Commending the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they made to the United States nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands, solemnly acknowledging the first detonation of a hydrogen bomb by the United States on March 1, 1954, on the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and remembering that 60 years ago the United States began its nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 755, I call up the bill (H.R. 513) to amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to clarify when organizations described in section 527 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 must register as political committees, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act of 2006. Today we have an opportunity to right one of the wrongs of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. All my friends on the other side of the aisle who voted for BCRA because they believed we needed to get soft money out of politics must support this legislation today because it does indeed get the soft money out of politics.

Just a word of explanation. I have used the term ``BCRA.'' That is the acronym for Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which we worked on very, very hard a few years ago to get the soft money out of politics. What do we mean by soft money? That is money that is unregulated, both in quantity and disclosure to the Federal Election Commission.

While BCRA was supposed to curtail the influence of soft money in Federal elections, it did not achieve that goal. In the 2004 election cycle, the first conducted under the rules imposed by BCRA, over a half a billion dollars in soft money was spent to influence the outcome. Just four individuals alone spent over $73 million total.

While BCRA was supposed to reduce the influence of special interests, it actually empowered these ideologically driven outside groups. The power these outside groups gained came at the direct expense of political parties which saw many of the activities they had traditionally performed limited by BCRA, and thence taken over by these new organizations, the 527s. Again, let me explain, the term 527 refers to the section of IRS Code which governs their operation, and we simply use that designation for them.

We now have a system where soft money continues to thrive. Our political parties, especially those at the State and local level, are increasingly unable to carry out core functions such as voter registration activities. We now have a system where the influence of billionaires is greatly enhanced. In some cases, representatives of 527s have made boasts about taking over the party. For example, Eli Pariser of MoveOn.org sent an e-mail to supporters after the 2004 elections stating, ``Now it's our party. We bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back.'' What more evidence do we need of the corruption that has appeared here? This does not represent progress. Today we have an opportunity to reverse this negative trend, and this bill will help restore some balance to our system.

H.R. 513 would require 527 groups spending money to influence Federal elections to register as Federal political committees and comply with Federal campaign finance laws, including limits on the contributions they receive. Thus, 527 groups would be subject to the same contribution limits and source restrictions that are applicable to Federal political action committees. There would be no more $23 million soft money contributions allowed from a lone, extremely wealthy donor. When this bill passes, individuals will be limited to $30,000. In other words, soft unregulated money will be replaced by hard regulated money which will be reported to the Federal Elections Commission.

Those 527s that engage exclusively in State or local elections or in ballot initiatives would not be restricted by this bill. However, if they decide to engage in Federal election activity such as making public communications that promote, support, attack, or oppose a Federal candidate during the year prior to a Federal election, or conduct voter drive activities in connection with an election in which a Federal candidate appears on the ballot, they will be restricted by this bill. In other words, State and local activities would be free to continue as they have in the past. Those dealing with Federal candidates or issues will be restricted by the bill, and will have to use hard money.

H.R. 513 would also impose new allocation rules on 527 groups regarding expenses for Federal and non-Federal activities. For instance, 100 percent of expenses for public communications or voter drive activities that refer only to a Federal campaign would have to be paid for with hard money. If both Federal and non-Federal candidates were mentioned, then at least 50 percent of such expenses would have to be paid for with hard money. In addition, under H.R. 513, at least 50 percent of a 527 group's administrative overhead expenses would have to be paid for with hard money.

This bill, H.R. 513 has been endorsed by the reform community and rightfully so. Common Cause, Democracy 21, the Campaign Legal Center, and other like-minded reform groups have sent several letters to House Members asking them to support H.R. 513. In a letter sent just this week, these groups argued that H.R. 513 is needed in order to ``close the loophole that allowed both Democrat and Republican 527 groups to spend hundreds of millions of dollars in unlimited soft money to influence the 2004 presidential and congressional elections.''

Mr. Speaker, I will be including a copy of the letter for the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I know many of my friends on the other side of the aisle are usually interested in what The New York Times has to say on these issues, so I would like to include some editorials from The Times as well; and an editorial from today's Washington Post also calls on the House to pass this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I will include these editorials in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I expect many of my friends on the other side of the aisle would be arguing that BCRA should not be applied to 527s because they are independent organizations and have no connection to officeholders. The claim will be that we have already severed the link between large donors and Federal officeholders. This is nonsense; this is bunk. The 527s that have soaked up all the soft money were, in many cases, set up and staffed by former party operatives and congressional staffers. In some cases, Federal officeholders attend fundraising events for these 527s in an attempt to grant an official stamp of approval and signal to their donors where soft money donations should be steered. I do not intend to name names, but I will include in the Record a number of articles that describe how 527s have been set up by people who used to work for Federal officeholders or national parties.

