    [House Hearing, 111 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                 MARKUP OF H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT, DEMOCRACY IS
                       STRENGTHENED BY CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING
                                  IN ELECTIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the

                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   ----------

                 Held in Washington, DC, Thursday, May 20, 2010

                                   ----------

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

      MARKUP OF H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT, DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY
                     CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS

      MARKUP OF H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT, DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY
                     CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    MEETING

                                   before the
                               COMMITTEE ON HOUSE
                                 ADMINISTRATION
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                 Held in Washington, DC, Thursday, May 20, 2010

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on House Administration

                           Available on the Internet:
       http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/house/administration/index.html

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    58-150 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2010

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON HOUSE ADMINISTRATION

                    ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California,             DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California,
      Vice-Chairwoman                      Ranking Minority Member
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    KEVIN McCARTHY, California
    CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas           GREGG HARPER, Mississippi
    SUSAN A. DAVIS, California
    ARTUR DAVIS, Alabama
                          Jamie Fleet, Staff Director;
                   Victor Arnold-Bik, Minority Staff Director

      MARKUP OF H.R. 5175, THE DISCLOSE ACT, DEMOCRACY IS STRENGTHENED BY
                     CASTING LIGHT ON SPENDING IN ELECTIONS

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 20, 2010

                              House of Representatives,
                             Committee on House Administration,
                                                         Washington, DC
        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 2:35 p.m., in room
    1310, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Robert A. Brady
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives, Brady, Lofgren, Capuano,
    Gonzalez, Davis of California, Davis of Alabama, Lungren,
    McCarthy, and Harper.
        Staff Present: Khalil Abboud, Professional Staff Member;
    Darrell O'Connor, Professional Staff Member; Jamie Fleet, Staff
    Director; Tom Hicks, Senior Elections Counsel; Janelle Hu,
    Elections Counsel; Jennifer Daehn, Elections Counsel; Matt
    Pinkus, Professional Staff/Parliamentarian; Kyle Anderson,
    Press Director; Joe Wallace, Legislative Clerk; Victor Arnold
    Bik, Minority Staff Director; and Katie Ryan, Minority
    Professional Staff Member.
        The Chairman. I would like to call the Committee on House
    Administration to order. Today we mark up H.R. 5175 the
    DISCLOSE Act. The DISCLOSE Act has a simple goal: Letting the
    American people know who is trying to influence our election.
        When the Supreme Court decided the case last January 1, I
    was disappointed in the Court's decision, but I was very
    pleased that the Court, by a vote of eight to one embraced
    disclosures as a way to getting the electorate information
    about election-related spending. Advancing the DISCLOSE Act
    today helps us further that goal. Since the Court's decision in
    January, the Congress has convened six hearings involving 36
    witnesses on topic. Those hearings have informed and enhanced
    the legislation before us today. I hope that the amendments
    offered by members will continue that progress.
        I would now like to recognize our ranking member, Mr.
    Lungren for an opening statement.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Given the
    amount of work that we have before us this afternoon, I will
    try to be brief. I would like to voice my objection and
    disappointment to the process that this bill has been
    presented.
        Mr. Chairman, it, as I understand, does not require
    advanced notice for markups in the rules, but I would hope that
    in light of the revolution of drafting errors and some
    unintended consequences on the health care bill that we could
    have used a better process on this bill. You personally made an
    effort to have a productive debate on the bill and I do
    appreciate that, but I have to object to the way this markup
    has been handled.
        I also note the recent Roll Call article in which a
    representative from the majority said that, quote, ``Whatever
    tweaks the campaign finance bill needs can be made as it
    advances.'' I find that somewhat disturbing since what we were
    talking about is a very delicate matter. It is called the First
    Amendment to the Constitution. It is called political speech.
    It is called as the majority opinion said in the case that we
    are concerned with, the essence of protected free speech in the
    First Amendment. And it just seems to me to be somewhat
    questionable that we would be dealing with it in this way.
        As I understand, the whole purpose of moving a bill through
    committee is to allow the detailed analysis that will fix the
    glaring as well as the hidden problems in the bill. And when we
    move the bill to the floor as much as possible, it is supposed
    to be a finished product, one we can determine with certainty
    what it is and what it is not intended to do. But whether or
    not we agree on the substance of the issue is one thing, but I
    would hope that this committee would be able to put out a bill
    where a debate on the floor argues the substance of our
    disagreements rather than just trying to clarify the content.
        Mr. Chairman, our side only got to the 87-page manager's
    amendment 22 hours before the markup. We have worked very hard
    over this last night to try to see what improvements we could
    make in the bill, but I can't promise we were able to catch
    every problem. We do have a number of amendments intended to
    bring some much-needed clarification to this bill, and I would
    hope that today's markup will address some of these very
    problematic concerns. And once again, I must just reiterate we
    are talking about responding to the Supreme Court decision.
        The Supreme Court decision dealt with the First Amendment
    to the Constitution. It dealt with protected free speech, and
    the essence of that amendment is protected political speech. We
    ought to be very careful how we handle it and not handle it in
    a hasty manner. And at least, according to articles that have
    appeared, this has obviously been the subject of debate on your
    side of the aisle and some question as to whether we should go
    forward. I guess the decision has been made that we are going
    to go forward.
        So we will work with you on this, but I just must express
    my disappointment when we are dealing with such an important
    subject to the democracy of this Nation that we have to handle
    it in this way.
        I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Anybody have any opening statements they would like to
    make?
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I
    have asked to put my full statement in the record.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to note that I think,
    actually, the process on this bill has been pretty extensive. I
    mean the Citizens United decision was handed down by the Court
    January 21. There have been six hearings on the decision since
    that time, three by the House Administration Committee, one by
    the Judiciary Committee, one by Financial Services and one by
    the Senate Rules Committee. We have had a total of 36
    witnesses, I think as you have mentioned, and 17 of those
    witnesses testified in front of this committee. Mr. Schumer and
    Mr. Van Hollen released a framework for their bill February 11,
    and the bill was introduced April 29, and the bill before us
    really follows the outline that was released 2 months earlier.
        It has been 3 weeks since that time, and I think there has
    been a substantial amount of time to review the draft as well
    as the manager's amendment, which we will stay here as long as
    necessary to go through today. And in fact, we have
    incorporated a number of the ideas raised by the minority that
    were good ideas, clearing up the ambiguity as to whether U.S.
    citizens who are employees of a foreign corporation may
    voluntarily contribute to their employers PAC. They can and we
    have clarified that. It was a good idea. It clears up the
    coordination language to make sure that the mere sharing of
    legislative or policy positions with a candidate is not
    coordination and that was a good suggestion.
        It modifies the disclaimer rules for radio and TV so that
    there can be a hardship exemption if it would take up too much
    of the content time and that was a good suggestion. It conforms
    the definition of public communication to that which is in the
    Federal Elections Campaign Act and cleans that up.
        So that was a good suggestion. And we will have amendments
    here today, some of which I think will probably we are going to
    agree with. So I think this is the process the way it works. I
    remember when I was in law school, I was told that when you
    have the facts, argue the law. When you have the law, argue the
    facts. When you don't have either, argue a lot. And sometimes
    that happens here as we try to make our points but I think we
    will have a productive markup today. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Anybody else have any
    opening statements?
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I was
    just going to say that I don't think my constituents have had
    difficulty exercising their free speech rights since this
    decision came down. We really have heard from hundreds of angry
    constituents who were calling in, but none of them have written
    in support of the ruling. They have been concerned about two
    things, and I hope that we will have an opportunity to really
    discuss these two things. Making sure special interests don't
    take over our elections and making sure voters know who is
    really behind the ads that they see.
        I know, Chairman, you have often said people want to know
    who is paying and what they are saying and that's important for
    all of us. So I think it is a kind of a truth in advertising
    and we need to go through it. We need to explore what the
    concerns are and I think that the process that we have had--
    sometimes the process is shorter than we all would like, but we
    have had good hearings.
        We have heard from a number of witnesses expressing
    concerns and criticisms. I don't think anybody felt slighted in
    the hearing that was here before, and I know that we have
    addressed many of the concerns that have come forward in the
    manager's amendment and taken their concerns into consideration
    as we enhance the bill.
        So I am glad we can have an opportunity to put foremost in
    our mind voters first by passing this DISCLOSE Act today, but I
    think we are going to have a very robust discussion and I look
    forward to that.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Anybody else? Hearing none,
    I will now call before the committee H.R. 5175. Without
    objection, the first reading of the dispensed with and the bill
    is considered read and open for amendment at any point.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The Chair now offers an amendment in the
    nature of a substitute which is before the members. Without
    objection the substitute is considered as read.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The substitute before you is a result of the
    hearings this committee has conducted and the valuable
    bipartisan feedback we have received from these hearings. The
    substitute contains two improvements that are a direct result
    of the feedback we have received from the minority witnesses
    and the Republican members of this committee. First, the
    substitute contains a hardship exemption to the mandatory radio
    and TV disclaimers that if communications are of such a short
    duration and it takes up too much time of the entire
    communications, you will be able to pursue an exemption to the
    requirements.
        Mr. Lungren and Mr. Harper raised this issue and it was a
    perfectly legitimate issue. So I included a provision that
    would direct the Federal Election Commission to authorize
    regulation to provide for that exemption. You have a 10 second
    ad and it takes 4 seconds for the disclaimer. They can apply
    for a hardship exemption 30-second ad. I believe that my
    friend, and he is my friend, Mr. Lungren, said that they timed
    a 14, 16-second disclaimer. You now can apply for an exemption
    and I am sure that we will receive one so that the ad doesn't
    take up--you get your message across rather than who is on the
    line of people that are saying it.
        Second, the substitute revises a section requiring public
    dissemination of a covered organizations as public, independent
    expenditures. This substitute requires covered organizations
    who have maintain an Internet site to post on the site a
    hyperlink to the Federal Election Commission site where the
    disclosure reports are filed. I agree with the minority
    concerns that requiring a covered organization to develop,
    operate, and maintain complicated reporting instructions at
    their own expense may be too complicated and too costly. By
    allowing them to just link directly to the FEC, this provision
    will relieve the expense of time and money. This means that a
    person can just click on a link on an organization Web site and
    go directly to the FEC where the disclosured information is.
    This eliminates an organization from assigning someone to
    constantly update their own Web site and the money that it
    costs to have that done.
        The substitute makes other improvements. It adds a new
    section of the bill allowing United States citizens employed by
    United States subsidiaries of foreign countries to form and
    make voluntary contributions to separate forms or PACs. The
    employees of a United States subsidiary can now contribute to a
    PAC so long as that PAC is not controlled or directed by
    foreign interests.
        The substitute also makes other technical amendments that
    have been made to clarify the purpose of the coordinated
    communication sections. It does not interfere with the bloggers
    or the Internet and clarifies the confusion in the original
    bill. These changes also preserve current FEC regulations on
    coordination that allows for safe harbors and firewalls. The
    DISCLOSE Act was not intended to interfere with true grassroots
    lobbying of Federal officials on legislative issues from being
    caught up in our campaign laws. If a constituent group asks for
    our help or advice we should be able to help and advise that
    group without that group being disqualified from making a
    contribution so long as that help and advice have nothing to do
    with our own campaigns. This substitute improves the DISCLOSE
    Act, and I urge the members to support it. And I ask if there's
    any debate on this substitution, substitute act.
        If not, then I would ask are there any amendments to the
    substitute.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. We have a number of amendments on our side of
