Christopher Shays

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I want to address the Chamber on campaign finance reform and to just base some brief remarks about that. First, I wish to express tremendous gratitude to the 104th Congress for the work it did on a bipartisan basis to pass Congressional accountability. Getting Congress under all the laws that we impose on the rest of the Nation was the first bill that the 104th Congress, the Congress of the last term, presented to President Clinton to sign, and it puts Congress under all the laws it exempted itself from, the civil rights laws, OSHA, fair pay provisions, a 40 hour workweek and so on. Now, some Members of Congress may not like all those laws, but the fact is that we imposed those laws on the rest of the Nation, and we need to make sure we abide by them ourselves. We will write better laws if we have to live by the laws that we impose on the rest of the Nation. That was the first bill we passed, and I think it is a major reform. Another reform was the gift ban. We were going to model what was in the Senate side to limit gifts. In fact, we actually outlawed any gift, unless it was inconsequential. A hat or a T-shirt would still be allowed under our rules, but we got rid of all those free meals that were quite expensive and being abused, and that was a reform that passed on a bipartisan basis. We also passed a lobby disclosure bill in the last term. The significance of that was it had not been amended since 1947, and in 1954 the Supreme Court basically gutted the provisions, so we had a very weak lobby disclosure law. The 104th Congress passed lobby disclosure. Congressional accountability, getting us under all the laws we impose on the rest of the Nation, gift ban, lobby disclosure, passed in the last Congress on a bipartisan basis, and they are reforms I am very proud we passed. The one area we left really unanswered was campaign finance reform. We have had votes during the 11 years I have been here, but we have never really coalesced on a bipartisan basis around a bill that we could pass. There was one bill presented to President Bush, but when that bill had the opportunity to be presented to President Clinton, it never got there. Right now we have an historic opportunity to take up 11 substitute bills on campaign finance reform. We have a complete and open rule. We will have nongermane amendments made in order. There are important amendments, but the technicality of not being germane will be disallowed by the Committee on Rules. In other words, they will make in order these nongermane amendments that some perceive will improve the very substitutes that will be offered. I would like to address one of those substitutes. I would like to address the McCain-Feingold bill in the Senate and a bill that my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) and I and so many other Members on the Republican and Democrat sides of the aisle have offered. One of the substitutes, referred to as either Meehan-Shays or Shays- Meehan or McCain-Feingold or Feingold-McCain, is a bipartisan amendment that bans soft money. Now, soft money is the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations, labor unions and other interest groups give to the political parties, supposedly for party building and registration, but they get right back down to the candidates and have circumvented our campaign laws. We seek to ban soft money on both the Federal and State level for Federal candidates. We also want to call the sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads. We want to make sure that these issue ads that really are campaign ads are called what they are, campaign ads. Therefore, they come under the campaign laws. We do this by adding to the ``magic word test'' that moves an issue ad to a campaign ad. Right now an issue ad that says ``vote for'' or ``vote against,'' ``reelect,'' ``defeat'', that trips from an issue ad into a campaign ad and then comes under campaign laws. It does not mean people's freedom of speech has been deprived, it just means they come under the same rules that everyone else comes under who has to abide by the campaign laws. We do this by adding another provision to the magic word test. If you use the candidate's name or an image of that candidate, it becomes a campaign ad 60 days prior to an election. When it becomes a campaign ad, it means that the expenditures have to be reported and the limits of contributions have to be adhered to. It means that no corporate money can be used in those ads, and no union dues money can be used in those ads. We also codify Beck. The Beck decision is a decision by the Supreme Court that says if you are not a union worker, your agency fee, does not have to include money going for political purposes. It means you will pay less. We codify the Beck decision and require that unions notify nonunion members covered by union contracts that they do not have to participate in the political process through their union dues. We also improve the, Federal Election Commission's, disclosure and enforcement requirements. Disclosure will be done by filing electronically within 4 hours after receiving a major contribution in the last 20 days of an election; and then 48 hours later it will be made public and be available on the Internet for anyone who is interested. We also say that wealthy candidates can contribute up to $50,000 to their own campaigns and still have the $62,000 