The soft money shell game we spawned 4 years ago is clearly demonstrated in these articles. They demonstrate that these so-called ``independent'' 527s are, in many cases, independent in name only. In reality, they

have been set up by people who used to work for our parties. They left to organize 527s to escape the restrictions BCRA placed on the parties. Had their candidate for the presidency won, many of them would be working in the administration. Would not they feel indebted to the millionaire donors who helped put them in office? Is not that what BCRA was supposed to stop? Let us stop pretending that these 527s are anything other than campaign organizations established to influence our Federal elections.

This is not the first time Congress has dealt with the 527 issue. In fact, some time ago, 6 years ago to be exact, Roll Call reported on the debate that was going on at the time and included a quote from a powerful congressional leader of the time. In 2000, 527s did not have any disclosure requirements, and a bill was pending to require them to disclose their donors. At an event held to rally support for the bill, this leader was quoted as saying, ``Now more than ever, we need to assure the American people that we are not willing to let our system of government be put in jeopardy by wealthy special interests, unregulated foreign money, and, most importantly, a system of secrecy. It is time for disclosure.'' The leader who said these words was Minority Leader Richard Gephardt. We passed a disclosure bill then, but the problem of wealthy special interest money jeopardizing our system of government has only gotten worse in the ensuing 6 years, and I suspect the minority leader would say the same thing today.

Not extending the contributions restrictions in BCRA to all 527s was a terrible mistake that we are today seeking to rectify. Today we can restore some sanity to our system. The status quo allowing 527 groups to raise unlimited amounts of soft money while our parties continue to lose power and influence is unacceptable. It threatens the health of our democracy.

We must subject 527s to the same regulatory restrictions that are applicable to all other parties, candidates and committees. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 513.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3\3/4\ minutes to my colleague from New York (Mr. Reynolds).

(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York to respond.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays), the author of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Meehan), the other sponsor of the bill from the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

I just have to say, I am a little disappointed in this debate. In fact, I am greatly disappointed in this debate. I am just a simple person who grew up in a small town, and I grew up in an area where we said what we meant, and we meant what we said.

I have heard so much diversionary discussion on this topic from the minority today, it is very disappointing to me.

The proposition of the bill is very simple: unlimited spending of soft money was intended to be banned under BCRA. A diversionary tactic has developed which allows the expenditures of huge amounts of money, unregulated soft money, and this bill today is an attempt to stop that practice which is being carried out by people who are violating the intent of a law we passed a few years ago. That plain and simple is the issue here.

I urge the body to adopt the bill and stop the abominable practice of huge amounts of unregulated, unreported money influencing elections. Let's get back to the original intent of BCRA and put it in place and enforce it.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the material I previously referred to.

[From the New York Times, Dec. 29, 2004]

The Soft Money Boomerang

It's encouraging to see signs of life in Washington,

particularly on the Republican side of the aisle, over the

obvious need to plug the newest subterranean pipe for

unregulated campaign funds from big labor, big corporations

and just plain big money.

Of all the subplots in the presidential election, none were

as sorry as the Democrats' pioneering ``527'' groups--named

for the section of the tax code that governs them. The 527's

were intended to circumvent the law's strictures against

having unlimited soft money flood into political races. The

Democrats built these new shadow-party advocacy groups to

attack the president early in the campaign season and build

voter-turnout machines. Then they watched Bush partisans

adapt the same financing device to float the campaign's most

notorious and devastating attack ads, the Swift boat assaults

on John Kerry's heroic war record and his antiwar activities

after he returned from Vietnam.

Dollar-wise, the Democrats proved better at milking the 527

strategy, spending more than three times as much as the

Republicans in stealth-party ads favoring their presidential

ticket. But the Republicans wielded their ads like a rapier

once the Federal Election Commission, true to its track

record, shirked its responsibility by deciding that the new

breed of advocacy groups should not be controlled under the

campaign finance reform laws.

A commission majority endorsed the fiction that the 527's

are independent. The truth is that they were strategically

linked to the candidates and perfect targets for aggressive

F.E.C. regulation and spending limits. The 527 fund-raisers

were the V.I.P. toast of the party conventions last summer,

raising money in luxury suites with a wink and a grin.

