Providing for consideration of 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.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 755 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend from Fort Lauderdale (Mr. Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 755 provides 60 minutes of debate in the House, equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on House Administration. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on House Administration, modified by the amendment printed in the Rules Committee report, shall be considered as adopted.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in full support of H. Res. 755 and the underlying bill, H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act of 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the privilege of working on the lobbying and ethics reform effort currently underway in the House. Having worked so closely with so many Members on both sides of the aisle, I am very confident that there is a shared goal to protect the integrity of Congress and to uphold the public trust by implementing bold reform.

The Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act is moving, as Speaker Hastert directed, through regular order, and it is being considered by five different committees. One way or another, many of the provisions of the bill focus on outside sources of influence, which have rightly been the targets of good government reform for decades, and I am very proud that we have provided leadership in that effort over the years.

As Members know very well, the current reform process has looked at everything from travel rules, to gift limits, to lobbying disclosure, a wide range of things. However, this entire good faith effort and the bipartisan effort that we are working on would come up woefully short if we did not address an area where outside influence in the form of unlimited contributions continues to play an enormous role. So today we are considering H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act.

Congress has tried to limit big money in campaigns for many, many years. In fact, I will tell you, I wrote my senior thesis in college on the issue of campaign finance reform on the 1974 act, which was the first big Campaign Reform Act implemented in the post-Watergate era.

As colleagues who were here in 2002 will remember very well, we had a very spirited debate on the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. Among other goals that were put forward, this bill aimed to get rid of soft money. That was the goal that was stated by those who were champions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. They wanted to do everything possible to ban soft money contributions from political parties, getting it out of the political process altogether.

Along with many of my colleagues, I expressed very strong reservations about banning soft money from parties. I voted against the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. I was very concerned about it. I worried that by limiting contributions and dictating who could give how much to whom, that we would be violating the first amendment.

I also seriously doubted that banning soft money from parties would effectively get that money out of the system itself. As many pointed out at the time, BCRA left an obvious and easy loophole to exploit because it did not, in fact, ban unlimited money from being raised and spent by political groups called 527s.

And make no mistake, Mr. Speaker, 527s are political organizations. The purpose of 527s under the law is to influence elections. The Supreme Court has written that 527 groups ``by definition engage in partisan political activity.''

527s were the natural recipients of the soft money that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act denied to political parties expressly because they are defined by law as political organizations. In fact, many of these 527s were set up only after the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act passed just so they could be the recipients of the soft dollar contributions.

Now, as our colleague, Mr. Linder, pointed out during that 2002 debate on BCRA, he said, ``By eliminating the role of parties, corporations and labor unions could become increasingly reliant on loopholes, allowing them to spend funds from their general treasuries to influence elections.'' Mr. Linder went on to say, ``activities that would be undertaken without Federal regulation.''

Mr. Speaker, this is exactly what has happened. Mr. Linder was absolutely right when he portended this. Nonetheless, supporters of BCRA promised that it would indeed get big money out of politics. That, as one colleague said during those debates, would ``end the influence, the undue influence of big money in the political process.''

Where does this leave us today? For starters, the issue of free speech as it relates to limiting campaign donations is no longer a theoretical argument that many of us engaged in. Campaign limits are allowed, and BCRA is the law of the land, even though so many of us opposed it.

So while many of us did oppose those limits in contributions, we realize that we are governed by laws. We regularly talk about the rule of law. We are not simply governed by our principles, but, in fact, we are governed by the laws, and now every Member's duty, regardless of how we voted on the 2002 act, is to ask ourselves, is the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act working as it was intended?

Clearly, Mr. Speaker, the answer is a resounding no, it is not. Soft money still dominates the political landscape. A handful, a very small handful of wealthy people, still funnel money to organizations involved in campaigns. But now it is going to 527s instead of to political parties.

Mr. Speaker, the money involved is enormous. In the 2003-2004 election cycle, 527 committees raised $425 million, nearly half a billion dollars. That is $273 million more than before the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act was enacted. As predicted, the soft money that used to go to political parties found its home in the so-called 527s. In fact, the top 25 individual donors gave more than $146 million in 2004. As I said, it is a very small group of people, from my perspective, exercising their first amendment rights. But with limits that the court has upheld, I think we have no response other than to respond. Twenty- five individuals, 25 individual donors, again, $146 million in 2004.