    the aisle. So I would like to present the first of my
    amendments. I think it is amendment No. 1. It should be at the
    desk.
        The Chairman. Okay. This is amendment No. 1. I recognize
    the gentleman for 5 minutes.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, the amendment that I have would strike
    section 2 of the bill that has the purported findings of this
    committee with respect to the bill. There are some of the
    findings that I think refined I can certainly agree with. There
    are others that I find to be contentious. And by containing
    some of the findings and not containing others in similarly
    situated circumstances, I think it goes well beyond the
    committee's record representing an ideological statement rather
    than a summary of the facts before the committee.
        For instance, the findings related to government
    contractors state that government contracting is an activity
    particularly susceptible to improper influence and the
    appearance of improper influence as opposed to other kinds of
    conduct. Yet not a single one of the witnesses in either of our
    hearings gave examples of this being the case. We do not have
    any records--cases that point to improper behavior in
    government contracting.
        Moreover, if a government official were to exact pressure
    on a government contractor to make an independent expenditure,
    as is suggested in the findings, that behavior is already
    illegal under current criminal statutes. It does not set the
    predicate for our making changes in the law here. The Court's
    decision in Citizens United did nothing to change procurement
    guidelines, the role of the Inspector General's office, the
    role of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct or many
    of the other safeguards Congress has already put in place to
    prevent corruption. The findings of section 2 of the bill
    therefore do not really go to the need for a bill nor to
    anything that was presented to this committee, therefore
    anything that we absolutely considered.
        Rather, it is a selective parade of horribles, suggesting
    that which could happen under current law and, in fact, these
    things cannot happen under current law, that is, if the current
    law is prosecuted.
        Secondly, it seems to be somewhat selective in that it
    refers to those contractors, but it doesn't refer to those who
    represent public employees in terms of their direct
    negotiations with the government. And if there is a suggestion
    of a particular problem of potential corruption in terms of
    government contracting, that would certainly lie also with
    respect to those negotiating on behalf of a large number of
    people for essentially taxpayers' dollars that are far greater
    than the threshold that is established in this bill.
        Regarding the findings on foreign corporations, the bill
    makes broad statements arguing that Citizens United opened the
    door for foreign companies to influence American elections
    through their American subsidiaries. However, foreign nationals
    have always been prohibited and continue to be prohibited from
    making decisions affecting American elections through their
    subcommittees.
        Currently, all decisions of the nature, that is, of a
    political nature, must be made by Americans within the
    subsidiary and cannot be influenced by the international
    governing board. I think that is good law. I think that is good
    policy. That is already good law and good policy. It is already
    prohibited. That is, that kind of activity in contravention of
    that policy it is already prohibited under current law, a
    position long held before the Citizens United and was not
    addressed in any way by before the courts.
        So the Citizens United case doesn't change it at all. Many
    of the findings include factual and legal conclusions that go
    beyond the committee's record and represent statements rather
    than a summary of facts before the committee. Now, we might be
    able to sit down and agree on them, but frankly I would think
    that a committee ought to at least have a record that supports
    the purported findings. It is difficult enough now to get the
    courts to seriously consider findings contained in laws passed
    by the Congress, but where you have findings that have no
    support in any record whatsoever, why would anybody question
    whether courts don't take those into consideration in terms of
    interpreting the law?
        It is telling that the substitute amendment the majority
    provided us late yesterday afternoon struck portions of the
    findings and added others that were not previously found in the
    bill. I can only ask if we were going to hold this markup next
    week whether we would find other findings added and the current
    findings extracted. Mr. Chairman, I would just say the findings
    do not reflect the facts as we know them, certainly not
    contained in any record of hearings in this committee, and I
    would hope my colleagues would join me in striking this section
    of the bill. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any other additional
    debate on this amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I cannot support the amendment
    and I think actually the disagreement about the findings that
    our friend and my colleague from California has outlined really
    reflect or underlying disagreements about the bill itself and I
    do think that having findings and I commend the chairman for
    tightening them up in the manager's amendment. I thought that
    was helpful.
        Having findings is helpful to the Court. The finding lays
    out the history of campaign finance laws, why the proponents of
    the bill believe it is necessary, why Congress has a compelling
    interests to act and I think that if the courts see this, that
    will be helpful to them in understanding the intent and the
    rationale for the bill itself, understanding that there is a
    disagreement about the underlying bill. And I know we have many
    amendments; so I will not go on at great length, but I did want
    to respectfully disagree. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Any other debate? Hearing
    none--Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, I think Ms. Lofgren
    really laid a little bit of that out. I mean, this really is
    just hiding the reason that we are moving forward with this
    bill, and I think that is what is problematic. I rather
    appreciate my colleagues saying--they certainly agree--I am
    certain they would agree with something like the American
    people have a compelling interest in knowing who is funding
    independent expenditures and electioneering communications to
    influence Federal elections. I would hope that there is no
    disagreement with that. There are a number of other statements
    here that really highlight the disclosure and the disclaimer
    requirements that have been affirmed again and again by the
    Court.
        That is really the reason for laying out these kind of
    basic commonsense ideas that are part of this. So I think we
    could probably wordsmith some of this, and I think that the
    manager's amendments begin to deal with that, but in this kind
    of legislation, I think you really do have to lay out why are
    we doing this, and that is what is clear in the bill. Thank
    you.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Any additional debate on
    the amendment to the substitute?
        If not, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor signify by saying aye. All those opposed
    no? No.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it. The noes
    have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment.
    Any further amendments?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment I think it
    is labeled amendment No. 2.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Yesterday we received a letter from eight former FEC
    commissioners pointing out that one of the most glaring
    problems with the so-called DISCLOSE Act is that it, quote,
    ``abandons the longstanding policy of treating unions and
    businesses are equally.''
        Now, I know we have heard rhetoric in this committee that
    that is not the case with respect to the bill, but in fact, it
    is, and I would hope that those on the other side of the aisle
    who have said we believe that our effort here is to make sure
    that everyone is treated equally--that has been the comment
    made by the authors of this bill in public testimony or at
    least public statements, that is, the press conference that
    they have had.
        And while the Supreme Court's opinion in Citizens United
    overturned bans against both corporations and unions, and that
    is very clear, this legislation seeks to regulate one while
    largely ignoring the other. Given that unions are some of the
    largest political donors to the political system, particularly
    on one side of the aisle, this admission in the bill suggests a
    partisan motivation for the legislation and it undermines the
    level playing field our campaign finance laws generally try to
    ensure. That is, if you read the letter from the former FEC
    commissioners, they outline the history of the laws dealing
    with campaign finance and they outline the fact that
    historically initially the laws with restriction were aimed at
    corporations at a time in our Nation's history when unions did
    not have that strong a position.
        When unions did develop in such a way that they were an
    active player in the economic field, the laws then caught up
    with that and basically treated in this area of the law both
    unions and corporations in the same way. That has been
    continued with both legislation passed by the Congress and with
    the regulatory schemes that have been established by the FEC
    since its existence. And so when you have a decision by the
    Supreme Court, which, because it is determined constitutional
    law and the application of current law, also continues the
    equal treatment of unions and corporations, it seems to me
    incumbent upon us to do the very same thing as we try to
    respond to that decision.
        This amendment would provide that the prohibition on
    expenditures by government contractors would apply equally to
    labor unions who have collective bargaining agreements with the
    government. Government employee unions have the same motive and
    opportunity for corruption that corporations do under the bill,
    and I hope the members of the committee will adopt the
    amendment. And why would I bring up the question of corruption?
    It is because the Supreme Court has made it very clear that the
    only way that we can have constitutionally valid restrictions
    on political free speech is when the principle of the potential
    of corruption or actual corruption involves itself, and so in
    the bill we have before us we are saying that those who are
    corporations that have contracts with the Federal Government to
    the extent of--I believe in your substitute you have kept the
    bar at--threshold at $50,000--that that is permissible because
    of the potential of corruption, that very section may very well
    be rendered unconstitutional by the Court because we, in fact,
    closed our eyes to the very same argument with respect to labor
    unions dealing with at least that amount of taxpayer dollars.
        In other words, the Court would look at our legislation as
    not being based on a constitutional foundation but rather for
    us deciding that there are favored and disfavored
    organizations. The Court spoke to that in its opinion. And all
    I am saying is if we believe truly with the findings and then
    with the provisions of the bill that government contractors as
    entities are particularly--or their activity with the
    government in the political environment is particularly
    susceptible to corruption, similarly that argument can be made
    with respect to unions representing members collectively who
    look to receive tens of thousands if not millions of dollars in
    taxpayer funds as a result of negotiations.
        So, Mr. Chairman, this is done for two reasons. One is I
    think it is the right thing to do, and secondly, if you are
    going to avoid having this section of the law being declared
    unconstitutional on its face, not as applied but on its face, I
    think you have to do this because the rationale then is an
    arguable one before the Court. We have said that in both
    situations where you have a direct relationship--a contractual
    relationship on the one hand and a negotiating relationship
    which ends up in essentially a collective bargaining agreement
    or contract, you have the potential for corruption and
    therefore you overcome the otherwise existing prohibition
    against having any restrictions on the exercise of free speech.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the time.
        The Chairman. You are welcome.
        Any additional debate on the amendments?
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I don't agree with the
    amendment. I want to just explain why. Although there has been
    a lot of rhetoric on the subject the legislation actually does
    apply to both corporations and labor unions even though, I
    would add, the Citizens United never discussed labor unions
    because the case before them was corporations, but the
    extrapolation would be that they would include labor unions.
        And I think they would. I mean, the rationale was the same
    and that is why labor unions are included in the bill. But to
    say that a bill that covers labor unions if they are Federal
    contractors should change the definition of what a Federal
    contractor is, I think, is just a mistake and wrong. Under
    existing law Federal contractors defined to include any person
    who enters into a contract with the United States, and that
    would be corporations and labor organizations.
        So if you have a labor organization that is under contract
    to do a task, they would be covered. But I don't think it is a
    fair analogy between labor unions and contractors in the
    context of the amendment. The amendment--the section was
    enacted to deter government contractors from rewarding or
    punishing Federal candidates with the power to influence or
    reward those contracts. But in the case of a labor union, no
    Federal official can reward a union with a collective
    bargaining agreement. A union can only be formed after a
    majority of the employees vote to adopt one, and the process of
    negotiating a collective bargaining agreement involves a long
    give-and-take and ultimately a vote by the members to accept a
    contract.
        The unions use voluntary dues paid by the employees they
    represent to represent them, and by contrast the government
    contractors might use taxpayer dollars to elect those who would
    reward them with more contracts.
        So I think this amendment would actually extend more
    burdens on labor unions and corporations. I don't think that is
    fair. I don't think it is needed. I don't think it is just. And
    I don't support it. And I would yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Is there any additional
    debate?
        Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Maybe I have to ask
    Ms. Lofgren a question here. First, let me go to Mr. Lungren
    because from the standpoint this bill deals with government
    contractors, the fear that something can be contrived because
    they have got a contract with the government. What Mr.
    Lungren's bill is saying is treat the labor unions who have
    collective bargaining agreements with the government the exact
    same way. So it is fairness. Now, if Ms. Lungren is saying
    that----
        Mr. Lungren. Ms. Lofgren.
        Mr. McCarthy. If Ms. Lofgren is saying that----
        Ms. Lofgren. That is why they put our names----
        The Chairman. I get them confused.
        Mr. McCarthy. Both from California.
        But if you are saying a union that gets their raises and
    gets their money from the taxpayer can't do the same thing that
    a government contractor does, I am very confused by that
    because what Mr. Lungren is saying, they both have contracts.
    They are both getting their money from the same place. So let's
    just make a level playing field and a fairness question. I was
    concerned--and if you would take a question--your statement
    that a contractor would do something wrong to get the contract,
    but a union cannot do that or influence in any way that
    somebody else couldn't do some type of influence.
        Ms. Lofgren. If the gentleman would yield, I made several
    points. One was how unions adopt their contracts and negotiate
    their contracts, but the further point I made is that the----
        Mr. McCarthy. Could I ask you one question on that
    because----
        Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
        Mr. McCarthy. If they negotiate their contract, whom do
    they negotiate their contract with? Would these be elected
    officials in any way?
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        Mr. McCarthy. Never elected officials?
        Ms. Lofgren. Not in my experience but----
        The Chairman. They negotiate with a contract association.
    They don't negotiate a contract with any elected officials.
        Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. McCarthy. I yield to Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. I am glad to hear this because evidently now
    unions can stop making contributions because it won't matter
    who is elected and elected officials have no influence
    whatsoever on their appointees or in Congress we have no effect
    on laws that govern union conduct or negotiations or the
    universe of money that is available. I mean, I never said that
    corporations and unions are the same thing. What I said is they
    are similarly situated with respect to the argument of
    corruption and the argument of corruption is the only basis
    upon which the Supreme Court tells us you can put restrictions
    on political speech.
        That is the core of my argument. Not that a corporation is
    the same as a union. I am saying they are similarly situated
    with respect to the question of potential corruption. And I
    find it difficult to believe that anybody could seriously argue
    against that.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        Mr. McCarthy. I reclaim, but I yield to Ms. Lungren--Ms.
    Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. We get along, but not that well.
        Mr. Lungren. My wife is at home.
        The Chairman. We have got enough problems. You are starting
    more of them.
        Ms. Lofgren. Assuming that the gentleman is yielding to me,
    I would just note that unions use voluntary dues paid by their
    employees to represent them and also to elect people who they
    agree with. In contrast, the government contractor would be
    using taxpayer dollars to elect those who reward them with more
    contracts. I think it is quite a distinction and I would just
    add that if you take a look at what the agenda is of labor
    unions, it is really a mistake to assume that it is just about
    the conditions of employment. That is a collective bargaining
    right, but labor unions are responsible in large measure for
    supporting the existence of weekends in America, the
    establishment of a minimum wage, overtime laws and the like.
        Mr. McCarthy. Ms. Lofgren, if I could reclaim my time, many
    times elected officials determine whether that work is even
    going to be union based. So there is a direct correlation
    between this and I just believe if we are going to move
    forward, especially with the history of this bill, if you read
    the press with how it is being developed how, it is being
    pushed, the quotes from the DCCC chairman of how this has to be
    done before the election, I just think the American public
    would feel much greater comfort if it had blinders on, that it
    treated everybody equally that had any influence whatsoever.
        So from one standpoint, taking politics out of it would
    probably be the healthiest thing we do inside this body, and
    the idea that people are being treated fairly and equally, I
    think, has a much stronger argument than any potential out
    there, and I support the amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate
    on the amendment to this substitute?
        Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I will be extremely brief, Mr.
    Chairman. The problem with the amendment, Mr. Lungren, that you
    and Mr. McCarthy are making, you are kind of mixing apples and
    oranges. You are saying that the government's interest is
    preventing any entity that somehow has a policy ambit with the
    Federal Government, that the Federal Government is making
    decisions on which they have a policy interest, that that
    somehow creates a corrupting influence.
        I don't think that is what the Supreme Court said in
    Citizens United. If the Court had said that, well, my goodness,
    any group that has legislation before the Congress could be
    prohibited from making contributions. What this particular
    section of the bill attempts to do is fill the very narrow
    question of contracting, and no one has really answered Ms.
    Lofgren's argument that the way that a corporate contract forms
    with the government is fundamentally different from the way a
    union contract forms. If a union contract forms through the
    collective bargaining process, as opposed through the
    government tapping someone on the shoulder and saying you get a
    contract, they are not similarly situated.
        The argument that is being advanced by our friends on the
    minority side would essentially say that if anybody has a
    policy interest that there is a conflict of interest. Surely
    the Court didn't mean to say that.
        Mr. McCarthy. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Sure.
        Mr. McCarthy. Taking that argument about that undue
    influence, take a step back before that contract is given.
    Could a union have undue influence upon an elected official to
    make that contract a union-based contract and can only go to a
    union-based contractor? Could you see----
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Reclaiming my time, Citizens United,
    I think, makes a very, very narrow point about corruption. It
    doesn't make the point that any potential political decision
    could be corrupt because special interests could influence it.
    If that were the case, you could say that doctors couldn't give
    contributions because we just had a health care bill or that
    doctors couldn't give contributions because Congress could deal
    with medical malpractice liability.
        What I think the Court is doing is making a very, very
    narrow focus on what kinds of activity tend to routinely and
    regularly trigger corruption. And I think the Congress can
    certainly make a judgment that the process of forming a
    contract is something that is fundamentally and qualitatively
    different than Congress simply casting a vote. So I am making a
    fairly narrow point--I am backing up Ms. Lofgren's argument
    that all the Congress is doing, all this committee is doing, is
    singling out contracting, which is a much narrower thing than
    Congress just expressing a policy interest.
        The argument that both of you were making on the minority
    said is that, well, Congress could do something that was pro-
    union as well as pro-corporate therefore it could be unduly
    influenced, that is a much wider sweep than I think Citizens
    United permits but I will yield to you to address that.
        Mr. McCarthy. Just to that narrow point, I mean, our point
    is the same point. If the Court only went after contractors,
    how could those contractors influence--how else could they be
    influenced? If I happened to be a contractor and I was union
    based only or maybe I was in a union shop, if an elected
    official determined that that job was only one way or the
    other, it narrowed out the ability for other people to bid on
    it. So I understand your point where the Court went narrowly,
    but if you are going narrowly, all we are asking for is those
    unions involved in that predicament. So from the standpoint
    that you did with contracts----
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Let me reclaim my time, just to
    finish these points because we have a lot of amendments. Ms.
    Lofgren is a making a very particular point. How a company
    comes to have a government union is a largely discretionary
    measure. It is based on some element of the political process
    making a decision. Someone could conceivably believe that the
    Chair of an Appropriations Committee, that someone else who was
    a political player in Congress could influence that decision.
    How and whether a particular union forms is not going to be
    based on whether any politician makes a discretionary judgment.
        It will be based--unless I completely misunderstand the
    process it will be based on what the members of that union want
    to do or what the potential members of that union want to do.
    So there is a factual difference in how a union contract forms
    in how a corporate contract forms.
        Am I right; Ms. Lofgren? So, because of that, Congress is
    entitled to treat apples and oranges differently. There is
    nothing in Citizens United that addresses the broad concern
    that Mr. Lungren put on the table that while Congress has a
    policy interest that may side with unions, therefore Congress
    being improperly influenced. If that is the standard, then my
    goodness, I mean, Congress could conceivably tell any group of
    American citizens you can't contribute.
        I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. I yield my time to Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, let me ask my friend from
    Alabama this question then. Would he see a distinction between
    the amendment I have offered and an amendment which would have
    a similar equal treatment to labor unions of government
    contractors?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Well, I don't see a distinction
    because--and I think this may be where we just have a
    difference of opinion, Mr. Lungren. I think our capacity under
    a Supreme Court president to regulate speech happens to
    continue to be still be very narrow. There is no question that
    Congress could not pass a provision saying, for example, that
    doctors couldn't contribute because Congress deals with issues
    in which they have an interest. Congress can exercise its power
    to regulate speech only in very specific circumstances that are
    more likely than not to lead to potential corruption----
        Mr. Lungren. Exactly my point.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama [continuing]. And I think what
    Congress is saying is the contracting process for corporations
    happens to factually meet that standard.
        Mr. Lungren. Let me ask you this: If you are, in fact, a
    union which represents the vast majority of employees of a
    government contractor, don't you have a similar interest as
    your corporate entity does in securing a contract from the
    government? What is the difference? The only way you are going
    to get employed and you are going to get paid is if your
    company successfully completes that contracting negotiation
    with the Federal Government and you have the very same
    interests in ensuring that is done, that same interest that we
    are arguing here under lies the potential for corruption. I
    would be happy to yield----
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. To follow the old lawyers rule, keep
    saying the same thing over and over, if you are right the first
    time--
        Mr. Lungren. No, I have articulated the difference between
    what the amendment I have is, which is represented, unions
    which are representing public employees versus the unions that
    would be representing employees of government contractors.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I will repeat the point that I have
    been making. The difference is I think, unless I completely
    misunderstand the case law here, Congress has limited sets of
    powers to regulate speech. The only times we can are when there
    is a finding in effect that one set of relationship has a
    greater propensity for corrupting influence than another, and I
    think this body and this committee can make the judgment that
    the process of how a corporation gains their contract is
    different substantively from how a union forms. That is a
    factual difference.
        Mr. Lungren. I understand, we disagree. You believe there
    is an essential difference if you happen to be a corporation.
    We believe that both a corporation and the union, which would
    benefit from those contracts or benefit from the negotiations
    under government decisions that would be made by elected
    officials has the same potential for corruption to the extent
    that that exists.
        We could argue about whether it exists or not, but to the
    extent it exists, you are arguing that this committee has the
    right--and we do have the right to make that determination. All
    I am saying is the net result is that you do not have equal
    treatment of those two and we could argue and we have been
    arguing as to whether or not they ought to be treated
    differently, and the decision here, if my amendment goes down
    is that they will not be treated the same because I guess the
    view on your side of the aisle is only the potential for
    corruption exists; with the corporations it doesn't exist with
    the unions, and that is a determination you can make, and I
    just don't happen to agree.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. If the gentleman would yield for just
    10 seconds are.
        Mr. Harper. I would be happy to yield, Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. I am not saying, and I don't think
    that Ms. Lofgren is saying is that the difference that we think
    corporations are inherently more corrupt than unions. I am
    certainly not saying that. The point that I am making is
    Congress has to tie its regulatory power to a specific
    propensity of corruption. It is not based on whether it is a
    corporation or union; it is based on how the relationship
    forms. What you just outlined is a broad policy interest, a
    broad policy interest in unions that Congress may have, but
    that is not what we can regulate.
        Mr. Lungren. All I would say is no, based on any record
    that we have here, you can come to either conclusion. We have
    no evidence whatsoever in our hearings of any propensity for
    corruption in--it is a value judgment that we are making that
    per se that is a more potential corrupting situation than other
    situations. All I am saying is if you accept that, I believe
    you can find the same basis for finding in the situation of the
    unions as I have articulated, that is all.
        We have no record whatsoever in this committee, zero, no
    testimony whatsoever of evidence of corruption that would
    justify this, so we are able to make that judgment. All I am
    saying is you folks have made the judgment that corporations in
    that situation tend to be--have the greater potential for being
    corrupt than do unions, and I understand that, I just disagree.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Harper. I would be happy to yield, Ms. Lofgren.
        Mr. Lungren. I am filing for divorce right now, if you
    won't support my amendment.
        Ms. Lofgren. I just think it is important to note, and I
    think it is clear, but it has gotten maybe a little muddled in
    the course of this discussion. If you have a contract with--
    with contractor ``X'' to provide equipment, you are covered. If
    you have a contract with a labor union to do training under
    some government program, they are covered as well. If you are a
    contractor, you are covered no matter whether you are a
    corporation or a labor union. I think the gentleman's amendment
    goes one step further, and I, for the reasons I won't