After this year's election drubbings, you would think the

Democrats would now see the folly of the 527 committees. But,

no, ranking Democrats are determined to make them a permanent

campaign weapon, with no dollar caps on the corporations,

labor unions and fat-cat partisans who spent more than $550

million on such committees in this year's races.

President Bush condemned the 527's and promised a crackdown

when the Democrats first exploited them and caught the G.O.P.

short. But later in the campaign, he failed to condemn the

Swift boat ads when Senator John McCain did so and pointedly

asked for the president's support. Now Mr. Bush has another

chance to put his considerable political weight behind Mr.

McCain, who is determined to use the coming Congressional

session to pass legislation that would force this blowzy

lucre-genie back into the bottle.

Senator McCain overcame whatever past bad feeling there was

between himself and the president and became a dogged Bush

campaigner this year. We hope the president repays him by

explicitly backing the McCain fight to stop the 527

gamesmanship as an abuse of fair elections. And it's equally

important for the president to enlist in the senator's

campaign to overhaul the election commission. The F.E.C. is a

transparent extension of hack party politics, beholden to

members of Congress who are more concerned with their own

incumbency than the public interest.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend and colleague for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I also would like to offer my commendation to the chairman of our House International Relations Committee, Mr. Hyde, for his leadership and for his support of this resolution. I would also like to thank our senior Democratic ranking member on the committee, Mr. Lantos from California, and especially also my good friend and chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific, the gentleman from Iowa, Chairman Leach, for his support as well of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 692, commending the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they made to the United States nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands.

I want to especially thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake), my good friend and colleague. He and I also had the privilege of visiting the Marshall Islands a year ago, and is an original cosponsor with me on this legislation, as well as my dear friends and colleagues who have also. In the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to submit for the Record the list of the Members who have also signed on as cosponsors of this resolution.

h. res. 692

Title: Commending the people of the Republic of the

Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they

made to the United States nuclear testing program in the

Marshall Islands, solemnly acknowledging the first detonation

of a hydrogen bomb by the United States on March 1, 1954, on

the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and remembering

that 60 years ago the United States began its nuclear testing

program in the Marshall Islands.

Sponsor: Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F. H. [AS] (introduced 2/16/

2006) Cosponsors (36).

Latest Major Action: 2/16/2006 Referred to House committee.

Status: Referred to the House Committee on International

Relations.

Rep. Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]--3/30/2006

Rep. Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5]--3/30/2006

Rep. Baca, Joe [CA-43]--3/30/2006

Rep. Berman, Howard L. [CA-28]--3/30/2006

Rep. Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3]--3/30/2006

Rep. Bordallo, Madeleine Z. [GU]--3/30/2006

Rep. Brown, Corrine [FL-3]--3/30/2006

Rep. Brown, Sherrod [OH-13]--3/30/2006

Rep. Burton, Dan [IN-5]--3/30/2006

Rep. Cardoza, Dennis A. [CA-18]--3/30/2006

Rep. Castle, Michael N. [DE]--3/30/2006

Rep. Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]--3/30/2006

Rep. Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17]--3/30/2006

Rep. Flake, Jeff [AZ-6]--2/16/2006

Rep. Gallegly, Elton [CA-24]--3/30/2006

Rep. Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4]--3/30/2006

Rep. Honda, Michael M. [CA-15]--3/30/2006

Rep. Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18]--3/30/2006

Rep. Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1]--3/30/2006

Rep. Kind, Ron [WI-3]--3/30/2006

Rep. Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10]--3/30/2006

Rep. Lantos, Tom [CA-12]--3/30/2006

Rep. Leach, James A. [IA-2]--3/30/2006

Rep. Lee, Barbara [CA-9]--3/30/2006

Rep. Lewis, John [GA-5]--3/30/2006

Rep. Miller, George [CA-7]--3/30/2006

Rep. Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38]--3/30/2006

Rep. Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10]--3/30/2006

Rep. Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [FL-18]--3/30/2006

Rep. Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29]--3/30/2006

Rep. Spratt, John M., Jr. {SC-5]--3/30/2006

Rep. Udall, Tom [NM-3]--3/30/2006

Rep. Waters, Maxine [CA-35]--3/30/2006

Rep. Watson, Diane E. [CA-33]--3/30/2006

Rep. Watt, Melvin L. [NC-12]--3/30/2006

Rep. Wexler, Robert [FL-19]--3/30/2006

Mr. Speaker, 60 years ago in 1946, the United States began testing nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands. Over a 12-year period until 1958, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests with the equivalent yield of more than 7,000 Hiroshima nuclear bombs. In fact, the nuclear test code-named Bravo was a 15-megaton hydrogen bomb that was detonated on March 1, 1954, in the Marshall Islands and its equivalent yield was 1,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs. Acknowledged as the greatest nuclear explosion ever at that time detonated, the Bravo test vaporized six islands and created a mushroom cloud 25 miles in diameter.

