THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents      

   Mr. Speaker, 527s pose a great threat to our current democratic process. Unfortunately, the House leadership will not give us a vote on this important issue, so voters do not know who is behind the 30 second TV ads trashing their candidates.

   Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to recommit so that we can make the public aware of section 527s and the damage that they are doing to our current political system.

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

   Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It is time we repealed this outmoded and regressive tax . I hope we will make another change to the Tax Code through the motion to recommit. Section 527 organizations simply should disclose their contributors.

   One of those organizations is called Citizens for Better Medicare, though it is not really made up of citizens. It is funded with vast, but undisclosed, sums from the pharmaceutical industry; and they run ads to persuade Americans or try to persuade Americans that it is okay to price prescription drugs at twice the level that they charge HMOs, big hospitals, the Federal Government, Canadians, Mexicans, and the rest of the world. Citizens for Better Medicare is a political organization, it runs political ads that urges people to call your Congressman. It has secret funds, and it spends some of its money attacking the Canadian health care system.

   Well, last year, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DELAY), during the debate on campaign reform said what reform can restore accountability more than an open book? It is incredible and baffling that we will not support this motion to recommit today.

[Time: 14:15]

   We have a chance to require disclosure, to open the books and to let the sunshine in on big money and politics.

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. KIND).

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

   Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI), for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the telephone excise tax repeal, but I also rise to speak in favor of the motion to recommit.

   It is really a sad day here when we have to bring up our only serious discussion about campaign finance reform this way in this manner as a motion to recommit. It is because of the latest abomination that has crept into our political process, the so-called 527 corporations that can accept unlimited contributions and spend it for political purposes without disclosing at all where the money is coming from. For too long opponents of campaign finance reform have claimed that the only thing we need to do to reform campaign finances is to require full disclosure. Well, here is their opportunity.

   What is it going to take to enact long overdue campaign finance reform in this Congress, illegalities of the magnitude not seen since the Nixon administration, when the last wave of campaign finance reform measures were finally enacted. I hope not.

   Support the motion to recommit and let us shut down the 527 loophole, as we are the excise tax today.

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HILL).

   (Mr. HILL of Indiana asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

   Mr. HILL of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI) for yielding me this time.

   Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of repealing the telephone excise tax as well. This legislation will make telephone bills cheaper and easier to understand. People in my district in southern Indiana have told me they do not understand their telephone bills, the confusing fees and surcharges on their phone bills. They do not know why their bills are so high even when they make few or sometimes no long distance calls.

   I petitioned the Federal Communications Commission last fall to make phone bills more fair. The laundry list of flat fees and taxes drive up phone bill costs and confuses consumers. Today we, as Members of Congress, have an opportunity to take an immediate step to lighten the burden on consumers by supporting this bill. Eliminating this unnecessary tax will be just the first step toward making phone fees more fair and easy to understand.

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

   Mr. Speaker, I would just make the point again that this is a great example of bipartisan legislation that has been so from the start that has come to the floor after extensive discussion and hearings. We have a broad-based coalition that is involved in this effort. It includes the Hispanic business community. It includes the African American business community. It includes, of course, consumer groups. It includes telephone companies that now pay the administrative costs to impose this tax .

   It includes people who have been trying for years to get the Congress to focus on this outdated tax that is actually a barrier to Internet access and to the telecommunications revolution that this Congress is trying to encourage rather than discourage. I would just hope that maybe we could keep this discussion focused on that.

   There will be a motion to recommit. I understand it is going to try to connect some new issues to this that have

[Page: H3847]  GPO's PDF

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

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. TIERNEY).

   Mr. TIERNEY. Mr. Speaker, we could all be here on this bipartisan motion today, this bipartisan bill, and actually pass it on a suspension. I do not see a great deal of controversy about what is going on with the subject matter of this bill. The fact that I would like to hear discussed in a bipartisan way is the motion to recommit.