    reiterate, I disagree with it, but I also think that Mr. Davis'
    point is also well taken, and it is one that we will mention on
    some other amendments which is the need to narrowly craft this
    measure.
        The Court actually talked a great deal about, really they
    dismissed the corruption basis for controlling speech under the
    FEC in favor of disclosure, which is, you know, I am not sure I
    completely agree with the decision but that is the decision we
    are living with because it is the decision they made. So I
    thank the gentleman for yielding and allowing me to clarify my
    comments.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate
    on the amendment to the substitute? If not the question is on
    the amendment. All those in favor say aye, opposed no. In the
    opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Lungren. I would like to request a roll call vote,
    please.
        The Chairman. The gentleman requested a roll call vote. I
    will ask the clerk to call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [no response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are five, the yeas are three. The noes have it.
    The amendment fails. Any further amendments?
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman I have an amendment at the desk.
    Mr. Chairman, I think this amendment that I have here,
    amendment No. 3, is something that I think is very simple. It
    will make us consistent. If there is a potential for conflicts
    of interest to arise, if government contractors or TARP
    recipients made political contributions or expenditures, the
    same potential for conflict is present with organizations that
    receive government grants. They may want to influence the
    government officials who provide their grants. They may make
    political expenditures to do that, just like a government
    contractor.
        Recipients of government grant funds like ACORN should not
    be able to use government funds to influence future grant
    awards. This amendment would change the bill to treat
    government grantees as the bill currently treats similarly-
    situated government contractors and TARP recipients, and I urge
    my colleagues to support this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I would like to recognize Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that,
    although I am sure well intentioned, the amendment is flawed
    and overbroad. In fact, it doesn't--it says who receives
    Federal funds other than an individual receiving Federal funds?
    What does that mean? Is that a biotech company that gets an R&D
    tax credit? I mean, it is very, very broad, this language; as a
    matter of fact, I think it is overbroad and it is so broad that
    I think I don't think a court would sustain this as a narrow
    approach to disclosure. It doesn't even define what Federal
    funds are. Is it disaster relief? Would it be flood control
    projects? Would it be rebates to keep American jobs at home? I
    mean, clearly, this is not directed merely to TARP funds or to
    grantees and I would point out, although the minority has never
    been a fan of ACORN, ACORN no longer exists, so that is
    obviously not going to be someone receiving funds.
        So I think that this amendment is really contrary, even to
    the minority's witnesses at our hearings who argue that the Act
    we have before us is already overbroad, this makes it even
    broader. It would sweep organizations into the ban for no
    apparent reason at all, and I would yield to Mr. Davis.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Let me thank the gentlelady for
    yielding, because I think she made one of the most important
    things this committee has to consider, if there is any hope of
    this legislation being upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
    Congress cannot adopt the policy that there is a potential
    conflict of interest that because Congress has to vote on
    something that affects an entity, that that group can't try to
    influence Congress.
        That is such a broad and sweeping proposition, the Court
    would not uphold it for a second. And while it sounds
    attractive from a public policy standpoint, or certainly from a
    political standpoint to say that TARP recipients can't make
    contributions as a practical matter, the only basis for that
    would be some kind of generic conflict of interest rationale.
    And as Ms. Lofgren just pointed out, that is an overly broad
    interpretation of our capacity and to regulate----
        Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time, I would note also that the
    Federal funds in the amendment itself are not limited to TARP
    funds, it is any Federal funds. So obviously, it could be tax
    credits, it could be anything.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. If I could ask the gentlelady one
    question, one obvious example, we are about to vote on the jobs
    bill tomorrow. One of the issues in that jobs bill is whether
    or not carried interest will continue to receive a certain tax
    treatment. Would anyone logically suggest that Congress could
    prevent individuals or entities that benefited from the carried
    interest provision that they couldn't make contributions? We
    could go on and on, no one would make that argument.
        Ms. Lofgren. Reclaiming my time. This is an amendment that
    we should not support, although I certainly do not question
    that the author's motivation is way overbroad. And I think not
    crafted narrowly, and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment? Mr.
    McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. If I could just ask Mr. Davis, based upon
    what you said earlier about the very narrow, and then listening
    to Ms. Lofgren come back and say--and said the TARP the way the
    bill reads is very broad; is that your interpretation, then,
    this bill has gone too far? That it would be not upheld by the
    Supreme Court based upon your earlier comments?
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Well, if the gentleman is yielding.
        Mr. McCarthy. I will gladly yield to you.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Ms. Lofgren, I think, makes the point
    again exactly right, whether or not the provision singles out
    TARP recipients, which I don't think it does. I think that is
    one example of the bill's ambit. If the bill's ambit aims at
    ``recipients of government grants,'' again, what is the broad
    basis behind Congress's actions?
        If the theory is that people who benefit from government
    action can't contribute, that is such a broad rationale that it
    would cover the people arguing about carried interest right
    now. It would cover the people arguing about the R&D tax credit
    right now. That could not be a permissible basis for a
    congressional action. And if there were a specific effort for
    some reason to single out TARP recipients, logically I don't
    think that that would pass even a rational basis test because
    of the lack of difference between TARP recipients and other
    entities who were affected by government action, there has to
    be a narrowness to what Congress does, singling out
    contractors.
        Mr. McCarthy. You think this bill is narrow enough, I am
    very concerned reading the bill that maybe where you're
    arguing, you are making a very good argument that this wouldn't
    be held up constitutionally.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Well, I don't want to be the only
    person talking here, but just to quickly respond, Mr. McCarthy,
    I want to get out of here too. But just to respond to your
    point, you are switching between the broad and the narrow. The
    consistent concern I am advancing is we really don't have a lot
    of leeway to act. And our leeway to act is based on specific
    particularized findings that one kind of relationship is likely
    to have a certain impact that we can attack.
        Ms. Lofgren. Does the gentleman yield.
        Mr. McCarthy. Gladly.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would note if you take a look at the
    amendments starting on page--well, the first page line 11 who
    receives Federal funds, and we talked about what our Federal
    funds, it could be anything. During the period during which the
    day it was supposed to supply to receive such ends on the
    applications dah, dah, dah, dah, it is a prohibition on
    expenditures, unlike the rest of this bill, which is a
    disclosure.
        The Court directly said, you can't prohibit speech, that is
    what this whole Citizens United decision was about, and they
    steered the Congress to disclosure. So, you know, this is way,
    way beyond what the underlying bill does. In fact, we are not
    going to do any--I didn't raise a germaneness issue, but its
    prohibition on expenditures may not actually even be a germane
    amendment.
        Mr. McCarthy. If I could reclaim my time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Certainly.
        Mr. McCarthy. I think the gentleman is saying here though,
    if you can go after from a narrow point contractors, you are
    now looking at taxpayer money to grants that have the same type
    of influence that you made the whole argument for contractors,
    so it is still in a narrow perspective, and Mr. Davis makes
    another argument that makes me look at the entire bill that
    maybe the bill you are going to pass is not going to be upheld
    within in the Constitution regardless.
        So I would argue for the point for the amendment in support
    of it and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment to the
    substitute? If not the question on the amendment all those in
    favor say aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, and the noes
    have it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
        Any further amendments?
        Mr. Lungren. I have amendment number 4.
        The Chairman. Recognize the gentleman.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Interestingly enough I do agree with the gentleman from Alabama
    about the necessity of us narrowly drawing any restrictions
    that we have here. And although the gentlelady has said this is
    all about disclosure, we do, in fact, have prohibitions against
    participation depending on how much foreign ownership interest
    there is. So we go beyond disclosure in this law. But let me
    just say, I, therefore, am concerned with the breadth of the
    current language in this bill that treats American subsidiaries
    of foreign companies that employ thousands and even hundreds of
    thousands of American workers as foreign nationals.
        At the same time, I think we ought to be very, very clear
    that foreign governments and sovereign wealth funds are not
    able to improperly influence our election. I think we can do
    that, but not be as broad as the section in the bill that I
    seek to amend is. This amendment replaces section 102. What it
    replaces it with is a strict prohibition on any foreign
    national directing or controlling political activity, thereby I
    would be codifying current FEC regulations.
        One of the points we have made is the concerns expressed in
    this committee by members and by some on the panel that
    appeared before us was this undue foreign influence. And we
    tried to make the point that it is already illegal. And some
    have made the point well, wait a second, it is articulated
    specifically by FEC regulations.
        So I have taken the FEC regulations and incorporated that
    as statutory language, and that is the essence of this
    amendment. It expands the definition of foreign national to
    include any entity majority owned by a foreign government or
    foreign political party. The amendment is in direct response to
    some of the suggestions made by my friend, Mr. Capuano, when we
    were discussing this as how they would try and deal with this
    issue.
        And the language I use is already settled law as
    interpreted by the FEC. And I think it goes directly to the
    point that members were concerned about, but does it a way that
    is not overly broad, and therefore protects Americans who want
    to participate in the political process, and in the way that
    the associational rights recognized in the Citizens United case
    provides.
        So I would hope that you take a serious look at this
    amendment. It is a good-faith effort to try and protect against
    the concerns everyone here has expressed, but at the same time,
    not be overly broad as our friend from Alabama has suggested.
    And I couldn't find better language than that which the FEC
    already has by way of regulation.
        This will make it a statutory prohibition in these regards.
    And with that, I would yield back. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman.
        The Chairman. You are welcome. Any additional debate on the
    amendments?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am--I can't support this amendment, and if
    you take a look at the language itself, I mean one of the
    things that we need to do as legislators is to be particular
    and especially when dealing with the First Amendment to not be
    vague, because if you are vague and if what you crafted is
    vague, it is unenforceable and then it will be
    unconstitutional, and I think that is the problem with the
    amendment before us.
        Section 3 beginning on line 15 is a prohibition of a
    foreign national, I assume that would include illegal permanent
    resident of the United States, to directly or indirectly
    participate in the decision-making process of any person. Well,
    what does that mean? If you are a legal permanent resident and
    you indirectly participate in the decision making of a State
    election-related activity--I just think it is
    unconstitutionally vague, I don't think anyone would know what
    we are talking about.
        And I do think that the language referenced by my colleague
    from California on page 2 expanding the definition of it is not
    a substitution, it is an additional definition is a good-faith
    effort to try and get at the issues raised by Mr. Capuano at
    our hearing, but I think it is fatally defeated by the
    unconstitutionally vague language on the prior page starting at
    line 15.
        So, you know, one of the things we need to make sure we do
    when we craft this, we know there are going to be challenges to
    this statute if it becomes law. I think it is important that we
    craft a bill that can be become law and that can withstand
    challenges. And I think adoption of this amendment would
    certainly move us away from that goal. And so I would urge that
    we do not adopt the amendment.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate to that? Mr.
    McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
    yield my time to Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. I understand the gentlelady's disagreement to
    us offering amendments here that would change any of the
    language that has already been presented to us in the last 24
    hours, but I find it peculiar to argue that my language is
    vague when, as I said, I have taken this language directly from
    the FEC regulations which have, as far as I can tell, withstood
    any challenge.
        Now we are making up language in terms of this bill, what I
    mean by that is it is language that will be subject to
    interpretation by the Court. So if there's any suggestion that
    any uncertainty would prevail, it would be with the language
    that is before us presented in the substitute amendment. What I
    have tried to do is bring clarity in it, using language very
    specifically narrowly drawn by the FEC that deals with this. So
    I understand if the gentlelady wants to disagree with me, but
    the argument the gentlelady makes is--it turns my language on
    its head. I have used language that already exists, that has
    been through review that applies, and therefore, one would
    believe that this would give greater guidance to those who
    would be subjected to it.
        And one of the things that I would hope that we would try
    to do, and we are going to pass a law knowing that the