contribution from their political party. But anything more than $50,000 means that then the political parties cannot contribute to a wealthy candidate who is using his or her own money. We ban unsolicited mass mailings using the frank 6 months prior to the election. That means, by May no franked mail can be sent that is district-wide, the kind that would be a newsletter or questionnaire. Then we also make sure that it is clear that foreign money and money raised on government property is illegal. We would intuitively think it is illegal. But if it is soft money, it is basically viewed by most as not being illegal. In other words, it is not illegal to call from the White House or from Congress for a soft money donation, because soft money, the unlimited sums that individuals, corporations, and labor unions give to the political parties, is not deemed campaign money. It is deemed soft money for party building. We know now it is used as campaign money; but technically, under the law, someone who seeks foreign money contributions or raises money from a government building is not breaking the law. Now, I believe strongly that we need to hold every executive branch employee accountable for his or her actions, and every President. One of my concerns has been that my own party is very eager to hold President Clinton accountable for wrongdoing, and that part I acknowledge is important, but then there is a big disconnect because too many of my own party do not want to do the other part of that process. The other part of the process is to reform the law where it needs to be reformed. When this Congress investigated President Nixon, a Democrat Congress, they did two things. They held President Nixon accountable for the misdeeds he did and his administration did, and they reformed the law, the 1974 campaign finance law reforms. They did both. They held the President accountable and they reformed the system. In my view, that gave them credibility to look at what the President had done. Unfortunately, in this Chamber too many of my colleagues, I think, on the other side of the aisle do not want to hold the President accountable where he needs to be held accountable but want to reform the system, which I am grateful for. Too many on my side of the aisle want to hold the President accountable but do not want to reform the system. We have to do both. That is our job. Our job is to do both. In the next few weeks we will be debating a constitutional amendment presented by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), and then we will be debating 11 substitutes. One of them is a commission bill. The commission bill has merit, if it was not being compared to a bill that bans soft money and takes the sham issue ads and calls them what they are, campaign ads, codifies Beck, improves the FEC disclosure and enforcement, deals with franking, and makes illegal the foreign money and fund-raising on government property. You might need a commission bill if you did not have this bill to choose. But we are going to deal with 11 substitutes and we have a fair and open rule. Any amendments can be offered. It means we are going to have extensive debate on the floor. It means it is going to be protracted. It is going to be a very long process. But I do think, if Members on both sides of the aisle just do what they think is right, if they try not to be partisan in the process, that this will be a good education for us and the American people. My hope is the commission bill will not pass, at least not get as many votes as the Shays-Meehan or Meehan-Shays bill, because we structured the debate so that 11 substitutes are being offered, and each substitute can have unlimited amendments. So we are going to take each substitute, we are going to debate it, offer amendments, and then we are going to vote it up or down. It is conceivable that the commission bill could get 230 votes. If it did, and Meehan-Shays or Shays-Meehan got 225, even though the Shays-Meehan bill got more than 218 votes it is trumped by one that did better. My hope is that while the commission bill, under certain circumstances, on a certain day and at a certain time would have made sense, it does not make sense now. I am hoping that my colleagues will choose not to vote for that bill and trump the Meehan-Shays bill. I am also hopeful that the bill offered by the freshmen, which is a bipartisan bill and has many meritorious parts to it, it bans soft money on the Federal level, not the State, and we think while we have an honest disagreement with our colleagues, mostly freshmen, that we just think it really relocates a lot of the soft money to the States' political parties for them to spend for the candidates. We feel that you have to deal with the sham issue ads. I mean, we have an extraordinary problem that these ads have become more and more blatant and more and more dishonest. They are dishonest in not disclosing who is paying for them allowing unlimited sums by some individuals. They also allow groups that may represent a particular interest that do not want to disclose their interest, to spend money and campaign against an opponent without disclosing that their real interest is something else. For example, the NRA, the National Rifle Association, may campaign against someone, never bringing up the issue that they really oppose them on, that person supported the assault weapon ban, and making it sound like that candidate is bad for other