During the current election cycle, Mr. Speaker, that trend has already continued, and we have already seen more than $58 million expended by the 527s.

Now, we are not talking about a leaky roof here where just a little soft money is dripping into the system. We

are talking about half the roof missing, and money is literally pouring in to this political system.

Since the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act failed to take soft money out of politics, as even the bill's original authors concede, it is our duty to correct a flaw in the 2002 law. After all, if we are going to have Federal regulation of campaign finance, it better be fair, it better be consistent and it better be effective.

H.R. 513, the 527 Reform Act, restores balance and fairness to the system by making 527s register with Federal Election Commission and by subjecting them to the same Federal campaign finance laws as political parties, political committees and other political organizations. They would be allowed to raise a maximum of $25,000 per year for their non- Federal accounts and $5,000 for their Federal accounts.

Under this bill, 527s will still be able to engage in their political activities, such as Get Out the Vote and voter registration drives. They will just be subject to the hard dollar requirements for their spending. For instance, they will be required to spend only hard money for ads that refer to Federal candidates, and at least 50 percent hard money for ads that refer to a political party.

Mr. Speaker, I have offered an amendment to H.R. 513 that removes the limit on the amounts parties can spend in coordination with their own candidates. This was a bipartisan effort that was put together. Parties and their candidates should be free to work together to promote the issues they believe in and the arguments that they support. This change will increase transparency in campaign spending by allowing them to work together, rather than continuing the charade that the two entities don't know each other. There is no danger of corruption when a political party supports its own candidate.

527 reform has the backing of Democracy 21, Campaign Legal Center, the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not revolutionary; it is common sense. We are simply closing an enormous loophole by extending existing Federal campaign laws to 527s.

Opponents of this legislation claim that soft money now going to 527s would simply be funneled to other groups, such as the 501(c)s, yet there is a huge difference under the Tax Code and in real life between 527s and the 501(c) groups, namely, 527s are organized for political purposes. They exist for the purpose of influencing campaigns. 501(c)s are not established for that purpose. In fact, as a matter of Federal law, 501(c)s are not allowed to engage in political activity as their primary mission.

If, as opponents contend, soft money is funneled to 501(c)s and if politics becomes their major purpose, they will be in violation of the law.

I will add, if it becomes clear that further reforms are needed, Congress will act. Just as we are taking action now to tighten the existing law, we will be ready to act again. We all know, we have said it time and time again, reform is an ongoing process, and we are very proud to lead the effort for reform.

As long as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act remains the law of the land, we must ensure that its provisions are applied fairly to all groups engaged in political campaigns. Now, some opponents of H.R. 513 also argue that subjecting 527s to campaign finance regulations limits free speech. I have to ask, where was this first amendment devotion during the 2002 debate? When I and others were making the point in 2002 that free speech would be violated, supporters of BCRA were awfully quiet on that issue.

Regardless of how one feels about that issue, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on numerous occasions that limiting political donations is constitutional. Most recently, they did it when they upheld the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in McConnell v. FEC. So critics of this bill, Mr. Speaker, the very same people who predicted the demise of our democracy if soft money was allowed to flow to parties, now seem to have no trouble opposing a bill that allows soft money to flow to the 527s.

Just to be clear, some Members on the other side of the aisle want the very groups that spent more than $320 million on behalf of their candidates and policies in 2004 to be the only ones that can influence elections without dollar limits.

To be consistent, opponents of this bill would have to also oppose the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act ban on soft money going to parties. You cannot just pick and choose who is worthy of soft money. If it is bad, if it corrupts the system, if it silences the average voter, if it allows the wealthy to buy influence, all things that they argued in 2002, then it is not who receives soft money that is the issue; soft money itself is the issue.

Are my friends on the other side of the aisle saying they made a mistake in 2002? Have they reversed their position? Do they now support the utilization of so-called soft money? Do they wish to repeal the soft money provisions that were included in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act? I suspect not.