    regulations by the FEC are not going to go into effect before
    this election is at least give people a chance to express their
    First Amendment rights. I mean, if the idea is to chill any
    activity, I understand. But if the idea is to narrowly draw to
    have the protections that we believe are necessary, but at the
    same time, allow those areas of political participation that
    are guaranteed under the Constitution, I would think that the
    gentlelady from California would join us in trying to ensure
    that people are able to express themselves to the extent
    allowed under the Constitution, rather than create new language
    that will be vague in the sense that it will be challenged and
    we know the FEC wouldn't have time to bring up new regulations.
        At least when we pass a bill that uses the language they
    have in their current regulations we stand a fairly good chance
    that they might accept that language. So I thank the gentleman
    for his time and yield back.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my
    time.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    amendment to the substitute? Ms. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, just trying to
    clarify from Mr. Lungren. As I understand the language refers
    to indirectly participating and what does that mean, does that
    come from the FEC language?
        Mr. Lungren. The short answer is yes. Excuse me, the short
    answer is yes.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Where does it say to you, what
    does it mean to you? That is FEC language you are saying?
        Mr. Lungren. It is a way that the FEC has tried to get
    around the possibility that you could give direction to
    somebody to make the decision when you are not supposed to make
    the decision. In other words, influencing it ``indirectly.''
    What is prohibited you can't do indirectly. Trying to cover
    those situations where there was a sneak attack.
        Mrs. Davis of California. And in the manager's amendment,
    am I right to conclude--that language is not used in the
    Manager's amendment.
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Correct?
        Mr. Lungren. I don't believe so. No, I used FEC language.
    FEC regulation language.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    amendment to the substitute? If not the question on the
    amendment. All those in favor say aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, and the noes
    have it. And the amendment is not agreed to.
        Any further amendment?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have amendment number 5.
        The Chairman. The gentleman's recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, we will see how
    well we do on this one. This is a simple amendment to provide
    that labor unions must certify that no dues were received from
    foreign nationals prior to making political expenditures.
        In your opening statement, Mr. Chairman, at our May 11th
    hearing on the legislation, you said we do not let foreign
    citizens vote in our elections, we should not let them have any
    financial interest in them either. Well, I think I agree with
    you, foreign citizens shouldn't have financial interest in our
    elections, whether they are foreign citizens that have a part
    of a foreign corporation or foreign citizens that are part of a
    union with interest in the United States.
        This amendment would, again, in my humble opinion, seek to
    treat corporations and unions even handedly under the bill. It
    would require that labor unions certify that no dues were
    received from foreign nationals prior to making political
    expenditures, the same requirement this legislation places on
    other organizations. If we believe because of the restrictions
    we put on foreign nationals in other situations to directly
    spend on U.S. elections, they shouldn't be able to use either
    corporations or unions as intermediaries or conduits that is
    the simple purpose of this amendment.
        I think it is drafted to achieve this purpose, I hope you
    would consider it fair, evenhanded and directly to the point. I
    would hope I could get members to support this, and with that,
    I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I think this is a mistake, and I will tell you
    why. First, I think that this is a tremendously burdensome
    requirement on unions and it is a special burden to unions that
    would not apply to corporations with the same zeal. The
    manager's amendment applies, I think, rather evenhandedly to
    both labor unions and corporations as well as trade
    associations and nonprofit advocacy groups. I think trying to
    place more stringent rules on only one entity, labor unions,
    this really isn't very fair. Just think about how this would
    work. And you have got a labor union, maybe an international
    union that could have, like, a million members, and maybe a
    handful of members who are not U.S. citizens. This would
    prohibit the speech since the Court has said money is speech of
    that organization unless there was this very burdensome
    preclearance procedure that I think would not withstand court
    scrutiny.
        I would note also that the--there are some, and we know
    this because we have discussed outside of this committee, there
    are, in fact, some individuals who are in the United States
    without their proper documentation or, in some cases, they are
    documented, but they are not legal permanent residents. They
    may be in unions, but I think to burden the vast majority of
    the union members, and to really prevent the speech, because of
    that, would not be fair, and I don't think it would----
        Mr. Lungren. Would the gentlelady yield.
        Ms. Lofgren. Let me finish my thought and then I will
    certainly yield.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay.
        Ms. Lofgren. I would like to also say that I believe that
    legal permanent residents do participate, can contribute under
    current FEC rules and their U.S.--let's check on that, but I
    think that is the case. Certainly, nonresident aliens may not
    and I--this would be changing the law.
        Mr. Lungren. Could I----
        Ms. Lofgren. Certainly legal residents can participate,
    they can walk precincts and have opinions and the like. So I
    think even the--the burden here, I think, is disproportionate.
    I don't want to go on at too great a length because I know that
    we have votes, but hopefully, I have made my viewpoint and----
        Mr. Lungren. Will the gentlelady yield?
        Ms. Lofgren [continuing]. I will yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. Lungren. I appreciate that. The point I am trying to
    make is, this is exactly the burden that is placed on the
    corporate CEO. A corporate CEO is required under the bill
    before us to certify prior to the time that they would
    participate in the political speech allowed under Citizens
    United would have to certify that they do not have a 20 percent
    ownership by foreign nationals. Think about what that requires
    the CEO to do. The CEO would have to try and somehow divine who
    owns every share of stock in the corporation.
        And as pointed out in the letter we received from the
    former FEC commissioners, that could change like that because
    of the way electronic purchasing and selling of stocks takes
    place. And it changes every day. And so, the burden that you
    have indicated would be very difficult for a union is the very
    same burden that we are placing on a CEO. And the CEO does this
    under penalty of perjury therefore having criminal sanctions
    imposed. If it is as burdensome as you suggest, then we are
    basically telling a CEO it is impossible for you to do this,
    therefore you can't do it, therefore your corporation cannot
    participate in political free speech as allowed under Citizens
    United. All I was trying to do was use the same sort of
    requirement.
        Ms. Lofgren. If I may reclaim my time. The provisions in
    corporations applies to individuals, and I don't believe to
    shareholders. We will get into that at greater length further
    on in the bill. But I would just like to note that labor unions
    don't decide who employees are, the employers decide who the
    employees are, and to put the burden on unions in this way, I
    think, is unreasonable. I just don't think it is possible.
        Mr. McCarthy. Would the gentlelady yield for----
        Ms. Lofgren. If I could finish my sentence and then I will
    be happy to yield.
        I think that the bottom line is that this amendment would
    really prevent every union in America from exercising their
    First Amendment rights to make contributions or independent
    expenditures. And in doing that, it would disenfranchise
    certainly not the handful of noncitizen members, it would
    disenfranchise all the citizen members. So this would have a
    very pernicious effect, and I will yield to the gentleman.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you. I listened to your statement that
    so my question to you is does a corporation get to decide who
    their shareholders are, in your statement?
        Ms. Lofgren. No, of course not.
        Mr. McCarthy. So wouldn't that apply to the same logic that
    you just laid out from a union's point of view?
        Ms. Lofgren. We will get into the foreign ownership
    discussion, there are other amendments on that later in the
    bill. I want to talk about this amendment right now. I want to
    do it quickly because we have to go vote and then come back and
    finish, but this won't work, this will not work and I can't
    support it and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. I think the gentleman from California made
    some good points in the last issue and he did, he didn't ask
    for roll call, which is your problem.
        On this one though, it is just the opposite. I think you
    raise a good point on the 20 percent requirement on
    corporations, the way to address it is to fix that, not to add
    excessive burden to an entity that can't do it. I don't know
    how many donors you have, I don't even know how many I have. I
    cannot certify that all my donors are U.S. citizens. I can
    certify they tell me that they live in the United States. And I
    think that the problem you raise is a valid point, the solution
    is not. And if you would like to work on another solution, I
    would be happy to work with you as we move forward, because I
    don't disagree, a corporation can't know. And I do think the 20
    percent level as I said before is questionable, but at the same
    time there is some line and at some point a corporation should
    be required at some point in time, maybe not the immediate
    moment that they spend the money, maybe once a year, again
    there has to be some reasonable period of time when a
    corporation can say, at this period of time we are not owned by
    foreign entities.
        Again, we can argue with the definitions, but I am happy to
    work with you. This particular solution though takes a problem
    that have I think rightfully identified and instead of solving
    the problem it simply imposes the problem on another entity. I
    don't think that is the solution.
        Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Capuano. Absolutely.
        Mr. Lungren. The other concern I have in there is this
    throws you into the area the Court has been very leery about,
    and that is prior restraint because when you call for a prior
    certification as we have discussed.
        Mr. Capuano. I am happy to work with you on it.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay.
        The Chairman. Any other discussions on the amendment to the
    substitute? If not, we will hear the question in the amendment.
    All those in favor say aye.
        All those opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair----
        Mr. Lungren. May I have a roll call vote?
        The Chairman. Will the clerk call the roll.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. In the opinion of the chair, the noes
    have it--in the opinion the noes have it, and the amendment is
    not agreed to. We are now going to recess to go--we have three
    votes on the floor for those of you who don't know we are not
    voting tomorrow, but coming here after the last votes and if we
    can get done some people might get home tonight. We are on
    recess until the last vote which will probably be about another
    half hour.
        [Recess.]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I would like to call the meeting on House
    Administration back to order and ask if there are any further
    amendments. Ms. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman. I appreciate your giving me this time at this
    particular time as well.
        We all like win-win ideas and I hope I have one for the
    committee to consider courtesy of the Sunlight Foundation. This
    one increases transparency while reducing administrative
    burdens on the FEC. Under current law, those who sponsor
    independent expenditures can handwrite the forms and send them
    as PDF by e-mail or fax them, the matter of the spending
    amount, and this counts as an electronic filing.
        But no matter how they are sent, handwritten forms can be
    hard to read and take longer for the FEC to make public on its
    Web site, that can take up to 48 hours for them to be able to
    do that. This amendment makes sure that expenditures in their
    communications over $10,000 will be filed electronically and in
    a way that the FEC can post right away on its Web site.
        The DISCLOSE Act makes sure that voters know who is behind
    the ads they see, and this would make sure that they have that
    information as soon as possible. With this amendment,
    organizations will file their forms electronically, using the
    FEC's Web site form, pre-downloadable filing software or using
    the FEC-approved commercial software. Actually many of them
    already do this and they are their complete forms shows up
    literally in minutes of being filed. This type of transparency
    won't be difficult to implement within 30 days since it merely
    expands and adopts a successful existing tool.
        I appreciate the fact that my colleagues have taken a look
    at this and I think that I would certainly like to hear from
    them, but I think that we have been able to structure something
    that really does work. We will definitely save money because it
    is a lot harder, it will be a lot easier than having who are
    hand transposing information. And the best part, of course, is
    that it is going to be correct, more likely so because it is
    filed in a way that comes directly from the forms that be done.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady. Any additional debate on
    the amendment to the substitute?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is the kind of
    reasonable, responsible, effective, simple-to-enforce
    legislation that I think we should have on a bipartisan basis
    and I congratulate the gentlelady for doing it. This makes
    sense, it is not that--it is not an undue burden, it just makes
    it more transparent and that is what I hope that we could be
    doing more of is trying to see where we can get greater
    transparency with ease. It is user friendly and it will help
    public disclosure and I support it.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate to the
    substitute? If none so ordered if not the question on the
    amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed?
        The ayes have it and with that the amendment is agreed to.
        Is there any further amendments?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. I know the next one is in order Mr. McCarthy,
    he will be back shortly, so if we could go to number 8, which
    is my next amendment in order.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This goes
    to the question of what many of us have, I think, reached at
    least some agreement on, and that is that we would like to
    have--we would like to have parties and the candidates of the
