Providing for Consideration of H.R. 513, 527 Reform Act of 2005

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 513, 527 REFORM ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 05, 2006)

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."

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

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

Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding.

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

Mr. DREIER. I think the gentleman still has time.

Mr. HOYER. 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. DREIER. 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. HOYER. 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov/