Us restore the public trust, not further erode it. The American People deserve as much. Thank you, mr. Speaker. And i yield back the balance of my time. The speaker pro tempore the gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes the gentleman from kansas, mr. Yoder, for five minutes. Mr. Yoder thank you, mr. Speaker. On the afternoon of sunday, april 13, psalm sunday, it was a Beautiful Day in kansas. Many families were gathering across the community to be close and to celebrate these meaningful and important religious holidays. Yet on that day of great beauty, tremendous evil was arriving in my community. On that day, hatred, combined with bigotry, would spur horrific things. That day a singing competition for the best singers was occurring at the Jewish Community center just down the street from where my family lives. The Jewish Community center of greater kansas city has been in operation since 1914 and is a bustling center for events, meetings, discussions, exercise and service of a Diverse Community where all people and all faiths are welcomed. That day two members of my church, the United Methodist church of the resurrection, were driving in the parking lot to participate in this competition. A grandfather and his grandson. When out of nowhere a man driven by hatred, antisemitism and a life of racism, decided to take their innocent lives. Reed underwood, one of the victims, a 14yearold boy and freshman, had an amazing voice. Is love of music, he was heavily involved with volunteering and he cared about his community and very active in cub scouts and boy scouts. Carrying on the tradition of s family, he was a cub scout in the middle school and he reached life scout. He was preparing for his eagle scout with troop 92 to be held in may. Reed will be missed by his family, especially his younger brother, lucas, who gave a beautiful tribute at reeds service. Reedies grandfather, phil, who was taking reed to the singing contest, also was a victim. Reeds family all lived in the area and his grandparents moved from oklahoma. He met his wife in ponca city, oklahoma. He graduated with a doctorate of medicine from the university of oklahoma in 1972. The whole family became very big sooner fans. He operated Family Medicine practices throughout oklahoma before finally moving with his wife to Overland Park to be close to their family. He continued serving his community as a physician and medical director till the very last days. A third victim, larry lamonto, was arriving at the Village Community almost a mile down the street to visit her mother. She became a victim of bigotry. She worked as an occupational therapist at the Childrens Center for the visually impaired. She spent time working with children and families of those in need. Her daughter, alyssa, said she was a beautiful soul who always thought of everyone else before herself. She was the best mother, wife, sister and friend that anyone could ask for. Sadly, terri, was taken from us just a few days before her 25th anniversary to her husband. Today i rise to pay tribute to these victims. We will never forget them. Our hearts break for them and this Congress Honors their beautiful lives and legacy. Although the events which transpired are evil and will have longlasting effects in our community, they have also brought us together to strengthen the bonds between all of us. Mr. Speaker, my district is a diverse one, demographically. Its a Strong Community with a Strong Community spirit with urban and suburban rural areas. The Third District of kansas is a microcosm of the United States. Mr. Speaker, these hate crimes were shocking to our community as these types of actions were so foreign to us. The days following the horrendous act, though, were filled with love, community and comfort as members of our entire Community Came together to support one another. Hundreds and hundreds of Community Members gathered together for an Interfaith Unity Service at the interfaith jewish center. Vigils were held. Thousands turned out for memorial services. Mr. Speaker, this type of hate and violence has no place in our society, in our kansas community, as many often rally in unified voice and spirit that one act of violence cannot break our bonds and tear us apart. The woman who lost her son and father that day stated something profound. We want something good to come out of this, she said. We dont know what thats going to be so we want people to let us know. Mr. Speaker, i was there a week following the shooting. I saw the reaction following by the community. Mr. Speaker, the entire Third District honors every single human being who has been the victim of racism, discrimination, hatred and evil. We honor them, each and every one of us, by doing our part to turn dark into light and by turning hatred into love. Thank you, mr. Speaker. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from oregon, mr. Blumenauer, for five minutes. Mr. Blumenauer thank you, mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, we have challenges in the United States with the notion of how were going to protect American Flag ships, the capacity to be able in times of need to transport the services we need. Ive been a supporter of the jones act. I think its important to have cargo prrch. I think its important cargo preference. I think its important to manage im interested in other areas that we might explore to be able to make sure that the United States is not at the mercy of other nations in times of emergency. But i will say that i have been dismayed at recent activities to force in the coast guard reauthorization to increase the cargo preference for American Food aid from its current level of 50 to 75 . This is outrageous and its not the answer. The situation we face today is that we require this food to be elivered in american ships, it increases the delay in terms of when the food gets there and we are competing with local community. Mr. Speaker, in an ideal world, we would do what most International Aid countries do when they deliver assistance, they use money to buy local products. This helps support local agriculture and it