Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I believe under the rule I have the right to close.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had 45, but that is okay.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, this debate is getting a little bizarre. As the gentleman from Massachusetts well knows, the Beck decision applies to nonunion members, to those who are not members of the union. The whole point is, the coerced union dues are being spent. I appreciate the gentleman's attempt to obfuscate the issue. It is union members, not nonunion members.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I will reserve my 35 seconds.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. There seems to be some confusion. The gentleman from Kansas is talking about union money that is spent for ``political education.'' There is absolutely no limit on the use of forced union dues for registration, turnout, and political education. The advertisements are under the guise of educating union members. It is not a campaign ad; it is unlimited money for political education. The unions have been allowed since the same 1940s to run a committee on political education, COPE, the political arm of labor unions. In this legislation, COPE is not required to open up its books; it is not required to show where and how its money is spent. The gentleman simply coddles unions at the expense of other people's ability to know where involuntary union dues, coerced by the labor bosses, are being spent. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to indicate that I find it interesting that the gentleman from Connecticut will not accept language in his bill banning the use of involuntary union members' dues for political purposes, which I think is exactly the point that the gentleman from Kansas is making. Not even allowing an understanding of the fact that one does not have to contribute them and that union dues are being used in that sense. The gentleman from Kansas I do not believe has had sufficient time to respond, and so I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kansas (Mr. Tiahrt), someone who has a very personal message to convey.

Mr. THOMAS. I would tell the gentleman at every opportunity to place that in Shays-Meehan and did not do it. It certainly would be more attractive if it was a fair, even-handed approach to dealing with dollars in the system instead of what amounts to a choking down of available dollars. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, I certainly was not a lit major in college, but my recollection of Edgar Allen Poe's The Telltale Heart, was that the heart beating was in his head, that in fact it was a dream, it was a myth. It was not reality, and I think the gentlewoman's point is excellent if, in fact, that is the case that she is making, that in fact there was no true heartbeat. There is no true problem here. Let me also say that my friend from California (Mr. Campbell) complaining that we use Buckley versus Valeo in the support for soft money just used it for hard money, and I would love to ask the gentleman if the Dow Jones average was about 800 in 1978, and of course it is about 10 times that amount now, would he support an increase in hard dollar amounts?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. I find it amazing that the First Amendment protections are now called a loophole. Perhaps it is a good idea that we are just voting on campaign reform because, if the Bill of Rights was on the floor, I would fear for its continued support. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), someone who has been an active participant in terms of making sure that the First Amendment is defended. (Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. I would remind the gentlewoman that the Supreme Court has said that expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identifiable candidate, and that only. The statement she just made proves that Shays-Meehan is unconstitutional. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority whip.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, as we enter into this debate, I do think it is important to listen to ourselves. The chairman of the Committee on Rules made reference to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) in terms of this particular vote being the most important vote to occur in this society since the Civil War. That statement is just silly. But I am much more concerned about statements made such as, ``The American people believe we have a rigged and corrupt system.'' Or ``Elected officials have been bought and paid for.'' To the degree that those are presented as factual statements, I can assure my colleagues, any evidence that would prove that I would love to have it in my possession. The Federal Election Commission would love to have it. I believe these are basically rhetorical comments about what they believe to be the situation. Well, I can assure my colleagues, if that is going to be the level of debate, if anybody disagrees with the Shays-Meehan supporters, they are therefore corrupt or that if they believe firmly that substantive differences offered in substitutes are not honestly represented, then I think we are going to have characterized on the floor of the House one of the fundamental problems we have in the area of campaign reform and that is some people believe that what they are advocating is not only perfect, but truth, that simply by positing it, everyone else in the system is somehow less than they are if they do not agree with it. One of the things I think we need to establish at the beginning of this debate is that people can honestly differ and not be sinister, not be corrupt, not try to rig the system. Frankly, I think the supporters of Shays-Meehan have to get over hurdle number one, and that is go back to the definitive Supreme Court case dealing with this era of campaign reform and explain to many of us why Shays-Meehan is not simply, absolutely, flat-out unconstitutional. Because back in 1976, the court said, ``We agree that, in order to preserve the provision against invalidation on vagueness grounds, that the Federal Election Campaign Act definition must be construed to apply only to expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for Federal office.'' The courts have held to that position consistently. All one has to do is look at some recent cases. Only go back to 1988. Shays-Meehan section 201 is unconstitutional based upon the decision in the Right to Life of Duchess County versus the FEC. Section 206 of Shays-Meehan is patently unconstitutional in the 1999 decision FEC versus the Christian Coalition. We are going to be talking about money spent in the system, and they are just absolutely concerned about ``soft money.'' Well, then, why do they not focus on the need to change the hard money provisions? Those were set back in the 1970s. This year in Nixon versus Shrink Wrap, in the 8th Circuit Court, overturned Missouri's $1,000 contribution limit as being so low that it impaired free speech. I think it is fairly ironic that, when we look at this legislation, the question I think we really ought to address is whether or not the supporters of Shays-Meehan have a problem with other Members of the House of Representatives duly elected presenting their position and their constituents' position or whether or not they have a problem with the Supreme Court of the United States that somehow stubbornly believes that the First Amendment requires some degree of privilege; and that rather than follow the slippery slope of it sounds like, it may be, it appears to be, it ought to be campaign speech, the court very rightly bright-lined the test, express advocacy. My colleagues can shop around it, they can sneak around it, but we will deny people the freedom of speech only if it is express advocacy. Frankly, in many sections of the Shays-Meehan bill, it tromps all over, it tramps all over people's individual First Amendment freedoms. There is no question that, if this legislation became law, major sections of Shays-Meehan would be declared unconstitutional. We have gone down this route before. Let us not go down it again. Let us talk about passing legislation that can actually become law and begin to make changes.

