not take away anyone's right to speak. We do not do that. We just say that if they are campaign ads, they be treated as campaign ads and come under the campaign laws, which means people have a voice, but they have a voice that requires that there be disclosure; and that, while they are not limited on what they can spend, they do follow the limitations of what they can raise, as all campaign law has. We cannot limit what can be spent. We can limit what can be raised. We, in fact, do that under the Constitution. We require that if an individual candidate is referred to by picture or name 60 days prior to an election in a sham issue ad, it is to be called a campaign ad and come under the campaign laws. We also use the 9th Circuit Court, the unambiguous, unmistakable support or opposition for a clearly identified candidate as a campaign ad, and that would go through 365 days a year. We codify the Beck decision, which means this, that if you are not a member of the union and you pay an agency fee, you do not have to have in your agency fee to the union money that goes for political purposes. That is what the Beck decision determined. They did not determine that union members could be exempt from a political payment to the union for political activities, rather, they determined that if you were not a member of the union, you did not have to have your agency fee go for political activity. My wife does not like me bringing this up because she does not like me bringing her up as an example in anything, but I will say, notwithstanding her objection, that she, in fact, has experienced this process of the Beck decision; and that is that, as a public schoolteacher, she did not choose to have her union dues go to support a gubernatorial candidate she did not support, who happened in this case to be a Democrat. When she complained to her union, she was told the only way that her money could not go would be that she could not be a member of the union. If she paid an agency fee, they would make sure they subtracted the amount of the political payment. So in fact she is not a member of the union anymore. She has taken advantage of the Beck decision, and she does not have to make any political payment to a candidate she does not choose to support. In our bill, we improve the FEC disclosure and enforcement. We require disclosure within 48 hours of a major contribution and that the FEC put it on the Internet within 24 hours. We strengthen FEC disclosure and also enforcement. We allow the FEC to speed up the process to eliminate a frivolous complaint. We also allow them to speed up the process to take action on a complaint that is not frivolous. We also say that wealthy candidates can contribute $50,000 or less. But if they contribute more, then they cannot expect support from their own political parties to augment the $50,000 they put into it. So if they contribute $49,000, the parties can contribute up to $61,000, but not if they contribute more. We ban franking mail, unsolicited franking mail throughout the district 6 months to an election. Then we also make clear foreign money and fund-raising on government property is illegal. Believe it or not, the Vice President of the United States was right. There was no controlling authority for raising soft money from a government building. It is not illegal to accept money from a foreigner if it is not campaign money. Soft money is not defined as campaign money. It is not campaign money. If it were campaign money, it would come under the campaign laws. It would have limits placed on it. There are no limits. So we need to correct an abuse that, clearly, the spirit of the law was broken, but the law was not broken, which allows me to make one point that I think needs to be made time and again. The big failing, in my judgment, with Republicans is that we are not willing to take up campaign finance reform. We are willing to investigate wrongdoing of the President and the administration, as we should, but we do not want to take up campaign finance reform. The Democrats, on the other hand, are willing to take up campaign finance reform, as they should, but are not willing to hold the President accountable for the actions that his administration should be held accountable for. When Democrats investigated the Nixon administration, they did not say that the President of the United States has broken the law; therefore, we do not need to reform the system. They said the President of the United States has broken the law and should be held accountable, and we need to reform the system. I have a gigantic regret that Republicans have not made the same argument today. I believe the President of the United States, his administration, has broken the law and should be held accountable. I also believe we need to reform the system. The foreign money and fund-raising on government property is a case in point. We know what the spirit of the law is, but we also know that soft money is not considered campaign money. It does not come under the campaign law. It was allowed by the FEC years ago as party-building money, not meant as campaign money. But over time, it began to be a big sum of money that both parties have now raised for campaign purposes even though it is not campaign law. Mr. Speaker, I know that the other speaker is ready to speak, and I have gone over my 20 minutes, but I would like to say that I believe it is absolutely essential that my own party and my own leadership keep faith with its commitment to deal with campaign finance reform now, not later. The commitment originally that was made was that we would deal with it in February or March, and we did not do that. We did not keep faith with our commitment. The commitment then, after a number of us got off a petition, was to deal with this issue in May. Since May, we have had a vote on a rule allowing for debate on campaign finance reform. We have had a general debate on campaign finance reform. We have had a specific debate on a constitutional amendment brought forward by an individual who did not even support the constitutional amendment the individual was bringing forward, and that is it. Since the commitment that was made to us in April, we have not had debate of any consequence during the time in May. We are already in the middle of June. I was told last week that the second rule on campaign finance reform would be debated on Friday, in which I concurred and thought that was some progress. That was not debated. I am told we will bring it up tomorrow. I am told we will have debate on Wednesday and Thursday and Friday. Now I have been told we will have no debate next week on campaign finance reform. In my own mind, I do not understand why this reform Republican Party would oppose dealing with campaign finance reform. I do not know why my reform-minded leadership would object to dealing with this issue now, since we are going to have an open debate with endless amendments. But there is a point where, if the leadership refuses to allow for an open debate to take place, then it forces us to consider going back on petitions. It forces us to take other action to express our concern with the process and to force some kind of change. I realize that I am only one Member of 435, so I cannot force anything, but 218 Members can. Ultimately, there have to be 218 Members in this House who believe that the word of our leadership should be honored and that we should take up debate on the 11 substitutes and the endless amendments. Tomorrow we will be taking up a second rule that will make germane amendments that are not even germane. We have hundreds and hundreds of amendments. I also have some leadership that have publicly stated that it is the intention to just drag out this debate ad infinitum. I cannot understand why Republican leadership would choose to put this debate off any longer. Is it going to be better to debate this issue later this month? Is it going to be better to take up this issue in July and debate it? Do we win more points by putting it off even further and taking it up in September? How is that living up to the commitment of my leadership to take up this issue in May?

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 11, I was in Connecticut attending the graduation of my daughter, Jeramy Alice Shays, from high school and, therefore, missed three recorded votes. First, I want to say I missed her 5th grade graduation and her 8th grade graduation, and I did not want to miss her senior graduation. It is the second, third and fourth votes I have ever missed, and I would like to say for the Record that had I been present I would have voted yes on recorded vote number 229, yes on recorded vote 230, and yes on recorded vote 231.