provides the food when its needed, not months later. The United States primarily delivers surplus commodities that we produce in the United States that are shipped halfway around the world that arrive often too late and it is in direct competition to local producers. It undercuts their capacity to take care of themselves while our assistance gets there too late and it increases the cost of doing so. Now, in times past, the government had reimbursed the cost differential. That was eliminated in the budget control act, so thats gone, and weve had this provision that was snuck in. It was not widely debated. Members of the house and senate did not understand what was going on. Weve had terrific leadership from chairman royce and Ranking Member engel in the House Foreign Affairs committee to try and focus on ways to be able to provide greater flexibility to the United States aid so we can help more people at less cost and not undercut their capacity to support themselves. Mr. Speaker, i am hopeful that my colleagues will take a good hard look at this provision. We need to make sure that this is removed to at least go back to where it was at 50 , but more important, we ought to look at how we provide this food aid around the world. At a time when were providing lavish support to American Farmers and ranchers, they dont need the Additional Support to undercut production of food in some of the poorest and most desperate countries in the world. We ought to stretch those dollars. We ought to make sure that that aid arrives sooner when its needed, and we ought not to have this artificial mechanism at is both more expensive, less efficient and most important it hurts the people that were trying to serve. Theres a bipartisan leadership in the house thats trying to fix this. Working with n. G. O. s around the country and around the world, we ought to roll up our sleeves and do this in a cooperative way and prevent undercutting these poor countries and eliminating the ability to get food to them quickly. Thank you and i yield back. The speaker pro tempore the gentlemans time has expired. Pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today. Because she couldnt make endse meet, she had to take a second job assisting passengers in wheelchairs who need help. Shes been doing this for four years. And during that time, shes received only one raise worth just 80 cents an hour. She doesnt get Vacation Days or sick days or time off with her children. She wants to help her children finish college and they want to finish college so they can be sure if they work hard, that will be a you can follow that on cspan 2. Meanwhile, president obama will also be talking about todays minimum wage vote. The white house says hell be speaking at 3 10 eastern. Well carry his remarks live over on cspan3 and also on cspan2. While the house is in recess, well take you live to a senate hearing. Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul stevens just wrapped up his testimony. One of the witnesses testifying this morning about Campaign Finance laws. Justice stevens was part of the dissent in the 2010 Citizens United case. He was left the hearing. The second panel started. They have been under way for about 45 minutes or so. Live here on cspan. Just to influence the elections in 49 other countries. One donor can dole out doctor 3. 6 million just like this. Consider this, an american citizen working full time, making minimum wage would have to work 239 years to make that kind of money. 239 years. The court has shown a willingness to strike down sensible regulations by a narrow majority and is returning our Campaign Finance system to watergateera rule. The same rules that fostered corruption, outraged voters and promoted Campaign Finance standards in the first place. But our Campaign Finance system was in trouble long before the Citizens United and mccutcheon decisions just picked up the pace. The court laid the groundwork many years ago and i know Justice Stevens mentioned this in the case of buckley vs. Vallejo. It goes all the way back to 1976. The court ruled restricting independent Campaign Expenditures violates the First Amendment right to free speech. In effect, money and speech are the same thing. This is tortured logic and ignores the reality of political campaigns. The outcome is not surprising. Elections have become more about the quantity of cash and less about the quality of ideas. More about special interests and less about public service. We have a broken system based on a deeply flawed premise. Thats why i introduced s. J. Res. 19 last june. It now has 35 cosponsors and i think i believe senator king and senator schumer are both on it. Its similar to bipartisan resolutions in previous congresses. Actually, it started with senator stevens, i believe, back in 1983. So it has true bipartisan roots and is consistent with the amendment that Justice Stevens has proposed. It would restore the authority of congress, stripped by the court to regulate the raising and spending of money for federal political campaigns. This would include independent expenditures, and it would allow states to do the same at their level. It would not dictate any specific policies or regulations, but it would allow congress to pass sensible Campaign Finance reform, reform that would stand constitutional challenges. In the federalist paper number 49, James Madison argued that the u. S. Constitution should be amended only and he used this term only in great and extraordinary occasions should we go with a constitutional amendment. And i agree with him. I also believe we have reached one of those occasions. Free and Fair Elections are a founding principle of our democracy. They should not be for sale to the highest bidder. This effort started decades ago. There is a long, and i might add, bipartisan history here. Many of our predecessors from both parties understand the danger. They knew the corrosive effect money has had on our political system. They spent years championing the cause. In 1983, the 98th congress, senator ted stevens introduced an amendment to overturn buckley, and in every congress rom the 