    parties closer together more responsible for one another. And
    what I mean by that is the laws that we have seen over the last
    number of years appear to have, whether intended or not
    intended, given a rise to a greater influence by those not
    connected directly to campaigns or connected to the parties.
    And I would like to see a closer connection. And one of the
    ways of doing that is allowing greater coordination.
        Members of the both parties on the committee have stated
    support for allowing parties to spend in coordination with
    candidates as one way to have a counterweight to the outside
    spending. The bill's current approach to this problem, in my
    judgment, is somewhat confusing introducing new language in
    definitions to an already difficult area of the law. And I
    really don't understand the need for eight pages of confusing
    language unless the majority could convince me otherwise. This
    amendment cleans up the problem with a simple repeal of the
    existing dollar amount limitation.
        It would replace sections 103 and 104 with repeal of
    limitations on the amount of political parties that their
    committees may spend in coordination of the candidates. We are
    not hiding anything, we are saying it is coordinated. The party
    and the candidate are coordinating. As it is now, there is some
    very severe restrictions in some cases; frankly, you can't even
    call the party and tell them, hey, don't do that, it is bad for
    me, that is, in essence, coordination under the law.
        This is a simple straightforward amendment in response to
    the problem that Democrats and Republicans on the committee
    recognize as an issue. I would hope that the committee might
    adopt this amendment, and with that I would yield back the
    balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment? I,
    myself, Mr. Lungren, I do like this concept, I just cannot be
    supportive of amendment in the bill, but I do want to and will
    continue to work with you to try to get this done at another
    time, and another place, in another way. So I----
        Mr. Lungren. I think I thank you.
        The Chairman. No, you should thank me because I will work
    with you. I am a party chairman, by the way, in the city of
    Philadelphia. I understand the burden has shifted so that
    people can influence an election by putting a whole lot of
    money into a State party, and then let them come on back and
    blow the limits that we are about to have. I do appreciate
    that, and I do thank you, but again, I reluctantly do have to
    be against this amendment. Is there any additional debate on
    the amendment? If not the question the amendment, all those in
    favor say aye.
        Any opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the chair the noes have it, and the noes
    have it. And the noes have it and the amendment is not agreed
    to.
        Any additional amendments?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. McCarthy is still not here.
        The Chairman. It is okay, tell us what number.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Harper. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, this is will be
    amendment number 10. If there is anything that this hearing
    process has taught us, it is that this bill is far from clear,
    Mr. Chairman. The authors of the legislation say it does one
    thing; the experts say it does another; the majority's own
    witnesses have said it will be up to the FEC to decide what the
    language means. And yet another of the majority's witnesses say
    that it would be next to impossible for the FEC to promulgate
    regulations before the November elections.
        And a perfect example of that would be the fact that
    Citizens United was passed on January 21st of this year and we
    have yet to hear any word on how those regulations might have
    been adopted in regard to that. But the bill as written is
    going to impose civil and criminal penalties on speakers
    without them having any notice that their behavior may be
    against the law. What that means is that rather than exercising
    their first amendment rights, speakers are just going stay
    silent, this will have a chilling effect.
        Making this bill effective in 2011 insures adequate time
    for instructions and regulations to be developed and court
    challenges to be heard without the fear that speech will be
    chilled due to this unclear legal obligations that are set
    forth. It also ensures that the bill will not be used to
    manipulate the outcomes of the 2010 elections. And I do urge my
    colleagues to adopt and support this.
        Mr. Lungren. Will the gentleman yield for a moment?
        Mr. Harper. I will.
        Mr. Lungren. We have had a number of elections rather
    fiercely contested primaries in the last couple months. In
    fact, this week is very instructive. Is the gentleman aware of
    any undue influence from corporations or unions utilizing this
    new freedom that they are have.
        Mr. Harper. Reclaiming my time, I am not aware of an
    example, things have seem to have worked appropriately.
        Mr. Capuano. Would the gentleman yield for a question?
        Mr. Harper. You are aware of some issues. I will yield.
        Mr. Capuano. How would you know?
        Mr. Harper. Well, we have heard no reports.
        Mr. Capuano. No reports, but nobody is required to disclose
    anything at this point.
        Ms. Lofgren. Actually, I think there are some records if
    the gentleman would yield.
        Mr. Harper. I would be glad to yield, Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am not an expert on what is going on in
    Arkansas, but I understand there have been some sort of a
    shadowy, negative advertising that is not disclosed and not out
    of the political parties, but that is secondhand knowledge on
    my part, and I thank the gentleman for yielding. I think,
    clearly, if the gentleman would continue to yield then I won't
    ask for my own time.
        Mr. Harper. If I may, reclaiming my time, if I may finish
    up.
        Ms. Lofgren. I am sorry, I didn't realize I interrupted.
        Mr. Harper. This is clear that it appears to me that the
    only thing this will do is create--certainly create confusion
    for the 2010 elections, and I think it will have a negative
    impact on these, and we do know that ultimately at some point
    the FEC will put forth its regulations on this particular bill
    if it is passed. And there is certainly nothing to be gained by
    rushing forward. This is a situation where we would be better
    off if we allowed the FEC time to do what they need to do. We
    know what we have been told, that there is no way they will
    have the regulations in place by this November election. With
    that, I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any additional debate
    on the amendment?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I will be brief because I know
    that there are other amendments but I think--I hope that this
    gets enacted and goes into effect as soon as possible. I just
    have a completely different viewpoint and I think our varying
    viewpoints on the effective date of the Act probably reflect
    our viewpoint of the decision itself.
        I think that the lack of disclosure will have a negative
    impact on elections, and I think most of the American people
    share that view. And so I really--I hope that we can get this
    markup done today and that we can take it to the floor and that
    we can enact it and the President and the Senate can act, and
    the President can sign it and we can get this done so it is in
    place for this election as the American people hope, and I
    yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentlelady, any additional debate
    on the amendment to the substitute?
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. I yield to Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. I was curious as to if anyone knows whether
    organizations like the Sierra Club, the National Rifle
    Association, groups like that, which I believe are covered
    under provisions of this law, would have their speech chilled
    in any way between now and the election if, in fact, we don't
    have clarification by way of regulations.
        And, you know, we keep talking about corporations, and I
    remember when we had everybody testify in that first panel,
    actually, we looked it up and every one represented what was
    legally a corporation. I mean, I think we better understand, we
    are not just talking about big, you know, Federal contracting
    corporations in America, we are talking about little types of
    associations that happen to be incorporated, or I guess you
    could call National Rifle Association a large one. Sierra Club
    is a large one. We look left and right, and I think we ought to
    understand what the vagaries of the law would create here if
    you have this uncertainty. And there are people who do connect
    with those organizations because of a shared sense of purpose
    or a political idea.
        And we ought to be aware that we are talking about a whole
    host of different kinds of associations that yes, are
    corporations under the law, but they are in the minds of most
    people associations. And if we create an uncertainty between
    now and the Election Day, they may very well not have the
    opportunity to express their First Amendment rights as
    suggested by the Supreme Court. So I thank the gentleman for
    yielding and I just hope that we will understand what happens
    if we in good conscience pass this knowing that the FEC is not
    going to have any opportunity to truly come up with regulations
    to advise people. So I thank the gentleman for yielding, I
    yield back.
        Mr. McCarthy. I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman, any additional
    amendment, Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. I want to make clear I associate myself with
    the comments of Ms. Lofgren, because I do want this enacted
    quickly, and I would love to work out my misclarifications or
    miscommunication in the bill as we are trying to do. I mean,
    any bill you pass always has some questions left when it is
    done. But I want to be clear from my perspective, as one Member
    of this House, if I could find a way to legally and
    constitutionally prohibit all outside groups from participating
    in my election, I would.
        I think the elections should be between the candidates and
    the voters period. I can't find that way. And so therefore, if
    this has the unintended consequences of chilling out some
    people, I hope it chills out all, not one side, all sides. I--I
    hate the concept of faceless, nameless people who don't live in
    a district from participating. It is the law, it is the
    Constitution, I can complain all I want, but that is the way it
    is. I just want to be clear from this perspective I have no
    problem whatsoever if anybody wants to work with me to find a
    way to keep everybody out, including the parties--including the
    unions, Parties--how do you say it that in English? Parties. If
    I could find a way, I would do it.
        Mr. Lungren. Is that where you park the car?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes, it is as a matter of fact. The
    stenographer is going to have--there is an R in there
    somewhere. We don't need that extra letter either, in our
    language. So I just want to be clear about that. I think there
    is a respectful difference here, but I am not trying to hide
    from it one bit, so if we could keep all outside entities out
    of every election, if I could find a way, I would do it and do
    it happily.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Is there any
    additional debate on the amendment to the substitute? Hearing
    none, the question on the amendment all those in favor say aye.
        Those opposed say, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes
    have it.
        Mr. Harper. Mr. Chairman, I would request a recorded vote.
        The Chairman. I ask the clerk to call the roll please.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No.  The noes are 5, the ayes are 3 the
    amendment does not pass.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any further amendments? Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, sorry for the delay.
    This amendment is number 6, sorry for the delay.
        The Chairman. I recognize the gentleman.
        [The information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This kind of
    clarification amendment, this bill's current language requires
    corporations to certify that they don't violate any of the
    foreign national provisions of the legislation before they make
    any donation, contribution or expenditure. While the majority
    added language in the manager's amendment that stated nothing
    in this Act should be construed to prohibit a corporation from
    creating a PAC, the new language does nothing to change the
    requirement that an organization must certify they don't
    violate any of the foreign national provisions before they can
    act.
        Under the language of the manager's amendment, they may
    create a PAC but without the proper certification the CEO of
    the company can be prosecuted for making contributions or
    expenditures from the PAC. And this is true for every PAC, not
    just those who status is affected by the new definition of
    foreign national.
        Moreover, the manager's amendment does nothing to change or
    define the word ``donation.'' The word is not defined in the
    existing statute, and can easily be interpreted as requiring
    prior certification for any contribution to a charitable or
    civic organization, not to mention a contribution to a State or
    local campaign or candidate.
        This amendment would narrow the scope of the bill to where
    it belongs, money spent from general Treasury funds in
    connection with the Federal election. It would provide that
    charitable and civic donations as well as PAC contribution and
    expenditures may be made without a prior certification
    regarding foreign national status. This speaks to something
    that I think all members would argue is a problem, and I urge
    my colleagues to adopt this amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. This Republican
    amendment could align with our manager's amendment. Since the
    PACs are restricted to only accept contributions from American
    citizens, there is less of a need for prior certification, and
    there is less of an argument that requires prior certification
    for charitable and civic donations to be deemed unnecessary, to
    protect the American elections from foreign influence. This
    amendment is a commonsense improvement to the bill, and I
    support it and I ask my colleagues to vote for it.
        Mr. Capuano. Don't get used to it.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment?
    Hearing none in favor of the amendments signify by saying aye.
        Any opposed, no. None so ordered the amendment is agreed
    to.
        Okay. Any further amendments?
        Mr. McCarthy. Further amendment, I believe this is number
    7. While I am on a roll, Mr. Chairman, I thank you, currently
    union members serving in the Federal Government have the
    opportunity to take part in a government-administered payroll
    deduction program to pay their union dues. With the recent
    changes in the law, funds administered through this government
    program may now be used for political expenditures.
        Mr. Chairman, one of the most consistently followed
    principles across our government is that government funds
    should not be used to subsidize political activity, and
    government employees should not be involved in political
    activity on the government's time.
        Now principle is violated if the government collects and
    distributes funds that may be used for political expenditures.
    This amendment would provide that no funds obtained by a union
    through a government administered payroll deduction program may
    be used for political expenditures, I urge its adoption.