reasons. We want the NRA to just be up front and say it is their ad, and we want them to have to abide by all the rules that anyone else has to disclose where they get their money, and raise their money under the requirements of the campaign law. You will have pro-choice groups and pro-life groups that want to do the same thing. And you have pro-assault weapon ban groups as well as the NRA that opposes the assault weapon ban. So it is going to apply to everyone, and it should. The bottom line is that we are going to have extensive debate on campaign finance reform in the next few weeks. I am very hopeful that it will do credit to this Congress to debate this issue. That is why I ran for public office, not to deal with this issue behind closed doors but to do it in the light of day. I conclude by pointing out that some on my side of the aisle, in particular, will say behind closed doors that the American people do not care about campaign finance reform. I challenge them to say it publicly. I submit that the American people do care about campaign finance reform. They are not apathetic, they are just frustrated. I think we sometimes confuse their frustrations with apathy. I send out a questionnaire in the fall of the first year; and then in the winter of the second year, I sent out the results. I also send out every vote that I have made in the first year. This document will tell people how I voted on every issue, besides also pointing out where I had 38 community meetings that people could come to. But in the questionnaire results, I asked the question, which is the most important issue for Congress to address? That was question A. There were about 30 choices, or close to that. The last choice was ``other'', in case they had something other than the choices I offered. The balanced budget came up as the first concern, the most important issue. Tax is the second. Campaign finance reform came third. Some could say, well, it was only their third choice. It beat education, health care and crime. Admittedly, it was a mutually exclusive list, so only 8.3 percent of my constituents chose that as the most important issue. I would not have even been one of them. As much as I believe campaign finance reform is important, I would have chosen the balanced budget as the most important issue to deal with, getting our country's financial house in order. It does not mean that I think taxes or campaign finance reform or education or health care are unimportant, they are just not my first choice. But it showed up as the third choice in the question, what is the most important issue? It showed up as the seventh choice as what is the second most important issue. Then I made this very biased statement and asked my constituents whether or not they agreed with it: Our democracy is threatened by the influence of unlimited campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. Our democracy is threatened. I asked people whether they strongly agreed, agreed, no opinion, disagreed, strongly disagreed. The response was the following: 51.7 percent of my constituents believed that our democracy is threatened by the influence of unlimited campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. The unlimited contributions, that is soft money. That is what we are banning. And 32.5 percent of my constituents agreed with that statement. In other words, 84.2 percent of my constituents believe our democracy is threatened by soft money, the unlimited campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. I realize that every district is different. I realize that I represent a district of very informed voters, in many cases well-to-do, although I have a lot of poor people who live in my urban areas of Stamford and Norwalk and Bridgeport. But when 84.2 percent of my constituents believe their democracy is threatened, it certainly is a message to me. I wager if other Members ask the same question, they would get the same result. They could have chosen that they had no opinion or they disagreed or they strongly disagreed with the statement, but 84 percent of my constituents strongly agree or agree. I am hopeful, almost prayerful, that we will be able to look back at the end of this month and say we did our job, we responded to the wishes of our constituency, and we also responded to our own intuitive sense. I do not think there is a Member in this Chamber who does not recognize that soft money is polluting the system. It has become a narcotic that both political parties are getting addicted to. My hat is off to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who have taken a disproportionate share of support for the Meehan-Shays or Shays-Meehan bill, and I am respectfully appreciative of my colleagues on this side of the aisle who are taking a strong stand for this bill, even though they still constitute a minority of those who are supporting Shays-Meehan or Meehan-Shays. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle and particularly, if I could, my colleagues on this side of the aisle for kind of bucking the trend. I think you are doing the right thing. I am convinced of it. I believe if we do the right thing, if we ban soft money, if we call sham issue ads what they are, campaign ads, and have them come under the campaign laws, and have everyone have their freedom of voice under the same rules that everyone else has to deal with, codify Beck, improve FEC disclosure and enforcement, make sure that wealthy candidates cannot buy an election by getting support from the political parties when they are already putting so much of their own money in, banning unsolicited franked mass mailings 6 months to an election, and making sure that foreign money and raising money on government property is illegal, making sure that that is illegal, passing that bill without amendment, without amendment, and sending it on back to the Senate, I think that you will see an amazing response from our Senators. I think they will know that this House had the courage to do what was right, and there will be extraordinary pressure, and maybe even a bit of conscience taking on the part of our Senators, saying, ``We know only 53 voted for it last time,'' which is a majority in the Senate, ``we need to pick up 7 more votes.'' But I feel pretty confident that if we do our job, the Senate will do its job and pass their bill, McCain-Feingold, which is the compatible piece to Shays-Meehan.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and want to take this time to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro). It is very satisfying to me that of the eight members in the Connecticut delegation, we all see eye to eye on this very important issue. It may be in Connecticut we are sensitized to this fact because Connecticut tends to be an urban State. We do not have large cities, but it is a very urbanized type of State. We know that the census has overlooked the count, particularly in urban areas. Mr. Speaker, as the gentlewomen have pointed out, we need an accurate census. It truly is the basis of our democracy, and as important as the Voting Rights Act. When I looked at the 1990 census, the census itself has determined they missed 8.4 million people. Totally missed them. It counted 4.4 million people twice. It also counted more than 13 million people in the wrong place, for a total error rate of 10 percent, a significant error rate. The undercount in urban areas is significant. It is in rural areas as well, but its impact in urban areas is quite significant given the large number of people who live in urban areas. This to me is quite distressing, 5.7 percent of those in the black community were not counted compared to 1.3 percent in the white community. And Latinos were also disproportionately missed. Now, to improve the count, the Census Bureau needs to test intensive door-to- door surveys. The Census Bureau needs to test various outreach programs. It needs to test various ways to advertise. It needs to test hiring practices and whom to hire. It needs to test telephone responses. It needs to test multi-site form distributions. It needs to test polling by mail. Now they are going to send out more than once to a household that has not responded; and, yes, it also needs to test and review the results of statistical sampling. Now when we talk about sampling I think there is a tendency to think that what you do is you find one-tenth of 1 percent and then determine what 99.99 percent are. But this is not the way it works under the statistical method. Basically, you do all those other things. You go into a census tract and you send out the mail, you have outreach, you telephone, you have door-to-door canvassing. But in the end they arrive at about 90 percent, and there is about 10 percent they have not found, and so what they do is they use the statistical methods to take 90 percent to determine the remaining 10 percent. They are not taking 1 percent to determine 99 percent or a half of 1 percent. They are taking 90 percent of the population to determine the 10 percent. Now I realize that more Republicans then Democrats oppose using statistical methods in the political environment, but I have not yet found one Republican opposed who is familiar with statistical systems who works in New York or in other urban areas and uses statistical methods to determine so many things in their own businesses. I have not encountered one who has not said that you get a fairer and more accurate count by using statistical methods. And the whole point is we want to just test it. We want to test to see how accurate it will be, and we are having to confront some in our aisle and particularly on my side of the aisle who do not even want to test it, do not even want to allow it to show its validity or not. If the tests prove not to work, then we should not use statistical methods. But that would be surprising because when you count 90 percent it is quite easy to determine the 10 percent. I just would like to conclude by saying to you that the politicians in Congress that are Republicans, many of them oppose it, and I think their basis for opposing it are groundless. We will have a more accurate count. That is the only thing that should matter. It will mean, yes, we will count more blacks and more Latinos. I do not make an assumption that more blacks and more Latinos are going to vote against Republicans. They might if they realize we do not want them to be counted. That might be cause to not want to vote for Republicans. But we do want them to be counted. We want to know where every American lives. We want every census tract to be accurate, not just on the basis of the financial aid that is distributed by the Federal Government and how businesses use the data, but also to make sure that we have the most accurate count, to make sure we draw the lines accurately for not just congressional seats but for State representative and State Senate seats and for even council seats. I would like to conclude by thanking Dr. Barbara Bryant, who was the census director under President Bush. She was the individual who, working with experts of all political persuasions, determined that we needed to test sampling. There is uniform agreement on the part of those who are the experts that we should proceed. I would like to thank Mayor Giuliani of New York and Mayor Richard Riordan of Los Angeles, who both support using statistical methods. They know if we do not their cities will be undercounted, and their constituents will not be receiving the rights they are entitled to. And I would like to conclude by thanking Congresswoman Maloney for being the true champion on this issue, doing it in a very bipartisan way, just dealing with the facts. Obviously, there are more on her side of the aisle that support using statistical methods; but, at the same time, she has consistently reached out to Republicans and others to just say, ``Let's just do what is right.'' And I would also like to thank her for her outstanding contribution in campaign finance reform, something that I am spending even more time on than on an issue like this, to say that she is truly a leader on this issue, and it has been a pleasure to work with her on both the census and campaign finance reform.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Chairman, as I was listening to this debate and looking out and hearing the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Leach) speak about campaign finance reform, I think of how hard a leader he has been over so many years. This is not a new issue. We have been debating it for a long time. I think of the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and what a leader he has been on campaign finance reform. So we have been fighting for reform on this side of the aisle. I turn and think of all the people on the Democrat side of the aisle as well who have been fighting for campaign finance reform. Together, we passed congressional accountability. We have gotten Congress under all the laws that we impose on the rest of the Nation. We did that together. Together we passed gift ban legislation, Republicans and Democrats. Together we passed lobby disclosure legislation. But we have left one act not taken care of, and that is dealing with campaign finance reform. Fortunately, we have freshmen from both sides of the aisle who have worked hard to draft legislation that they feel will deal with this issue. I believe that they have made an important step, and I believe that they are truly for reform. I am hopeful, that at the end of the day, we can all come together. I would argue to everyone in this Chamber that the legislation we need to pass is the Shays-Meehan bill. I believe that we need to pass this legislation because it deals with the important elements that none of the other proposals do. We need to ban soft money; and with all due respect to other bills, we need to ban it on the State level as it relates to Federal elections. We need to recognize and have the courage to confront the sham issue ads by corporations, by labor unions, by other interest groups, and call them what they are, campaign ads. Campaign ads come under the campaign laws. It would mean, and I say this particularly to my side of the aisle, that labor money cannot be used in sham issue ads, not the dues. We deal with it whether it is Republican money or Democrat money. I think we also need to codify Beck to let workers know that they have a right to not have their money used for campaign ads. The bill also strengthens the Federal Election Commission. We have stronger enforcement, and we have stronger disclosure. We also make it very clear that foreign money cannot be used in campaigns, because, right now, soft money is not viewed as campaign money, and so it is legal. You can even make calls from the White House, because it is soft money. It is not campaign money. My biggest complaint with my side of the aisle is they are willing to investigate corruption and not reform the system. With all due respect, on the other side of the aisle, they are willing to reform, but not expose wrongdoing, I think, when it needs to be. We need to do both. We need to investigate wrongdoing and hold people accountable. We also need to reform the system. I am so grateful to be part of this Congress today and in the weeks to come because we are debating an issue we feel strongly about on a bipartisan basis.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. Mr. Speaker, I am struck by many different emotions. I do not intend to talk about the merits of the issue tonight. But I feel proud to look at Members on both sides of the aisle who, in the last 3 years, passed congressional accountability getting Congress under the same laws as the rest of the Nation. And I'm proud Republicans and Democrats working together passed gift ban and lobby disclosure legislation as well. I am proud of the work of the Blue Dogs, and I see the gentlemen from California (Mr. Farr) and Mr. Miller and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson) who have worked hard on campaign finance reform legislators over many years. I see other Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who helped forced this issue to come to the floor with a few Republicans. Ultimately, my leadership recognized that we did need to have a vote on campaign finance reform and I thank them for that. It is going to be a dicey time because it is going to be truly an open debate. There is plenty of opportunity for mischief. Some can misuse the process. So reform minded Members on both sides of the aisle have got to make sure this does not happen. I am proud also of the freshmen who made it a point to work together to find common ground. And I look forward to the next few weeks and the debate we will have. I thank my colleagues who supported efforts to form debate and vote. And I thank my leadership for recognizing we need to have an open and honest debate. I hope and pray that, in the end, we can all be proud of the outcome.