Because people were living in these South Pacific islands during the time of the U.S. nuclear testing program, the people of the Republic of the Marshall Islands were exposed to severe radiation poisoning. Even today, 60 years after the U.S. nuclear testing program began, the people of the Rongelap Atoll, as well as other atolls, are still exiled from their own land due to the radioactive fallout.

Mr. Speaker, as the ranking member of the House International Relations Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific and as a Pacific Islander myself, I feel I have a special responsibility to look after the interests of our Pacific Island community, especially from the Marshall Islands which have sacrificed greatly for our common good.

From 1946 to 1958, the United States detonated 67 nuclear weapons in the Marshall Islands, representing nearly 80 percent of all atmospheric tests ever conducted by the United States. If one were to calculate the net yield of these tests, it would be equivalent to the detonation of 1.7 Hiroshima bombs every day for 12 years. These tests exposed the people of the Marshall Islands to severe health problems and genetic anomalies for generations to come.

The U.S. nuclear testing program in the Marshall Islands continues to devastate the Marshall Islands, and the funds provided by the United States under the Compact of Free Association I submit, Mr. Speaker, are grossly inadequate to provide for the health care, environmental monitoring, personal injury claims, or land and property damages.

Pursuant to the compact and the accompanying section 177 agreement, the United States accepted responsibility for the damage to the property and environment of the Marshall Islands and the health of its people. This agreement did not constitute a final agreement, as evidenced by the inclusion of article IX authorizing the government of the Marshall Islands to petition the U.S. Congress in the event of ``changed circumstances that render the provisions of this agreement manifestly inadequate.''

The government of the Republic of the Marshall Islands has submitted a request to Congress based on a changed circumstances claim. The administration, however, as represented by the State Department in its report evaluating the Marshall Islands' request, rejected the argument made in the Marshall Islands' petition, contending that the claims did not constitute changed circumstances as defined in the agreement.

For the record, Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear that I take issue with the State Department's position. While the State Department denies that there is no legal basis for Congress to hear this petition, the fact remains that we in Congress should decide this for ourselves.

Mr. Speaker, the State Department issued a report in November of 2004 evaluating the Marshall Islands' petition, concluding that the Marshall Islands' request does not qualify as changed circumstances within the meaning of the agreement, so there is no legal basis for considering additional payments.

Mr. Speaker, the State Department fails to explain how the declassified documents released 10 years after the agreement was reached, indicating a wider expanded radioactive fallout than previously disclosed, or that the National Cancer Institute study indicating that more cancers will surface do not constitute a legal basis for Congress to consider their circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, I submit this is much larger than a legal issue. This is a moral issue. The fact is the people of the Marshall Islands are still suffering severe, adverse health effects directly related to our nuclear testing program, and they are still unable to use their own lands because of the radiation poisoning. We have a moral obligation to provide for health care, environmental monitoring, personal injury claims, and the land and property damage in the Marshall Islands. This is the least we can do, Mr. Speaker, considering the historic contribution the people of the Marshall Islands have made in the Cold War struggle to preserve international peace and promote nuclear disarmament.

Mr. Speaker, the people of the Marshall Islands do not want handouts. They have brought these ongoing health environmental and loss of land issues to Congress for our consideration. While we may find that we cannot provide the amount of money requested, I believe we do have an obligation to examine carefully the application they have submitted to ensure that we live up to the responsibility we embraced over 50 years ago when we began nuclear testing in the Pacific. We should not be looking for ways to sidestep this responsibility. We should ask ourselves if we have done everything we can possibly do to make things right for the people of the Marshall Islands who have sacrificed their lives, their health and their lands for the benefit of the United States.

I have reviewed the petition. I have researched this issue extensively, and I believe enough evidence exists to justify a thorough review of the changed circumstances in the petition.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleagues can see this picture. These are some of the children who were born to mothers this day last year, deformed children, still as a result of nuclear testing that we conducted in the Marshall Islands, and how dare that our government say that we do not have

any further responsibility to the people of the Marshall Islands. It is still there, and we should pay attention to this.