99th to the 108th, senator hollings introduced bipartisan constitutional amendments similar to mine. Enator schumer and cochran continued it in the 109th congress and that was before the Citizens United and mccutcheon decisions. Before things went from bad to worse. The outofcontrol spending before Citizens United has further poisoned our elections, but it has also ignited a Broad Movement to amend the constitution. Mckochon is the latest mis mccutcheon is the latest misguided decision. It wont be the last. Its time for congress to take back control and pass a constitutional amendment. And, again, chairman king and chairman schumer, thank you for holding this hearing. Its very, very timely on the heels of mccutcheon. I appreciate it. Thank you, senator. If our next panel will take your seats ill introduce you. This going to hear from panel in alphabetical order. Mcgann, r. Donald f. A lawyer, previously commissioner of the f. E. C. He served as general counsel for the National Republican Congressional Committee for 10 years. Second is normal ornstein, resident scholar at the American Enterprise institute, wellknown column on Campaign Finance issues. Third is mr. Trevor potter, president and general counsel for the Campaign Legal center. Previously he was a commissioner and chair of the f. E. C. And later served as general counsel to john mccains 2008 president ial campaign. Fourth, ms. Ann rovell, former chair of the california fair political practices commission. Currently vice chair of the federal election commission. And finally neal p. Reiff, who is the Founding Member of the law firm sandler, rief and lamb, and part of the Democratic National committee. Thank you all for joining us today and i welcome your opening states and if you have more lengthy statements, they can be submitted for the record. But we look forward to hearing from you and then we will discuss these issues. Chairman king, Ranking Member roberts and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. Its an honor and privilege, particularly in light of the appearance of former Justice John Paul stevens. Per the committees request, i submitted written testimony jointly filed with another panelist today. Mr. Reef and i are practitioners in the area of Campaign Finance and our views are shaped by decades of experience in advising and representing real people who wish to participate in politics in a legally compliant manner. Although we have similar clients and are not here to represent the views on the clients, one of us represents republicans, conservatives, libry tarians and other democrats. Recently, we coauthored an article that was published in campaigns and elections magazine that explained our views on the good, the bad and the ugly of the current law, such as the Campaign Reform act of 2008. In our article which we have already submitted for the committee we explained much of what many perceived to be the problems in the Current System can be traced by to the underlying statute itself. As we predicted back in 2002, mccainfine gold has been a workhorse where committees have taken a backseat in our Current System. We suggested a different approach, one that flows from a different premise, firmly grounded in our First Amendment tradition, that in order for voters to be truly informed they need to hear directly from the candidates themselves. Thus, the candidates voice should be the central voice in american democracy. In our view, the parties are the best vehicles to assist with achieving that goal. In other words, Political Parties are uniquely situated to echo their candidates message. Critically, our views and suggestions are not designed to transfer relevancy back to the parties for relevancy sake. Recall the plaintiff in buckley vs. Vallejo, senator buckley was not nominated by either of the two major parties and it was precisely that sort of candidate, one outside of that establishment, that felt the burdens of that wave of reform the most. We care first and foremost about grassroots and local activity by ordinary citizens and believe that mccainfeingold, has reached too far into late and local politics and push activists outside parties. It has federalized allstate and local Party Programs which brings you to the 2014 political landscape. Artificially low levels that do not match the rate of inflation thats occurred sin they were first instituted. For example, the 10,000 in state party limits should be if adjusted for inflation about 48,000. In addition to regular inflation, the cost of campaigning has skyrocketed. Particularly due to the cost of television advertising. Other prophylactic measures have been struck by the courts except those that limit Political Parties to effectively assist their candidates. Candidates have struggling to be heard and the committees who have been the candidates natural ally have diminished and has been replaced by s. Pendent super p. A. C. Some claim more disclosure is the answer. Separate and apart from my rocky with mr. Reif in my own view this is not the answer. Campaign disclosure has a limited form from that originally passed but disclosure has had a mixed record in the court, sometimes upheld but often struck or limited. You look at thomas v. Collins, more recently, davis v. F. E. C. , disclosure has its limitations. As Justice John Paul stevens himself said, writing for apple nitty hio, exemplifies the purpose behind the bill of rights. Justice stevens also said, speaking for the court, the freedom to publish anonymously extends beyond the literary recommend, under quote. An advocate may believe her idea is more persuasive if the readers are unaware of her identity and it may be ensure that readers may not presqudge her message because they dont like their proponent. Where the identity of the speaker is an important component over the many attempts to persuade, the most Effective Advocates have opted for anonymity, unquote. We think it will help some candidates to some degree but did not strike limitations on district contributions to candidates and party committees. What was struck by the limit, an umbrella limit that prevented citizens to giving to more than a few handful candidates and party committees. Thus, the impact of mccutcheon, more candidates, including challengers and those that are not seen as safe bets, will have access to additional financial support. Hopefully district contributions will not be part of the select few. The upstart challenge the candidates natural ally, the political party, will no longer have to compete with each other caused by mccain feingold. But this sort of change will not fund Campaign Finance. Mccainfeingold must be revisited. Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. Thank you. Mr. Ornstein. Thanks so much, mr. Chairman. And its really a pleasure to be here to talk about this issue. I want to start by commending senator cruz for his full support of disclosure and i look forward to his vote for the disclose act when it comes up in the senate. I wrote that down myself. I also want to thank senator roberts for putting up the text of the First Amendment, which i read and reread, as i have done so many times and im still looking for the word money in the First Amendment. And i just have to say that if money is defined as speech, then the rights of citizens, as equals in this process, to participate simply gets blown away. Those who have lots of money have lots of speech. Those who have little money have very little or no speech. Having said that, i want to really talk about two larger concerns that are generated by the multiple recent moves that i believe have knocked the pins out from under the Regulatory Regime that has long operated in american politics. I wrote my testimony going back to the tillman act in 1907, but as i reflected on it, it really does take us back at least to the 1830s. And the two things i want to talk about are, first, the corrosive corruption thats caused when you remove the modest limits on money that have existed. And second, a real focus of the hearing, of course, is the efforts to limit disclosure and enable these huge flows of dark money to enter the system without the accountability necessary in a Democratic Political system. As i look through history, what we know is that the focus on corruption, the concerns about corruption and money are not new at all. They go back at least to an attempt in 1837 to prohibit the parties from shaking down Government Employees and giving in giving contributions. As a historian noted, Abraham Lincoln, who i believe was republican, warned that concentrated capital had become, throat, enthrowned in the political system, and he worried about an era of, quote, corruption in high places until the republic is destroyed. I have to believe that if Abraham Lincoln were around today he would be reinforced in that particular judgment. As we went through the corruption in the Grant Administration that led to the pendleton act in 1883, the corruption involving outsized corporate influence on president Theodore Roosevelt that led to the tillman work in 1907, the teapot dome scandal that resulted in the federal corrupt practices act of 1925, the abuse of federal employees that led in 1938 to the passage of the hatch act, the tafthartley act in 1947, the watergate scandal spurring the federal Election Campaign act of 1974 and that was revised, of course, by buckley, and on through the abuses of soft money in other ways that brought about the federal election Campaign Reform bipartisan Campaign Reform act of 2002. It was scandals that led to corruption that led to change. All of that focus was turned on its head by Citizens United, brought as a very narrow as applied decision and then broadened out to basically take away almost all of those protections, at least going back to 1907. And then to mccutcheon. Now, i want to make a couple of broad points particularly about mccutcheon. Despite some of the other focal points, what has alarmed me the most about the mccutcheon decision was Justice Roberts basically now taking corruption out of the equation and the appearance of corruption entirely out of the equation and defining corruption in the narrowest way as a quid pro quo that would only be applicable in a case like abskam or its more popularized American Hustle where you have videotape in exchange for money in return of a favor. That is so far away from the real world. And in particular now with mccutcheon where officials, elected officials can solicit large contributions, something that we try to restrain deeply in mccainfeingold bill, it takes me back to an era i remember well where we had president s clubs and speakers clubs and leaders clubs with access. Give 10,000 and you get to meet with all of the committee chairs. Give 25,000, you could have a oneonone with the speaker. This is a trade of access for money and it leads down a dangerous path and a path that becomes even more dangerous when we dont have disclosure of whos involved with a lot of these contributions and frankly the notion that mccutcheon is going to enhance disclosure was i think blown out of the water by jr. Breyers very compelling dissent. And by Justice Breyers very compelling dissent. Highpriced lawyers, some who are in this room, are working feverishly making sure they get through committees back and forth so we dont have any effective disclosure. Let me end for just a few recommendations for the committee or for what congress can do from now on. First, congress should make every effort to pass the disclose act. Lets get some reasonable disclosure. Second, the senate should hold public hearings and this committee on the dysfunctional federal Election Committee and look to reform it to make it a easonably functional body. Third, for every hearing that we see on the purported scandal at the i. R. S. , which is trying to apply the law now which says that organizations called 501c4s should be exclusively social welfare organizations, we should have a wearing on the real meaning of social welfare organizations and the need to clarify those regulations. Sfourt, the senate should pass a rule to make it a violation for senators or senior staffers to solicit the large conib
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.