I would urge my colleagues to be consistent with their past positions on campaign finance reform and oppose any dual system for free speech where one group has more protections than another.

Mr. Speaker, as with our entire reform effort, we are simply seeking to attain the proverbial level playing field, to make rules fair, to make them effective, and to make sure that they are enforced. We have an opportunity to patch a hole in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that would go a long way toward getting big money out of campaigns, as The Washington Post editorialized just this morning, to close the biggest remaining loophole in the campaign finance system. This is something that supporters in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act believed strongly in in 2002. They have a chance to reaffirm their support today with this up or down vote on this simple issue. And for Members like myself who opposed BCRA back in 2002, we can support H.R. 513 because the legal challenges to the original reforms have been settled, and the shortcomings that we predicted have in fact come to pass.

Mr. Speaker, altogether, this should result in a strong bipartisan vote for transparency, disclosure, accountability, and reform.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole), a very able member of the Rules Committee and a great champion and understander of the issue of campaign finance and campaigns in general.

(Mr. COLE of Oklahoma asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, very, very briefly, not to get into the issue of the dueling quotes, but let me quote from 1998 in the debate on this issue from my friend Mr. Hoyer, who loves to carry in his pocket Dreier quotes. I do not regularly carry this one, but this was just provided to me.

In the Congressional Record on June 19, 1998, my friend said, ``In my view, genuine reform must purge from Federal elections unregulated soft money which has become so pervasive. The issue ads, which are so clearly intended to influence elections, must be covered.'' That was the statement made.

Let me say also, I completely stand by exactly what I said in that 2002 debate and I stand by that vote as my colleagues stand by that vote.

If the gentleman had heard my opening statement, I refer to the fact that we were not supporters of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. We were concerned about first amendment rights. We still are concerned about first amendment rights, but across the street, the United States Supreme Court upheld BCRA when they chose in McConnell v. FEC--

I thank my friend for yielding.

I think the gentleman still has time.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I respond by saying, we stand by our commitment to first amendment rights. We stand by our position of the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act, but that is the law of the land. We live with it today. We are simply trying to implement exactly what you said on June 19, 1998, when you said there should be even-handed regulation.

Mr. Speaker, let me yield myself such time as I might consume to respond to some of the arguments of my friend Mr. Hoyer.

First of all, let me make it very clear, our position has not changed one iota from what it was. We still believe in transparency and disclosure. We stand by the testimony that was provided before the House Administration, our concern, our opposition to the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. So the gentleman is wrong in concluding that we somehow have changed.

What we are saying with this legislation is that we should not in any way allow loopholes to exist. All we are trying to do is close a loophole which addresses the concern that my colleague raised when he talked about the need to get unregulated soft money out of the process. We know that every single one of us in our individual campaigns and political parties is forced to comply with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, and yet we have seen $425 million, almost a half a billion dollars, expended in unregulated ways, providing an opportunity for them to influence Federal elections.

That is a complete contravention of the goal of campaign reform, and that has been argued by the people who were the greatest proponents of campaign reform, Democracy 21, Common Cause, a wide range of groups, which worked closely and tried to implement the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

On this issue of our having taken no action, on this very day, the House Rules Committee has actually been scheduled in the last hour to be marking up our bill H.R. 4975, the Lobbying Accountability Transparency Act. The Judiciary Committee today marked it up. As the gentleman knows, we at the very early part of this year passed legislation designed to get at the access that registered lobbyists had to the House floor.

So we have taken action, and I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are continuing to focus attention on reform and our quest for the proverbial level playing field.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my very good friend from Michigan, a former Secretary of State, Mrs. Miller.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire again exactly how much time is remaining on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield to Mr. Shays, who wanted to respond and then you can close your debate and we will do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from Connecticut, the great champion of campaign finance reform (Mr. Shays).

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

Let me just say that my friend is correct in saying we should look at loopholes and do everything we can to close them. The Republican Party is the party of reform. We are very proud of the fact that we have been and continue to be the party of reform.