Mr. Speaker, I am probably one of the few Members who has ever been to the Marshall Islands and have seen the results of our nuclear testing program. Some of our colleagues may ask how come we stopped our nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands. I will tell you why: because of the radiation, a nuclear cloud that floated all over to the United States and we found strontin-90 on milk products coming out of Minnesota and Wisconsin. That is why we stopped our nuclear testing there in the Marshall Islands.

I am probably one of the few Members who also visited the French nuclear testing in the South Pacific in French Polynesia where the French Government detonated over 220 nuclear bombs in the atmosphere, on the surface, under the ocean; and guess what, those atolls are beginning to leak now. The French Government refuses to allow international scientific teams to go down there and find out exactly the extent of the nuclear damage that the French Government has done to those people in the Pacific.

Last year, Mr. Speaker, I was invited by the President of Kazakhstan to visit that country; and to my surprise, I did not realize that this is where the Soviet Union conducted their nuclear testing program. They detonated 500 nuclear devices in Afghanistan before Afghanistan became independent; and as a result of the Soviet Union nuclear testing, 1.5 million Kazakhs were exposed to nuclear radioactivity, very similar to the problems that we have just had a resolution on on Chernobyl.

It is madness. It is madness, Mr. Speaker, and I submit this is something we should at least do for the people of the Marshall Islands. They are not asking for handouts, Mr. Speaker. They are just simply asking for fairness. If we were so deliberate in our efforts to fund the Cold War, let us give the Marshall Islands people at least what they deserve, a good medical treatment for the mothers that still continue to have cancers in thyroid glands, cancers all over, several hundred, and their descendants still continue to be exposed because of what we had done to these people 60 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, I submit and I ask my colleagues, I request with all due respect that the least we could do is to pass this resolution. With this resolution, Mr. Speaker, we want to acknowledge the historic contribution the people of the Marshall Islands have made in the Cold War struggle to preserve the peace that we are seeking throughout the world. We commend the people of the Marshall Islands for the contributions and sacrifices they made, and we hope and I hope, sincerely hope, that my colleagues will join me in providing for appropriate legislation so that we can give these people the proper medical care that they deserve.

With that, Mr. Speaker, again, I thank my good friend, the chairman of our Asia Pacific Subcommittee, Mr. Leach, and my good friend, senior Democratic member, Mr. Lantos, for their support and management of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 513, the so-called 527 Reform Act of 2005 and the restriction that they are placing on the first amendment rights of Americans. 527s are named after a section of the Internal Revenue Code that specifies certain political organizations as tax exempt for tax exempt purposes under the Federal law.

Added to the Tax Code in 1975, 527 organizations have been legally recognized as operating entities for over 30 years. The Federal Election Commission has recently implemented additional regulations of these groups, which are subject to rigorous Federal reporting and disclosure requirements. Anyone with a computer can go online and see that millionaire Bob Perry gave $4.5 million to bankroll the Swift Boat Veterans.

How do I know this? 527 organizations regularly submit detailed financial information to the IRS. They have to disclose where they get their money and how they get it. In fact, just last week, a Federal court remanded part of a case back to the FEC to present a more reasoned explanation for its decision that 527 organizations are more effectively regulated through case-by-case adjudication rather than general law.

I believe that FEC should be given a chance to review this matter before further legislation is introduced in this House. The Senate is providing leadership in this area. They set out to do what they wanted to do and that was lobby reform, unlike this House, which is just bringing up this type of legislation to circumvent their lobbying reform bill that they do not have, and downplaying groups that had more voters than ever before in history outside demonstrating their democracy and getting the vote out. This is what the BCRA bill was all about.

I voted for BCRA because it would sever the connection between Members of Congress in raising non-Federal funds, so-called soft money, and to ensure that there were limits on what we did in terms of money. BCRA was necessary to cut the perceived corruption link between Members of Congress, the formation and adoption of Federal policy and soft money.

However, BCRA was not passed to impede legitimate voter registration and Get Out the Vote by those 527 community groups which did just that, but this bill impedes that democratic process. It impedes the 527 organizations.