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Bliley) for this time, and also commend the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for their bill and rise in strong support. Mr. Chairman, I believe in real competition and meaningful choice, and this bill offers that. Today the House will be considering important legislation designed to bring satellite communications technology into the modern age. I would like to commend the Chairman of the Commerce Committee, Mr. Bliley, and his original cosponsor, Mr. Markey, for introducing H.R. 1872, the bill to privatize the intergovernmental satellite organizations. It has been endorsed by every private satellite services company and the major users of satellite services. Two intergovernmental organizations dominate international satellite communications. They are called INTELSAT and Inmarsat. They are owned by a cartel like structure of all the world's state telephone companies. The same companies that control access to national markets, and thus keep out American companies that want to compete with these organizations. H.R. 1872 privatizes the intergovernmental satellite organizations, and even more, does so in a pro-competitive manner. Now, they will never privatize pro-competitively on their own--they like either the status quo or a privatized monopoly. That is why the bill uses access to the U.S. market for advanced services as a lever to make sure they are privatized pro-competitively. Comsat has a monopoly over sales of intergovernmental organization services in the U.S.--over 90 other countries permit competition for access to these organizations, and this bill brings us into line with the rest of the world. It also allows customers to renegotiate long- term ``take or pay'' contracts they were forced to sign by the COMSAT monopoly. Of course the monopoly wants to keep them locked in so consumers do not get the benefits of competition. But the bill, through the very important ``fresh look'' provision allows customers to get the benefits of competition. I urge members to vote for the bill and oppose amendments designed to eliminate fresh look or the bills market access leverage. Supporters of the status quo will try to divert the issue with rhetoric about takings or punishment of the monopoly, but these arguments are just a smokescreen for protecting the incumbent. Support H.R. 1872 today--reform is long overdue. Customers need lower prices, and new, American, competitors need access to foreign markets.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I have only one reluctance in speaking, and that is to disagree with the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) who I consider one of the most capable, talented, passionate, intelligent and effective Members in Congress. And so that is my only reluctance because I believe passionately in the D.C. Student Opportunities Scholarship Program. I believe passionately that, as a Member of Congress in charge of and having responsibilities for the District of Columbia, we need to do something to stir it up a little bit to start to see how we can make positive changes. A few years ago, I opposed school vouchers, and I remember having changed my decision because I began to realize that was a false position. And I came back to my office where the NEA was meeting with my staff, and they were very serious. And my staff was very serious. And I asked, ``What's going on?'' One of the individuals from the NEA and some members from the CEA in Connecticut said, ``Well, we came by to tell your staff member that we can no longer support you for Congress because of your decision to support vouchers.'' My response to that individual was I know that is the case, and that is why it took me 3 years longer than it should have to do the right thing and make up my mind that we need a demonstration voucher program. I view this more as a scholarship program in D.C. It is only impacting 2,000 students, who are randomly chosen. It is going to give students the opportunity and parents the opportunity to apply for a grant of $3,200 to send their child to another school if they want. We are going to see how parents react and what parents want in D.C. Then we will know how to redesign the public school system and provide the extra resources which D.C. will need in order to improve its system. So I congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Armey) on this bill. It is a modest bill, which offers a demonstration program. As a pilot program it only goes to a few, but the students are chosen randomly. It is not taking the best and the brightest out of the system. Madam Speaker, I just hope dearly that this legislation passes. I am happy the Senate passed it, and I hope the President has the good sense to try this demonstration scholarship program.