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Any additional debate on this? Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I would just note that it is not
    the government's money, it is the payroll deduction of the
    employee, the union member and I think that this would really
    discriminate against labor unions when the bill has gone to
    great lengths to treat corporations and labor unions the same
    and I would urge opposition to the amendment.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate to the amendment? The
    only concern I would have with this is if I am a painter, and
    have a contract to paint this room, and I paint this room and
    the United States Congress pays me, and I am a union painter
    that would then say that I can't make any contributions to
    anybody who runs for office the way I read this. And of course,
    we are constantly held to free speech rights belonging equal to
    unions as to corporations. So I don't--I don't agree with this
    amendment.
        Mr. McCarthy. Well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your comment
    and the intent maybe I can work with you further on it. It is
    not to deny the person, it is just to not have government
    collecting and using government money to collect that, as much
    as we can't have the private sector be able to do it as well.
    So maybe there is some better language we can use to protect
    that.
        The Chairman. I would love to work with the gentleman to do
    that. Thank you.
        Any additional debate on the amendment? If not, the
    question is on the amendment, all those in favor say aye.
        Any opposed, no. In the opinion of the chair--I took you
    for granted.
        Mr. McCarthy. You never said.
        The Chairman. The question is on the amendment. All those
    in favor say aye.
        Those opposed say, no. In the opinion of the chair the noes
    have it. The noes have it.
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, can I have a roll call vote?
        The Chairman. Request a roll call vote? Will the clerk
    please call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        Mr. Gonzalez. No.
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. The noes are 5 the yeas are 3, the
    amendment does not pass.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Any additional--any further amendments?
        Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the
    desk, number 9.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McCarthy. I want to go back to my earlier one, this is
    a clarifying one, consistency, you are going to like this one,
    I am introducing this amendment in the interest of consistency
    and clarity within the law. As we all know the current
    threshold for candidate PACs and political committees to
    itemize contributions is $200. Rather than creating a new
    arbitrary number further convoluting our already muddled
    campaign finance law, this amendment seeks to provide a uniform
    number after which every donor will have to itemize disclosures
    across the campaign finance system. Groups or individuals
    should not have to hire a lawyer to participate in the
    electoral process, if other members of this committee have
    reasons why we should be creating a new itemized threshold
    outside the current law I would be interested to debate and
    hear it, but absent that I think we should actually adopt it.
    Adopt the standard already in use for candidates in political
    committees, making the system easier for individuals to
    understand.
        The other rationale is part of our debate and reason for
    the bill is greater transparency. This would allow the current
    consistency of $200 to be consistent throughout. And I think
    this amendment will simply and clarify and I urge your
    adoption.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Any debate on the
    amendment? Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Just to clarify, you are talking
    about just the minimal that is listed, you would certainly list
    anything in addition, anything over that.
        Mr. McCarthy. Currently, the bill wouldn't itemize until
    you hit $600, but you or I would itemize at 200. So I am just
    saying let's keep it at the greater transparency within this
    bill at 200 instead of raising that to 600.
        The Chairman. The only problem, sir, I have with that is
    that it punishes the small people. If I have a little civic
    association and I want to give them $500 to do a trash cleanup
    or beautification in the neighborhood, they would then have to
    declare that. And anything over the $200 limit they would have
    to declare that, that is why we put the $600 limit because a
    lot of these small groups don't request large money. Once they
    request the large money, then they can't contribute to a
    candidate.
        Mr. McCarthy. All we are saying is when you itemize the
    contribution, you are reporting it. The FEC decided that $200
    was all of our limit. Now we are crafting a bill that says we
    need greater transparency because of what is going on, and we
    need to have this bill done before the next election. So the
    people to know. I listened to Mr. Capuano making sure. All I am
    saying is in this bill that you are voting for $600, why
    wouldn't we keep the same limit that people decided upon
    everywhere else? What we are doing with the bill is raising it
    higher so people can do more. I think greater sunshine is
    always better and we already have it out there at 200. So why
    would we put one level somewhere else and other people at a
    different level? 200 has been decided, it is easier for people
    to understand because it is consistent throughout.
        The Chairman. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman makes some
    good points, but I am glad to hear that after every Republican
    witness who we have had at these committees basically argued
    for no disclosure whatsoever. I am glad to hear that you are
    for disclosure, does that mean you plan on voting for the final
    bill?
        Mr. McCarthy. As you know we are marking it up. How do you
    know what the final bill looks like? What I am telling you
    right now, I am willing to work with you and make this bill
    better. But in that same hearing, I brought this issue up. We
    had that discussion, and all I am saying to you if we have
    found that $200 is good for all of us----
        Mr. Capuano. Well, reclaiming my time. I understand your
    argument, it is a fair argument and raises some good points,
    but it just seems a little disingenuous if on one hand you
    argue against all disclosure, and on the other hand you argue
    for more. And I didn't reach this compromise number so don't
    get me wrong, I would love between now and the time this bill
    comes to the floor to find out where the numbers came from.
        I don't--I think it is a fair point, don't get me wrong. At
    the same time I am a little hesitant to vote for the amendment
    at this point in time because I would love to know if the
    gentleman is in favor of disclosure, which if that is what he
    is, I am with him. But if he's not for disclosure and is only
    playing a political game, that raises a few concerns. I guess I
    will have to wait until the final bill to see----
        Mr. McCarthy. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. If the gentleman
    would yield just for one second.
        Mr. Capuano. I certainly would.
        Mr. McCarthy. Part of the concept, I think you are marking
    up the bill and making the bill better. If I am proposing an
    amendment that clarifies it at 200 that gives it greater
    disclosing, I think that shows. If I would not vote for my own
    amendment, then I would be doing what you are saying. I will
    gladly tell you I am voting for this amendment. I think it is
    consistency, it is clarity and it is not confusing, and it is
    greater openness. $200.
        Mr. Capuano. Reclaiming my time, then I guess I would
    probably vote against the amendment now, but if by the time it
    gets to the floor no one knows we have several more
    opportunities to amend this bill before it gets to the floor, I
    will be happy to work with them on a consistency item to make
    sure that we are all for the same degree of disclosure.
        Mr. McCarthy. If the gentleman would yield. I respect your
    comments, but as you know, getting amendment on the floor in
    this Congress is much more difficult than using the committee
    process to improve it because you could maybe get it amended
    back the other way. But getting an amendment through the Rules
    Committee I have not been so successful this term.
        Mr. Capuano. Well, reclaiming my time. I wasn't successful
    for 8 years. And so hence, I understand and I feel the
    gentleman's pain. Nonetheless, I would be happy to coauthor an
    appropriate amendment at the Rules Committee, once we decide
    whether we really are for disclosure or not and we can get an
    answer--I can get an answer that tells me where the $600 came
    from because the gentleman does raise good points, but I also
    have to withhold my support at the moment until we can find
    more common ground.
        Mr. McCarthy. Just one last point to the gentleman.
        Mr. Capuano. Go right ahead.
        Mr. McCarthy. It is much easier to pass an amendment inside
    this committee than it would be on the floor. I would gladly
    respect your vote on the floor, but if we could take politics
    out of this and--I know we smile--if we could think about
    crafting any bill and take this out of it, the more consistency
    we have, the better it is to understand to the American public.
    If the American public has already said out there and there has
    been many debates long before the FEC has decided that $200 is
    the itemized number, we are creating confusion to everybody
    else if, in other predicaments were making it 600. That is
    raising it instead of lowering it.
        Mr. Capuano. Reclaiming my time. The people who are filing
    this are not filing 200, $200 applies to us, not to them. So
    therefore these are new filings and there is no confusion in a
    new filing. That, actually, I would think they should be happy
    that they get 600 bucks, I actually thought you'd come in with
    an amendment to raise it to 6,000. That would have been more
    consistent with the arguments I heard during the hearings, and
    you might have gotten my vote but not now.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    amendment to the substitute? If not the question is on the
    amendment, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
        All those opposed, no.
        Mr. Capuano. Not at the moment.
        Mr. McCarthy. I would ask for a roll call.
        The Chairman. I ask the clerk to call the roll, please.
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. No. The nays are 4 the yeas are 3, the
    amendment does not pass. Any further amendments?