This bill is not needed, Mr. Speaker. It is very interesting listening to the majority speak in favor of campaign finance reform after they did everything possible to stonewall the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Also interesting is watching the Republicans avoid any discussion about the activities of 501(c)6s and those organizations that have no disclosure requirements, and yet are running television ads designed to directly reelect a Senator from Pennsylvania. Unfair and impartial regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put in the Record a statement by the National Review magazine, which is a conservative magazine, and the National Review states, One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would level the playing field ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false. Wealthy individuals will still be free to say whatever they want and whenever they want. This proposal would end only the ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to independently speak out on issues and speak and criticize Members of Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I will include this statement in the Record as follows:

Advocates of this bill have yet to identify the problem

they hope to correct with this misguided proposal. 527s wield

no corruptive influence over parties or candidates, which is

the only constitutional justification for restricting free

expression.

One of the biggest myths about this bill is that it would

``level the playing field,'' ending the ability of the

wealthy to fund ``propaganda.'' This is completely false.

Wealthy individuals would still be free to say whatever they

want whenever they want. The proposal would end only the

ability of individuals of lesser means to pool their money to

independently speak out on issues.

America needs the First Amendment and the ability of

individual citizens to form groups precisely for speech that

is controversial. To suppress views of those we dislike will

inevitably risk suppression of our own.

We who oppose such a proposal want to continue to freely

debate our ideas in the public arena. We want Americans to

hear all sides--and to decide for themselves who's right.

When you were sworn into office, you took an oath to

``support this Constitution.'' We ask you to faithfully

uphold that oath by rejecting H.R. 513, S. 1053, and any

other bill that restricts political free speech.

Sincerely,

Pat Toomey, President, Club for Growth; John Berthoud,

President, National Taxpayers Union; Thomas A. Schatz,

President, Council for Citizens Against Government

Waste; David Keene, Chairman, American Conservative

Union; Grover Norquist, President, Americans for Tax

Reform; Paul M. Weyrich, National Chairman, Coalitions

for America; Matt Kibbe, CEO and President, Freedom

Works; James Bopp, Jr., General Counsel, James Madison

Center for Free Speech; Bradley A. Smith, Professor of

Law, Capital University Law School, and former

Chairman, Federal Election Commission; Fred Smith,

President, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Speaker, unfairly regulating 527s is a step in the wrong direction for political speech. I believe this legislation will have a negative impact on the voter participation bill silencing segments of the population that we need to hear from. Of particular concern is that the fundamental rights and the needs of all Americans including the voices of women, the elderly, and the poor not be left out of the political dialogue just because of the perceived notion that a few millionaires are funding all 527s.

In fact, thousands of Americans gave to 527s through small donations of $25, $50 and the like because they believe, Mr. Speaker, in the message of 527 organizations.

Through the first amendment, Americans are playing an ever increasing role in holding public officials accountable for their actions, through the debate of public policy, and the shaping of this American democracy. Their voices should not be silenced.

In fact, I would like to put in the Record again the statement by Assistant U.S. Attorney General Alice S. Fisher when she stated upon the plea

agreement of Mr. Rudy of his crimes involving illegal favors and lobbying activities which lasted from 1997 to 2004, and she says, ``The American public loses when officials and lobbyists conspire to buy and sell influence in such a corrupt and brazen manner. By his admission in open court today, Mr. Rudy paints a picture of Washington which the American public and law enforcement will simply not tolerate.''

The American public, Mr. Speaker, will not tolerate what is about to happen here with this elimination of 527 organizations, transferring them into 501(c)s, not allowing them to work independently of Members of Congress and having to deal with any congressional campaign committees.

In fact, this bill sharply curtails the ability of individuals and groups to associate in the pursuit of political and policy goals, and I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the unjust shade of Federal policy holders, which are us, the Members of Congress, this bill will allow the public to not criticize or even ask for accountability because they want to outlaw those groups who engage in the type of public speech, the public speech that might criticize us or ask for accountability.

This is what they are trying to muffle. They are trying to muffle the voices of the American people who spoke through 527s. They are independent groups. The majority should not be in the business of legislating for partisan gain at the expense of the American people.

I will vote in opposition of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, contrary to the last speaker, he has a bill that wants to repeal all hard money limits, and this is what this bill is all about, the flow of unregulated amounts of money. This is what the American people do not want, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Zoe Lofgren).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Illinois for a response.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 20 seconds to respond to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have remaining?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would say to the gentleman who just spoke, this is not what we voted for. We did not vote to transfer 527s to 501(c)s. That is dishonesty. I oppose those who say this is an obscene bill, 527s are not obscene.