Mr. THOMAS. Eleven, nine, and ten. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, what would then be the time division? The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) would remain with how many minutes?

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson) who, from the day that he set foot in this Chamber, has been for responsible campaign reform.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 seconds. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) talked about campaign war chests. Those are basically hard money. They are, in fact, totally hard money, not soft money. Sometimes we get carried away with our rhetoric. She is referring to something which is not at issue in this bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Bereuter.) (Mr. BEREUTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) framed this debate earlier in the day, I do not think he fully appreciates it but he certainly did, when he said we ought to support the Thomas substitute tomorrow. We will recall the song, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow is always a day away. Some of the provisions in my substitute have stretched that day to more than a quarter of a century. Of the more than two dozen provisions in the Thomas substitute, 13 of them have not been addressed since 1976. Why? The cry has always been for real, for substantive change, change that could become law, let us do it tomorrow. We are in the middle of this debate in which people who are supporting Shays-Meehan have the latest cracker jack approach. Of course, earlier it was PACs. Before that it was other bogeymen in terms of the system, all of them fundamental threats to the republic, notwithstanding the Supreme Court saying that the First Amendment has to be upheld. We see another assault on the First Amendment. What I decided to do, Mr. Chairman, was to examine what the Democrats were offering, what the Republicans were offering, what was obviously in need of change, pull it together and in about two dozen provisions offer change; change that has been needed for more than a quarter of a century in some instances but has never, ever, for some reason, been able to move. Some of my colleagues might find it ironic, but one of the provisions in my substitute bans foreign soft money in U.S. elections. Another one guarantees the rights of U.S. citizens to contribute to campaigns through Political Action Committees. Whether the PAC is a domestic or a foreign-owned corporation it has to be in the United States. Many of them deal with the current antiquated timing of information. Many of them extend from 1976. Forty-eight hours in 1976 may have been a relatively long time. Mobile phones were not invented. E-mail was not invented. To a very great extent, the Internet did not exist. There were 200 sites linked through the Advanced Research Project Agency's net, but it certainly was not the Internet. C-SPAN did not exist; neither did CNN or ESPN. The world has changed in that quarter century, but one thing has not changed: Federal election law. Why? Because whenever anyone offered reasonable and appropriate change, the plea was always tomorrow. If anybody in this Chamber wants to make law tonight, they ought to take a look at the Thomas substitute because it is, as it will be described, an amalgam of a bunch of good stuff that should have been passed a long time ago; but it was always the latest issue that got in front of it and the latest issue never made it. This issue will not make it. Shays-Meehan will not become law. If someone wants to make a political statement, then vote for Shays- Meehan. If they want to make law, if they want to change current law, if they want to shorten 48 hours to 24, if they want to take all those people who currently run their financing of their campaigns on their computers and then, because of our current laws run a contest in the campaign office to find a person with the worst handwriting and have them personally fill out the report so that when it gets to the FEC it has to be translated and then put on the electronic medium, what we say is do it electronically if a campaign raises more than $50,000. Everybody is doing it on computers anyway. These are the kind of changes that we ought to make first. Let us get it right, and then we can discuss how we want to change the world. It just seems to me that at some time after the invention of compact disk players, after the invention of VCRs, after Larry Bird was elected NBA rookie of the year in 1980, some of these provisions ought to be changed. This is the opportunity. If my colleagues want to make a statement, vote for Shays-Meehan; if they want to make law, vote for the Thomas substitute. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) congratulated the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan). The congratulations should have been listened to carefully. He said he has done a great job through the years. We can continue to do this. We can continue to make wonderful statements. We can continue to come up with a new idea, which is the most recent threat to the republic. It used to be PACs. Now it is soft money. It will be something else in the future. It will always be just beyond the horizon. It will always be an issue. That is fairly clear. I tell the gentleman from Virginia, I did not offer this substitute for cynical reasons. I offered it in case anybody really wanted to change the law. That is our chance tonight. The Democrats had a majority in the House, had a majority in the Senate, and had the Presidency from 1992 to 1994. What did they do? They did not change the law. We have an opportunity tonight in fundamental and real ways to change the election laws of this country. My colleagues can do it by voting for the Thomas substitute. If my colleagues want to make a political statement, as we have done year after year after year, I am sure the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan) will take those congratulations of his efforts over the years. I would much rather change the law. We can do it tonight. Vote ``yes'' on the Thomas substitute.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\3/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Mica), a member of the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would tell the chairman, it is amazing how many people are willing to do something that could become law tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers) from the committee.

Mr. THOMAS. Tomorrow, tomorrow. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Kentucky (Mrs. Northup).

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Chairman, it is my privilege to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Ewing), a member of the committee. (Mr. EWING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I do find it rather curious that this line of argument now comes from the Democrats. In fact, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin), who just spoke, voted for the 1997 tax bill, which clearly we were in a much more serious budget situation. I think perhaps the situational ethics, that the politics of the situation dictates their rhetoric, their concern about our trying to put a budget together for 10 years and how reckless that is. Let me go back to January 19 when the President was in this Chamber and said, ``Now we are on course for budget surpluses for the next 25 years.'' No concern from them about looking a decade and a half beyond where we are. The President went on to say that he is going to dedicate 60 percent of the budget surplus for the next 15 years to Social Security. How reckless is that? We do not know what the next 15 years is going to look like. Republicans put 100 percent away. We have a plan that will save Social Security forever. The President goes on to talk about Medicare. He has a program to ensure it for the next 15 years. We have a program that does better than that. The Democrats are now the party of ``I can't.'' Republicans are ``we can.'' We can do this. Something else is interesting. The last time the Democrats were in the majority, they passed a tax bill that the low rate was 15 and the high rate for the rich folks they are talking about was 28 percent. This bill lowers that bracket on the lower end to 14 and it is 38 percent for the rich people. When we listen to them, they are arguing politics, not policy.