Mr. SHAYS

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

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Minge), who was my partner in trying to put forward a balanced budget amendment.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. We spent 11 years trying to get our country's financial house in order. We are so close. And now we are spending the surplus we do not even have. We gave the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure $20 billion above last year's agreement. We are giving them another $26 to $33 billion this year. We do not even have offsets. For me, this is an amazing time. I salute my colleagues on the other side who have done this in a bipartisan way. But we spent 30 years having deficits in a bipartisan way. I thought we had ended that.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First, I want to thank both the ranking member and chairman. They believe in what they are doing. We happen to disagree. But in every instance that I have dealt with them they have always been gentlemen. I just think they are wrong. Mr. Chairman, I totally disagree with the arguments outlined by my chairman from the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. This amendment extends the temporary ISTEA bill for 2 months. We anticipate that we will be able to pass a full bill before then. But what we are being asked to do in this legislation is to spend and allocate $217 billion without having the offsets to pay for the new money. I think that is wrong. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Sabo).

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. I know there are men and women of goodwill on both sides of this issue. I have a feeling that, I end up sounding a bit self-righteous because I have lot of convictions. I just want to say from the outset that someone said to me, you may feel strongly you are right, but you are not always right. Maybe this is one of those times. But I believe with all my heart and soul this is a core debate for this Republican Congress. Are we truly going to get our country's financial house in order and balance the budget? It is a core issue. Are we are going to talk about spending surpluses before surpluses even exist? Last year, many of us felt the budget agreement was too generous. The Budget Committee allowed the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for instance, to get $9 billion more. Then the Appropriations Committee decided to give the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure another $11 billion. Last year we gave the committee $20 billion more during a 5-year period. We have a bill that is coming before us that is going to spend, according to CBO $33 billion above and beyond the budget agreement. I know Republicans are not going to let it be paid for out of the defense side of the budget. Democrats, particularly the President, are not going to let transportation be paid out of the social side of the budget. So maybe it comes out of some theoretical savings that we have in entitlements, or maybe it just does not get paid for. Mr. Speaker, I believe if we do have a surplus, it should go for social security or deficit reduction like my side has advocated. I think if we have new programs, they should be paid for out of old programs. I believe, if we have new taxes, we should cut taxes somewhere else for no net increase. I am hard-pressed to know how this $33 billion budget buster fits in with this Republican majority and what I have been about for 11 years in trying to get my country's financial house in order. I particularly object to the fact that the Committee on Rules did not provide in order a bipartisan amendment which would have allowed us to debate this issue and bring the transportation bill in line with the budget agreement. I am particularly disappointed the Committee on Rules did not put in order an amendment that would have allowed us to vote on whether the transportation bill would be in accordance with our budget agreement. In other words, if our amendment had been in order and passed, we would take $33 billion out of this $217 billion bill. Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that this Republican majority finds its center again. I believe we are losing it. I believe we need to work overtime to get it back. I honestly have to say to my colleagues I think we will be judged harshly if we don't. I oppose the rule.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I do not usually address the House on 5 minutes before the session, but I am not sure how much time will be given to debate campaign finance reform when these bills are brought before us under suspension. I just want to make a number of points for the Record for that debate. First, I want to express my concern that on a Friday afternoon, after Members were proceeding to leave, the House was told for the first time that we would have debate on four campaign finance bills, debate that likely will begin before many Members get back to Washington. I would also like to express concern as to how we will be debating these bills. We will have four campaign bills debated under suspension of the calendar, which has three major flaws: We cannot amend a bill under suspension. The debate is limited to each side having 20 minutes, so a total of 40 minutes for the major issue of campaign finance reform. Admittedly, there will be four 40-minute debates, because there are four bills. And it takes, as has been pointed out by my colleague, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), a two-thirds vote to pass legislation. In the Senate, they need 60 votes to invoke cloture and actually end debate and have a vote on a bill, 60 votes out of 100, or 60 percent. Here we need, in the House, under suspension, 66 and two-thirds percent of the membership's vote. Mr. Speaker, this is not the Senate, thank goodness, and it should not take a supermajority to pass meaningful campaign finance reform. I would like to now address the issue of what bills