What they are trying to do now here with this bill would provide each national and State party committee to be free from any limits in spending on behalf of its candidates and the spending would take place at any time for the primary or general elections.

This is the flow of money that the American people are saying take out of campaigns.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time to close.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify that the 527s have been and must always file with the Internal Revenue Service. They have to do quarterly reports. Unlike what has been said, that they do not have disclosure and they do not have reporting, that is not true, and I include for the Record the IRS filing dates so that can be placed in the Record.

Internal Revenue Service--United States Department of the Treasury

Form 8872 Filing Dates (for 2006)

During an election year, a political organization has the

option of filing on either a quarterly or a monthly schedule.

The organization must continue on the same filing schedule

for the entire calendar year.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, in the wake of the Jack Abramoff scandal, we have seen multiple indictments, Members of Congress resigning under a cloud of scandal, congressional approval at an historic low, and a public demand for reform. You would think that the Republican leadership would want to get these scandals behind them, but it is clear they do not.

What is the first stage of grief? Denial and isolation. So here we are today discussing a bill that doesn't do anything to address the problems of the scandals facing this Congress, this institution, which require an institutional solution to an institutional problem.

Nope, this bill doesn't do anything to stop the pay-to-play policies of the party in power. Nope, it doesn't. Doesn't do anything to shut down the K Street Project, rewarding lobbyists who show party loyalty, or to slow the revolving door. Nope, it doesn't do that.

Many of you will recall our former colleague, Mr. Tauzin, who negotiated a million dollar lobbying job with the pharmaceutical industry at the same time that he was rewriting the Medicare prescription drug bill. This legislation doesn't affect that.

Now, take a hypothetical for a moment. What if a Member just resigned, middle of a term, and was thinking of working for companies and sitting on boards. This legislation doesn't change what would happen. It happened when Mr. Tauzin was out here on the floor. And if you had a hypothetical, the Member resigned, maybe just a hypothetical, 2 months left on his tenure here, this legislation doesn't affect who he meets with, who he talks with, how he negotiates and how he votes while he is negotiating.

Why, to do that, you would have to have a desire for reform, and I wouldn't want to impose on the majority party in any way. All the while, while they are voting on this legislation, they are negotiating jobs and they have no responsibility to report to the public of their conduct. It is just business as usual here in Washington.

And then what are they trying to do; take the legislation regarding the 527s, and my colleagues on the other side voted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform of past years. Well, that reform leveled the playing field for both parties. This legislation does not intend to do that. This legislation intends to do a very partisan thing to the campaign finance laws affecting 527s.

Now, I introduced legislation to affect 501(c)6s. Right now, in the State of Pennsylvania, one of those organizations is actually running ads. I say, you want the same rhetoric, you want 527s to report, well, I suggest 501(c)6s report. That amendment was not allowed. Why? Because it would actually have leveled the playing field. It would have applied to both parties, not one party. So in the name of reform, once again, we have partisan tactics.

Now, all the while, you are going to go home and wonder why the American people have such low esteem for the Congress. It is quite obvious why they have such low esteem: College costs at a record high, 38 percent and going up; health care costs are up 58 percent, $3,600 in 4 years; energy costs are up 70 percent; medium incomes are down. All that Congress hasn't paid attention to.

So as we have scandals swirling around this institution, Members resigning, Members pleading guilty, you once again go whistling past the graveyard on the chance to do real reform and play partisan politics. I do not know what tune you are singing right now, but you will come to know that tune this November.

There must be something in the water here in Washington.

To remind my colleague and my friend from Buffalo, the first vote of this Congress by the majority party was to strip the Ethics Committee that investigates Members of its authority to do that, which is why after 15 months in this Congress, the Ethics Committee has not met until last week.

Since that time, one Member stepped down with a guilty plea, another Member stepped down with a cloud of ethics, and others are under Federal investigation at this point. And why? Because the first vote by the Republican majority was to strip the Ethics Committee of its authority.

The second thing. In fact, the majority party did vote this Congress that when a Member of their party was indicted, they were allowed to hold their party position. You have that vote. You stripped your party of that authority and that moral voice when you cast your vote to allow the majority leader to retain his position when indicted.

Now, maybe there is a rampant disease called short-term memory over there, but two votes in this Congress: one, if you got indicted, in fact, you are allowed to keep your position. You cast those votes on your side. And this Congress, when it opened up, rather than address the scandals, this Congress, under the majority, not with any Democratic support, stripped the bipartisan Ethics Committee from its ability to hold investigations, which is why not a single Member to date, with all these scandals, some reported by others, congressional historians, as the worst scandals in the history of the Congress, still the Ethics Committee has failed to do its job because you have stripped it of its abilities to do its job.