This is a loophole that needs to be closed so we can get to the kind of fairness that Mr. Shays, the great champion of campaign finance reform, talked about. He and I still disagree to this moment about the issue itself. I believe these kind of limits undermine first amendment rights, but the Supreme Court has upheld the Campaign Reform Act, and I believe if you look at the great champions of campaign reform, Common Cause, Democracy 21, and a wide range of other groups, they

are strongly supportive of this measure. I believe we should support this.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Dreier

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the amendment and on the resolution.

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 yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Rules Committee, my very good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule, which blocks every single Member in this body from offering an amendment to the 527 Reform Act of 2006. This bill would amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, and require, among other things, certain political organizations involved in Federal election activities to register with the Federal Election Commission.

Yesterday, during the Rules Committee hearing, the majority on the committee reported out a closed rule. In doing so, this limited any opportunity for the House to fully vet this important issue. If Congress is the place for true deliberation of all points of view, then I ask, why are the Republicans so hasty to ramrod this bill through without opportunities to amend? Surely the majority realizes that abolishing spending limits is a move that intentionally pushes aside the interests of women, minorities, and other voters who may not be a part of the Republican base and therefore apparently are not worthy of regard. Or is it simply a maneuver to deny us serious debate about viable alternatives, such as one from Massachusetts offered by Representative Tierney? Representative Tierney's amendment, had it been made in order, would have completely eliminated the ability of industries and interest groups to unduly influence elections. His idea? The full public financing of elections. This proposal, which Republicans have blocked from consideration, is the only one that I have heard to date that completely protects the integrity of our elections and public policymaking process.

I am equally disappointed that my very good friends, Representatives

Wynn and Pence, were denied an opportunity to offer their bipartisan proposal before the House. Let us force candidates to get themselves elected based on the merits of their argument rather than the depth of their campaign accounts, which have been padded heavily by the richest of U.S. industries.

One can only imagine what the Medicare bill would have looked like if the pharmaceutical industry hadn't contributed the hundreds of millions in campaign contributions to the President and Republican candidates. What about the energy bill, reeking with billion dollar tax breaks for energy companies? What would that bill have looked like if it weren't for campaign contributions to Members of Congress?

If we want to get serious about corruption in Congress, then we have to get serious about corruption in our elections. For those in America, myself included, who believe that outside influences have too much control in the political process, I say take them out of the process. Make it illegal for them to write campaign checks and support publicly financed congressional elections.

Seats in this and the other body are for sale to the highest bidder. But the majority of the American people do not have enough money to buy them.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle would have us to believe that this legislation, among other things, protects the integrity of campaign finance because it brings 527s out of secrecy. This is a false claim that could not be further from the truth.

My good friend, Representative Dreier, cited Common Cause. I guess it is about time for me to cite a former colleague of his and mine, Pat Toomey, the president of the Club for Growth; or John Berthoud, the president of the National Taxpayers' Union; or David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union; or Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform. All of these peoples are opposed to this measure.

It is kind of interesting to me in Congress how up gets to be down and down gets to be up. But 527s are far from the clandestine operations that some may want us to believe. 527s do not operate behind closed doors. If you think they do, ask John Kerry. Their work combines social awareness, advocacy, and political activities that provide everyone with tools for political knowledge.

Receipts and expenditures from 527s must be publicly disclosed and made available. In fact, 527s are already required by law to register with and report to the Internal Revenue Service. Their name is actually derived from the section of the United States Tax Code that regulates their financial activities. I think that we would all agree that it is difficult to have much more oversight than the Internal Revenue Service.

The administration and their friends in the Republican majority also intend for this new legislation to simultaneously stamp out free speech, voter outreach and the free flowing exchange of ideas. Unfettered political speech, be it at issues in the mail, by phone, on TV, on the radio, and especially over the Internet, is the basis for why our Founding Fathers fought so hard to make it a part of the very first amendment in our Constitution.

These are the tools Americans use to make informed decisions on the political issues before them. These are the activities that register people to vote, bring them to the polls, and engage them in necessary debate.