   I would ask the gentleman from Ohio why is it we do not hear anybody in a bipartisan way from that side of the aisle talking about the recommittal to have that go into effect and have that be bipartisan? We need disclosure. 527s are, in fact, a blight on our election system. We have heard Members on that side of the aisle talk for a long time about how they want disclosure. The majority whip tells us he wants disclosure. I would hope he would come to the floor and say that he supports this in a bipartisan way.

   The head of the conference has said that he supports disclosure. He intends to raise a lot of money under 527s. Let us hear him come to the floor and talk about how he wants to be bipartisan on this bill, and then we can pass the subject bill which is virtually a no-brainer with its regressive nature. At this point in time, we are spending an awful lot of time reaching around slapping ourselves on the back. Let us do something really heroic for the American people. Let us do something that really gets to the serious part of business. Let us do something for campaign finance reform and get rid of these 527s.

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

   Mr. Speaker, since the gentleman would not yield to me, I will just make a couple quick points. One is, if the gentleman is so interested in disclosure, it would be awfully nice if in the context of this telephone tax repeal, which is what we are talking about today, that many of us have worked for months on, that the motion to recommit would be disclosed to us.

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

   Mr. PORTMAN. I have not seen it.

   No. Let me just make my own points, if I might.

   Mr. DOGGETT. I would be glad to disclose it.

   Mr. PORTMAN. Since no one yielded to me on the gentleman's side, I will let the gentleman take his own time.

   Second, I would make the point that if campaign finance reform is going to be connected to every issue that comes up on the floor that is bipartisan, that is constructive, that is something that is moving America forward, then I think it is very easy for people who are watching out there and other Members to think, gee, perhaps the folks on that side of the aisle are trying to obstruct what goes on in this Congress, are trying to make everything that is bipartisan into a partisan issue, are trying to keep this Congress from getting its work done and in fact helping the American people.

   That is what this is all about today. This is an effort again that the gentleman from California (Mr. MATSUI) and I, and the gentleman from California (Mr. BECERRA) and I, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. BENTSEN) and I, and many other Members of this conference and the conference of the other side have worked on; and we are happy to proceed with a debate on the telephone tax because we think it is the right thing to do for the American people.

   We are also eager to see the motion to recommit since the gentleman is so concerned about disclosure, and it would be interesting to see how it is tied in.

   What I heard from the speaker earlier, although we do not have the motion to recommit so we cannot see it, is that the gentleman was interested in saying that he could tie this to, again, this constructive effort to repeal an outdated tax by saying that if folks do not disclose who are in certain kinds of organizations then they would have to continue to pay the 3 percent telephone tax , which is an interesting way to tie it in; and I must commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) for his creativity. But I will say that I do not think that does a whole lot; I do not think that is much of an enforcement mechanism.

   So if the gentleman is really trying to get something done, maybe he ought to back up and go to his own Treasury Department in the Clinton administration and say where is the report on political activities and the appropriate tax structure of political activity that was due under the 1998 IRS Restructuring Reform Act that we are still waiting for? Where is that report?

   Maybe the Treasury Department could help us because they are the experts in this.

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

   Mr. PORTMAN. They could give us some perspective on this. Is a 527 any different than a 501(c)(4) that is also doing advertising without any proper disclosure?

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

   Mr. PORTMAN. Is a 527 different than a 501(c)(5)?

   The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LATOURETTE). The time is controlled by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. PORTMAN).

   Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, again I am happy to let the gentleman talk on his own time. He did not yield to our side, and there is plenty of time on the gentleman's side.

   I would just say that it would be nice if in one day in this Congress we could come together, join arms as Republicans and as Democrats, and do something that is good for all of our constituents, which we have done up to this point on this legislation, both in terms of the subcommittee hearings, in terms of the committee hearings, the committee markup, in terms of working with outside groups to come together and bring people together, rather than making it a partisan issue, rather than again raising issues that are going to confuse and muddy the waters as we try to send a strong bipartisan signal to the U.S. Senate and to the President that this phone tax is one we want to repeal and we want to get it done this year.

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

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from the State of Washington (Mr. INSLEE).

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

   Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am greatly disappointed that our friends across the aisle are not joining Senator JOHN MCCAIN, who has shown great leadership in an attempt to close this loophole, and are not joining us on this side of the aisle who want to close this loophole.

   Now here is why we should do this together: it is a fundamental tenet of Americans' values that we like a fair fight. Americans like a fair fight, and these 527 organizations are nothing more than secret assassins. They are secret character assassins, and they assassinate people on both sides of the aisle on a bipartisan basis.

   With all due respect to the last speaker, we do not need any experts from the Department of Treasury to tell us this. Look at 527. I have it right here, that defines these terms. It says, the term exempt function means the function of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of any individual for these offices.

[Page: H3848]  GPO's PDF

   These are born and bred to try to assassinate candidates, and yet the public does not know who is doing the assassination. We have a bipartisan interest in a fair fight. We ought to have a bipartisan effort. The other side ought to join us in closing this loophole. Americans are entitled to know where this money is coming from for these back-handed secret assassinations.

   Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. MEEHAN).

   Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favor of the motion to recommit from my friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT). What we are trying to do here is condition tax relief that is in this bill for 527 organizations on their making simple disclosure as to where money comes from.

   Now I understand that there are some people that think we should not be doing this in this bill; we should have a campaign finance reform bill to deal with 527s. We did, and we passed the bill and abuses have continued.

   Let me remind the Members how we got a vote on campaign finance reform this year and in the last session. We walked over here, and we signed discharge petitions, and we got attention from all over the country from public interest groups. That is how we move campaign finance reform on the floor.

   Now what we are attempting to do here is look at how the Internal Revenue Code defines a 527. It is an organization that accepts contributions or makes expenditures for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the selection, nomination, election or appointment of an individual to any Federal, State or local public office.

   By definition, these self-527s exist to influence elections, and yet somehow opponents of reform insist that these ads funneled by these organizations, that mention candidates' names, that criticize their voting records, that are aired on the very heels of elections are not subject to disclosure laws.

   Now many of us debated campaign finance reform on the floor of this House and many of the opponents of reform, I recall the gentleman from California (Mr. DOOLITTLE) articulately coming down to this floor and saying disclosure is what we need; any ads that are meant to influence election, we should simply have disclosure.

   What have we seen happen across the country over the last several months? We have seen an explosion of these stealth 527s spending literally millions of dollars; and we do not know, the public does not know, where the money comes from.

   This is not a partisan issue. Just look at what happened to Senator MCCAIN when his campaign started taking off across the country because people wanted reform, because people wanted change. What happened? Well, just as his campaign took off, these ads popped up questioning his environmental record, precisely at the time when he faces key primaries in New York and elsewhere. Was it just a coincidence that an issue discussion on his environmental record seemed to take off exactly when his candidacy was taking off? No, it was not a coincidence.

   This is an abuse, an abuse of the campaign finance laws. If we do not want to be partisan about it, we do not have to. Let us, both sides, agree to disclose any of these 527s, disclose where the money comes from.

[Time: 14:30]

   The problem is, under the law, they are not being disclosed. This is an abuse of the system. The time for action is now. At a minimum, and this motion to recommit by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DOGGETT) is a bare minimum, we should deny tax relief to 527s that do not disclose. It is as simple as that. Let us deny the tax relief to those who will not disclose.

   Mr. PORTMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. BILBRAY).

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

   Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I am going to be having a town hall meeting in my district with Senator MCCAIN. As my colleagues know, I was one of the few that was willing to sign a discharge petition and was right there from the beginning in the creation of our campaign finance reform.

   My support for campaign finance reform is based on a lot of reasons. One, this issue is near and dear to me. I have been a victim of these very unfair and hideous attacks that so-called independent groups can do.

   But my support for campaign finance reform is to bring back some integrity to the electoral process. But sadly here today the issue of bringing back integrity to the electoral process is being brought in as a way to stop us or restrict us from bringing back integrity about this Congress and about this government when it comes to taxation law.

THIS SEARCH     THIS DOCUMENT     THIS CR ISSUE     GO TO
Next Hit        Forward           Next Document     New CR Search
Prev Hit        Back              Prev Document     HomePage
Hit List        Best Sections     Daily Digest      Help
                Doc Contents