That will be the moral stain on this Congress. Your votes.

My good friend from Buffalo, you may not get health care legislation done this year, you may not get educational reform this year, and for sure, you won't balance the budget. But this Congress will be remembered as the Congress that Jack and Tom built. Because the scandals continue to swirl around this institution.

Until you do serious lobbying reform and close the loopholes, close the revolving door, have real transparency, real enforcement, this Congress, when that gavel comes down, which is intended to open the people's House, not the auction House, and you have allowed it to become an auction house, then this is the House that Jack built.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the efforts of my colleagues Chris Shays and Marty Meehan to strengthen elections in this country. However, I oppose the measure they offer today because it seeks to address the wrong problem, and as a result, this proposal squelches participation by individuals and small donors in the electoral process. For that reason, and because there are First Amendment implications as well, I will vote against this measure.

On my first day as a Member of Congress in 1999, I joined the fight for campaign finance reform. I did so because we needed to curtail the influence of money in politics. The Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) was critical to that effort because it eliminated corporate money and capped the size of donations that could be made to political candidates and political parties. These steps made it less likely that elected officials will be beholden to large donors instead of to their constituents.

The critical distinction between BCRA and the proposal before us today is that BCRA limited the amount of money that could go toward political candidates and parties. Today's proposal limits donations to organizations that advocate for a policy or a point of view. That is a radically different approach. Let's remember something: Elected officials are supposed to hear from their constituents at election time. A group of citizens speaking loudly through the collective action of a 527 is a democracy behaving as it should.

Organizations that attain 527 status under the Internal Revenue Code are dedicated to specific ideals and legislative objectives that they believe are best for America. Some 527s want more investment in education. Some want lower taxes. Some support the right to choose. Others oppose it. None of these organizations, however, may be dedicated to a specific person or party. They may not advocate for or against a specific candidate, nor coordinate their activities with a candidate's campaign. By definition, their involvement is the stuff of political discourse.

As a strong, early, and vocal supporter of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, I agree with the ban on raising and spending unregulated ``soft'' money by candidates and political parties. BCRA helps prevent elected Members of Congress from developing a ``second constituency,'' one that is different from their actual constituency, which is the people they represent. However, BCRA did not intend to prohibit robust debate of political ideals, values, and proposals for the betterment of our country. Doing so not only stifles political discourse, it runs afoul of the First Amendment right to speak freely. In February of 2004, I joined several of my colleagues in writing to the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) stating my view that while we need to break the link between unregulated contributions and federal officeholders, we need to protect, preserve, and even increase political involvement by ordinary citizens and independent associations.

If this bill passes, it's important to note who would be affected. According to the Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet, 527 fundraising and spending increased fourfold between 2000 and 2004, while at the same time, voter turnout reached an unprecedented high of almost 126 million voters in 2004--15 million more than in 2000. This was largely a direct result of voter registration, education, and mobilization activities organized by 527s. Most importantly, although it has been widely reported that certain wealthy individuals made multi-million dollar contributions to 527s, the vast majority of 527 receipts were from individual donations of under $200. The liberal 527 organization ``America Coming Together,'' for example, raised $80 million in 2004, 80 percent of which was from donations of less than $200. Similarly, the conservative 527 organization ``Progress for America'' raised $45 million in 2004, 85 percent of which was from donations of less than $200.

These statistics are in stark contrast to much of the debate on this issue. Supporters of the proposal before us today have pointed to wealthy individuals who contributed large sums to 527s as evidence that 527s should be curtailed. My question is this: Even if this bill passes, what is to stop wealthy individuals from simply paying for the same television ads, mail pieces, and organizational efforts on their own, without 527s? If this bill passes, these same individuals will simply spend their money on their own. It is small donors--who, as I said already, are the majority of donors to 527s--who will be denied the benefit of collective action. Squelching 527s will not curb the involvement of wealthy individuals, it will simply make them towering figures on the playing field of public discourse. This is exactly the wrong outcome.

If we want to tighten issue advocacy, we should do so by enforcing the already existing requirement that 527s remain truly independent of political candidates and parties. Truly independent 527 organizations expand the political debate, increase the public's opportunity to hold elected officials accountable, and increase participation in the political process by ordinary Americans.