Bill Thomas

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am pleased to say that the House, in an orderly fashion, has discussed a number of issues surrounding campaign reform and that we reach a point tonight in which a major decision will be made by the House, and we reach this point almost entirely with an open rule and mutually agreed upon unanimous consent, which indicates that even on an issue as difficult as this, if reasonable people of goodwill will sit down and resolve the issues that separate them, the House can in fact move forward. This particular substitute, the Shays-Meehan bill, has gone through a number of permutations over the years. At one time, Political Action Committees were seen to be the primary enemy of the Republic, and the current version views the fundamental erosion of the American experiences tied to what is often called soft money. Sometimes the terms that are used in political debate, although we have all grown accustomed to them, are sometimes confusing to people who do not make this their life's work. The idea of hard money is simply money raised under the Federal Election Act associated directly with elections, would be hard money. Other money would be so-called soft money. What this bill attempts to do is to quote, unquote ban soft money from Federal elections. One of the difficulties in attempting to do something like this is that we had better have a definition and a ban that works for all evenly and equally, and I think one of the fundamental flaws in the Shays-Meehan bill is that it simply does not do that. Although it purports to ban soft money, it bans soft money only in regard, for example, to political parties. Political parties are unique institutions in the American political experience. They are the only institutions that program public policy, work for getting particular candidates elected, and what makes them unique is they nominate those individuals for political office. There are a number of other groups who carry on similar activities but not in total. For example, labor unions are very interested in legislation and they attempt to influence the outcome of it. They program public policy in terms of what ought to be the appropriate presentations and they spend money to try to get candidates elected but they do not nominate candidates. That makes unions different than political parties. But ever since the 1970s, political parties have been treated as though they are super political action committees or they are the only ones involved in the political process and that by controlling political parties, you can control the political process. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, if you examine Shays-Meehan on the question of, quote-unquote, soft money and its control of soft money by political parties and how it deals with soft money vis-a-vis labor unions, you will see exactly the point that I am making. Although soft money is banned for political parties in registration and get out the vote, soft money is not banned for labor unions in voter registration and getting out the vote. It is interesting that where this legislation prohibits the party from spending money, it in fact allows labor unions to spend money, the same defined money in the same activities in which political parties are prohibited. It just seems to me that if you are going to make an evenhanded, honest attempt to control what seems to be one of the primary evils in the system today, quote-unquote, according to this legislation, soft money, that you should create a structure which handles soft money in all its permutations, from whatever institution is utilizing it, so that you do not tilt the playing field in one direction or the other. One of the fundamental flaws of the Shays-Meehan bill is that it in fact inhibits and prohibits political parties who want to influence candidates and legislation from using soft money but it in no way inhibits labor unions from influencing legislation and candidates with that same soft money. We will be looking at other areas, I believe, that are fundamental flaws as well as we move through this debate. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. THOMAS. The gentleman did say there was no limit, and I knew he did not intend to convey that there is no limit under the law.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Did the gentleman mean to say that under the Federal Election Act, individuals have no limit whatsoever on the amount they can give to political parties?

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

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I find it ironic that the gentleman mentioned that it was corporations and labor unions, and Shays-Meehan does nothing about labor unions and soft money. One would think at some point he would understand what he was referring to. Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Fawell), a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip of the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Madam Chairman, I am tempted to rise for a unanimous consent request, speak for 2 minutes, and then yield myself the 1 minute, but I will accept the 1 minute the Chair gives me. Madam Chairman, no amount of volume, no amount of vehemence, covers up the fundamental flaws in this bill. It took my breath away when the gentleman from California said that he could tell us exactly what the Supreme Court would do on the express advocacy section. The fact of the matter is in all probability the court will hold it unconstitutional. Therein lies the rub, because there is a severability clause in Shays-Meehan. It means the courts will continue to write what the law actually is. The only bill left that has merit is the Hutchison-Allen freshman bill, because it does not have a severability clause. If in fact a section is declared unconstitutional, it will come back here. We will write the law. The fundamental flaw in Shays-Meehan is its severability. It has unconstitutional provisions. The court will continue to write the law. Vote no on Shays-Meehan if Members want to continue to write the law and not let the Supreme Court do it.

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield one minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Goodling), the chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce. (Mr. GOODLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Chairman, I move that the committee do now rise.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that during the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 2183, in the Committee of the Whole, pursuant to House Resolution 442 and the order of the House of July 17, 1998, that the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. Meehan) be debatable for not to exceed 40 minutes to be equally divided and the time controlled by the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays) and myself.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4354) to establish the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund on behalf of the families of Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I urge that the resolution and amendment be adopted.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, it is entirely appropriate that at the time that the Chestnut family is, in fact, remembering their father and husband and friend and relative, that we establish this fund. At this time I would also like to thank the gentleman from Maryland for the courtesies and cooperation that he exhibited; indeed, all of the Members of this House, in terms of the level of intensity of their response to an extremely tragic and unfortunate situation. In all likelihood, this will be the last resolution on this particular subject to come before the House, and I did want to indicate that the House is an institution and each individual in it, I believe, can be extremely proud of the way in which the Capitol community responded to such a tragic incident affecting two of its own.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. As we were discussing last night, this is a resolution to create a memorial fund under the title ``United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund.'' It will initially be on behalf of the Gibson and Chestnut families for a period of 6 months, when it will continue in perpetuity as a United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund. It is to create an official fund in the United States Treasury. Therefore, the support and oversight of that is entirely appropriate in using Federal funds. In addition to that, any contributions to the fund are tax deductible as charitable donations, and because of the description and type of the fund, Federal campaign committees may be able to contribute to the funds as well. When the gentleman finishes his comments and withdraws his reservation, Mr. Speaker, I have an amendment at the desk which will allow us to conclude the resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer) for yielding. Mr. Speaker, this bill establishes the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund on behalf of the families of detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut. I want to make sure people understand that this bill establishes by law an official fund in the United States Treasury. Because of that, it is not only permissible, but obviously appropriate, to use official House resources in support of and to solicit contributions to the memorial fund. In addition to that, the reason the Committee on Ways and Means had jurisdiction over this measure is that those donations to this fund are considered charitable and are, therefore, tax deductible. In addition, there is a provision which says that Federal campaign committees may, in fact, donate funds to the memorial fund. It is an appropriate gesture, structured in the appropriate way, that it is a tax deduction and no tax would be levied against it. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding under his reservation.

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

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on House Oversight and the Committee on Ways and Means be discharged from further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4354) to establish the United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund on behalf of the families of Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut of the United States Capitol Police, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to temporarily withdraw the bill.

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's words are quite appropriate and timely in terms of the death of these two particular officers. I do want to underscore that the establishment of this United States Capitol Police Memorial Fund is dedicated on an even basis to the families of these two gentlemen for a 6-month period. It means that this fund will live beyond these two families' needs, and that it will become a perpetual memorial fund available to the Capitol Police; entirely appropriate for this occasion, but available in the future, unfortunately, if needed. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker. I submit a committee order from the Committee on House Oversight. Resolved, That pursuant to 2 U.S.C. Sec. 57 and 2 U.S.C. Sec. 59e, the Committee hereby orders that: Sec. 1. Effective January 3, 1999 the amount available within the Members' Representational Allowance for franked mail with respect to a session of Congress shall not be limited by subsection (b) of Committee Order No. 41. Sec. 2. The Committee on House Oversight shall have the authority to prescribe regulations to carry out this resolution.

Mr. THOMAS

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

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding this time to me. Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues know, there are a lot of young people in this country who have sung many, many times the last line of our National Anthem, and I take the floor primarily to let the Chestnut and the Gibson family know that three of my Health Subcommittee staff better understand the last phrase of the Star Spangled Banner because they were one thin wall away from the jungle, and the separation between civilization and the jungle is sometimes one individual. That occurred on Friday, and no amount of words that we can say here will illustrate more to the young people of this country the deeds that are necessary to indeed make sure that we are the land of the free. Ann Marie Lynch, Allison Giles, and Bill Walters were in a room, crouched in fear, with one person between them and the jungle, and they wanted me to come to the floor to thank the Gibson family and to recognize the heroics of J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson for making sure that they better understood in a moment of terror what sacrifice really means to keep us free. Mr. Speaker, we all will continue to thank J.J. Chestnut and John Gibson, but what we have to remember is that it is not the word, it is the deed. When it was necessary, these two individuals paid the highest possible sacrifice that one individual can give another to keep them free: their lives. We will remember them and honor them.

Mr. THOMAS

Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of the Senate concurrent resolution (S. Con. Res. 112) to authorize the printing of the eulogies of the Senate and the House of Representatives for Detective John Michael Gibson and Private First Class Jacob Joseph Chestnut.