We should take heed from those who are only now establishing free and fair elections in some parts of the world. They found out the hard way that once freedom of speech eroded, it began a slippery slope that soon crushed their liberties as well as their governments.

Any time the majority wants to get serious regarding campaign finance and the influence of campaign dollars in the House, Democrats stand ready to have that discussion. And I am having a hard time understanding if way out there in America that people really do know the difference between soft money and hard money. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues for the sake of free speech and for the sake of a campaign process in which we all believe to oppose this closed rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 10 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic whip, my very good friend.

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

Mr. Speaker, would you be good enough to tell both sides of the remaining amount of time.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, my friend, (Mr. Meehan).

Mr. Speaker, I have no additional speakers at this time and I am prepared to go forward.

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

Apparently my good friend, and he is my good friend, from Connecticut was not mindful that there were 100 Members of the House of Representatives who wrote to the FEC asking that the McConnell v. FEC decision be upheld.

But I don't want to get bogged down in all of these legal mores. The simple fact of the matter is that if we intend to do something that would make a difference, we could all support public financing. I challenge any of you to tell me that that would not cure the problems that we continue to talk about.

I also would urge my friend from Connecticut, who argues about loopholes, to ask the chairman what I say about laws that we pass here. You show me a law and I will show you a loophole. I have been involved in politics as long as anybody in this room, and for the 41 years that I have been involved, we have continued to reform campaign finance by calling it campaign finance reform. Every time we reform it, the Republicans or the Democrats, the majority or the minority, somebody comes up with a way to get around the law.

So make this one, if you will, Mr. Chairman, and be mindful of all of the people that have spoken with reference to the myth that I think that you perpetuate. One of the biggest myths, the National Review says, is that this bill would level the playing field. That is language you used earlier, Mr. Chairman, ending the ability of the wealthy to fund propaganda. This is completely false, according to the National Review. 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.

The simple fact is when you cite to the law, my recollection is you didn't say anything at all about Buckley v. Valeo, which simply said in its holding that money is speech, and that is ultimately what winds up happening here.

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question, so I can amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule, if it does, it will bring H.R. 4682, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2006 to the House floor for consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, before we go reforming campaign finance laws and telling those on the outside what they can and cannot do, I think we need to fix up our own house. H.R. 4682 is a comprehensive reform package introduced by Leader Pelosi that is designed to clean up this Congress and show the American people we are serious about our roles as legislators and that we put the people we represent first.

This bill does many things. It curbs the abuses of power by stopping the practice of keeping votes open to twist arms and lobbying Members on the floor of the House. It shuts down the K Street Project by making it a criminal offense and violation of the House rules to take or withhold official action or threaten to do so with the intent to influence private employment decisions. It ends the practice of adding special interest provisions to conference reports in the dead of night and behind closed doors. It imposes strict and enforceable new disclosure requirements on lobbyists. It curbs abuses of power and it blocks cronyism and corrupt contracting practices that endanger our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and around the world.

It is important for Members to know that defeating the previous question will not, I repeat, will not, block the underlying bill. H.R. 513 will still be considered by the House. But by voting ``no'' on the previous question, we will be able to consider the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act under a completely open rule that gives all Members of this body the opportunity to be heard on this matter.

I urge all Members of this body to vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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, I demand a recorded vote.

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, I thank the gentleman from Florida.

At a time when this Congress is embroiled in the most serious scandal in a generation, when a culture of corruption has swept over this body with no sign the Ethics Committee is addressing it, this body should be devoting the precious few days it has here to reforming its own culture and practices.

Today, the Republicans are doing what they so often do. They are trying to gag their opponents and further empower their supporters. They again abuse their legislative power to assault their adversaries. This is not reform. It is retaliation.

It is ironic that so many of the Republican leadership in opposing campaign finance reform argued so strenuously against campaign expenditure limits but now advocate limitations, not because of principle but because of political power and the abuse of that power.

The Republican leadership has chosen to take on political organizations in a cynical attempt to appear serious about reform and divert attention from its own ethical failures.