are coming forward. They are all bills that have been promoted by Republicans, not Democrats, so the Democrat party and leadership was not consulted in what bills would come up. It strikes me that, at the very least, they should have been. Had I been in the minority, I would be outraged to see Democrats do the same thing to a Republican minority. Second, not only were Democrats not consulted, Democrat proposals are not being allowed to be debated. I am wondering why we would not allow such a debate, given the rule says we need two-thirds to pass. Third, I would like to express the concern that a bipartisan group of Members who have been working in good faith have not been consulted and that some of the bills are bipartisan. So there are many reasons to express concern about the process, which, is deplorable. Having said that, I want to acknowledge that three of these bills, in my judgment, merit support. I do not intend to vote against a good bill just because I do not like the process. I vote against a rule because I do not like the process. I have been in public life 24 years in the State House and in Congress, and I learned a long time ago you do not vote against a good bill simply because you do not like the process. The Thomas bill is a comprehensive bill worked on just by Republicans. It is a good-faith attempt to get a bill the Republican party likes. To me, it is not a bill that merits support in its present condition. It has flaws to it that I hope are pointed out during the debate, but it was a comprehensive effort to deal with Republican concerns. The FEC bill, providing disclosure when you raise and spend money, is a no-brainer for me. That should get our support. A ban on foreign contributions, how could we vote against a bill that bans foreign contributions? It gets my support, if that is, in fact, the bill that comes forward. Paycheck protection is a little more controversial. I understand why some might not vote for it. It basically says if you are a member of a union, the union has to get your permission before it supports particular candidates or political causes. I think they should get permission of a member beforehand. My wife had to get out of the union because her money was being given to candidates she did not support. The only way she could prevent this was to invoke the Beck rule and say her money could not be used. Under the Beck rule she is forced out of the union, and pays an agency fee. Mr. Speaker, 84 percent of my constituents said they believe, and I quote, ``Our democracy is threatened by the influence of unlimited campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups.'' A biased statement? I asked what my constituents felt in a questionnaire I sent to them. Fifty-one percent strongly agreed, 33 percent agreed. Eighty-four percent of my constituents believe our democracy is threatened by the influence of unlimited campaign contributions by individuals, corporations, labor unions, and other interest groups. Regrettably, their Representative will not be able to vote for the McCain-Feingold bill, which prevents soft money, those unlimited contributions my constituents abhor.

Mr. SHAYS

Mr. SHAYS. With all due respect to the majority, I never stood in 11 years and questioned my majority leader, and I do not do this lightly, but I am having a difficult time understanding what is being said and what will happen, and I would like to have that clarified for me. Are you saying that we are moving in haste and that these bills are not substantive? Or that we are not moving in haste? I would like a clarification.

Mr. SHAYS. I thank the gentleman from California for yielding, and I just would like to clarify a few points. Our distinguished majority leader says that haste is more important than substance, and I do not understand why he feels that way. Would he please explain to me why he thinks haste is more important than substance?

Mr. SHAYS. Were any Democrats consulted on whether there would be bills that they think deserve debate and discussion? Was anyone on the other side of the aisle considered before the leadership made the determination to come out with these bills?

Mr. SHAYS. I intend to, but I thank the gentleman, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I am trying to understand that we began this session last year, we waited all year long for a debate on campaign finance reform, at the end of that year of our legislative session, we asked the leadership if and when we would be having a debate on campaign finance reform. Our leadership, my leadership, said we would have a fair and open debate in February or March, and I am interested to know if this meets the leadership's definition of a fair and open debate on campaign finance reform.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for giving me the opportunity to ask just one or two more questions. I would like to know if our leadership has made a determination to bring up the McCain- Feingold bill that was voted on in the Senate; and if so, when they intend to bring that up for a vote.

Mr. SHAYS. Will you tell me who has decided that we brought all bills of merit? Who has made that decision?

Mr. SHAYS. Then, Mr. Leader, how can that be a fair and open debate if we have not allowed people with differing views to present their bills and to make their arguments before this Chamber? How does that meet the requirement of my leadership, who I like to believe is telling the truth.

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Leader, I asked a sincere question, and I would appreciate a sincere answer. And the question was: Was anyone in leadership on the other side of the aisle consulted before it was decided to bring out four Republican bills?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, has the Chair made a ruling that I may not continue?

Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, has the leadership made any determination on whether or not they are going to bring McCain-Feingold to the floor of the House?