Mr. Speaker, the problem confronting our polity is not independent groups whose political activities are legal and are disclosed regularly to either the IRS or the FEC. We know who spends this money. The public can make a judgment.

Rather, it is the degree to which the Republican leadership has sacrificed the public interest, good public policy, and its own ethical conduct in order to amass, consolidate and perpetuate power through unseemly and unethical alliances with special interests like Jack Abramoff.

If this body were serious about reform, we would be debating the best way to eliminate the culture of corruption, not restrict the first amendment rights of political organizations.

Now, the previous speaker mentioned campaign finance reform. Let me quote some debate during the course of that consideration of that bill. The gentleman who brings this bill to the floor today, Mr. Dreier, I always like to quote Mr. Dreier because they are such different points of view that are reflected; you can almost get the whole spectrum of thought.

``Mr. Dreier: So we have these attempts being made by some to impose extraordinary, onerous regulations on the American people, jeopardizing their opportunity to come together and pursue their political interests that they have, that a shared group has; and I believe that is wrong,'' says Mr. Dreier. ``I believe it is wrong,'' Mr. Dreier said on February 13, 2002, ``to impose those kinds of regulations.''

We then had a vote on campaign finance reform by the same folks who are offering this bill to reform, and Mr. Hastert voted ``no,'' Mr. Boehner voted ``no,'' Mr. Blunt voted ``no,'' Mr. DeLay voted ``no,'' and, yes, my friend and my colleague from California (Mr. Dreier) voted ``no.''

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, if you will yield yourself some time, I will be glad to have some debate with you.

I would be glad to have a debate with you but you need to yield some of the time.

I still have time, thank you very much.

Mr. DeLay said in another quote, ``Those who want to regulate through government the participation in the political process, I respect them trying to do that; I disagree with it.'' That is the way he voted, as you have pointed out. ``We ought to let the voters decide through instant disclosure to be able to tell and see while people are collecting their money and spending it to decide.'' In other words, disclosure. These are disclosed.

My view is, in light of the fact they are disclosed, you will vote ``no'' on this bill. My obvious supposition is you are not going to do that.

Today, this bill is about politics. You have changed your principle, in my opinion. You have changed your point of view. That is why you are voting differently than you did on campaign finance reform.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, what the gentleman has just said, he stands by what he said but he is going to adopt what I said to support this legislation. As usual, we have somewhat of an Alice in Wonderland approach.

This bill is about politics. This bill is about getting opponents that they presumed who have outraised them in the last election, but until the last election they did not want regulation. Why? Because their premise was they would raise more money, but when they found out that their opponents who disagreed with their failed policies for this country were communicating with the American public, then they said, oh, my goodness, we have to do something about that. They had this included in lobbying legislation, which we need to reform, as I have said, but guess what, they have taken it out, for political reasons, not for principle, I tell my friend from Massachusetts, not for principle, but for political reasons to try to undermine their opponents.

Today, we are missing an opportunity to look inward and expose ugly truths about the devolution of the legislative process from the one that the Framers had in mind when they created Article I of the Constitution.

I challenge the other side to explain to me why, 15 months into the 109th Congress, nothing, nothing has been done by this House to come to terms with the culture of corruption.

I challenge the other side to explain how H.R. 513 will increase the public's faith that elected representatives are addressing and adhering to the strictest ethical code and will pay an appropriate price if they veer from it.

I would suggest that today's debate underscores the extent to which a party that came to power 12 years ago, promising a bold new direction, has become insensitive to the issues that really matter in our Nation in 2006.

This bill is about politics. This bill is about a fear of losing power. This bill is about trying to undermine the voice of opposition in this country. This bill results from a fear that those who are opposing policies bad for the United States, bad for our people, bad for our families, undermining the security here at home and around the world will somehow be communicated correctly to the American people.

It was not until the last election, not until then, did those 176 people who on principle said we should not constrain this speech, this constitutional right that we have, and testified before the House Administration Committee, including Speaker Gingrich at one point

in time, and said that it was disclosure that was the issue, not constraint. It was not until the last election that that opinion was changed, that this bill came to the floor to undermine and gag those who oppose the policies being pursued.