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. McCarthy. I have got one more to try at you. I have two
    more, just one more. This is 11 A, one of the concerns brought
    up at our latest hearing with this legislation unintentionally
    regulates speech on the Internet.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield for clarification.
        Mr. McCarthy. Sure.
        Ms. Lofgren. That is the one that begins with the end of
    Title 1.
        Mr. McCarthy. Let me verify what we are looking at. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much.
        Mr. McCarthy. You have it? Okay. It is 11(a). The Internet
    is one of the greatest opportunities for citizens to voice
    their opinion in a new kind of digital town square. Blogs,
    online news sources, and e-mail newsletters are great ways for
    people to be able to communicate within their communities and
    in turn with their elected Representatives. We should be
    supporting and encouraging the free and unfettered flow of
    ideas that can help us serve our constituents better.
        While I appreciate the majority's attempt to address this
    issue in the manager's amendment, I think it might fall short a
    little. The manager's amendment tries to deal with this issue
    by indirectly trying to define and describe the unique
    circumstances of blogger interaction with elected officials in
    section 103. However, not only is this language unclear, it
    does not cover the other possible sections in the bill that
    this could become a problem, including sections 201 and 214. I
    think the better approach would be to address this issue
    directly rather than indirectly, which is the reason for this
    amendment.
        The amendment adds language which states: ``A communication
    which is disseminated to the Internet shall be treated as a
    form of general public advertising under this paragraph unless
    the communication was placed for a fee or on another person's
    Web site.''
        I urge the committee's adoption.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. The FEC is made aware of the amendment and
    from their read did not raise any major concerns. Several
    outside groups have lobbied over the years to finally have this
    provision put in law, and expressed an interest to have this
    included in the manager's amendment.
        I support the amendment and I also encourage the members to
    support it as well.
        Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I agree
    with this amendment. I think it is a good addition, and really
    the logic of it is--the barrier to entry on Internet
    advertising is very low, and it is one of those areas where
    whether you're a giant corporation or an 18-year-old with a
    laptop, I mean you really have somewhat equivalent
    opportunities to create content.
        I think this is a very sensible amendment and I am glad you
    offered it and I support it.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment?
        Mr. McCarthy. Well, I thank you for the kind words and--no,
    I take it. Just relook at my last amendment, too.
        The Chairman. All those in favor indicate so by saying aye.
        Opposed, no.
        The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I have another amendment,
    amendment No. 13.
        The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. When we had the discussion earlier about the
    difference between unions and corporations, the argument was
    made by the gentleman from Alabama that we had a different
    situation involving someone who was a union member, a union
    which was of a contractor as opposed to a union of Federal
    employees. And this amendment is drafted to talk about a labor
    organization representing an employee of such organization
    which would thereby be restricted.
        In other words, if, in fact, we think that there is undue
    influence from a Federal contractor, then this would say a
    labor organization representing that contractor would seemingly
    be in the same situation; that is, that that union would only
    receive a benefit if, in fact, the contract was let, and
    therefore the same sort of potential corruption.
        And I am not one that is satisfied that that is corruption
    of the level that the Supreme Court would find, but if, in
    fact, that is a given under this bill, then in fact a labor
    organization representing the employees of a quote-unquote
    ``banned corporation'' frankly stand in the same shoes as that
    banned corporation. And in this case I would think that you
    have the same argument of interest and therefore the same
    argument of potential conflicts.
        This is not a generalized idea of unions negotiating as
    taxpayer or public employees. This goes to the unions
    representing employees of the contractors that we have decided
    could provide that kind of a conflict of interest--well, more
    than a conflict of interest--that type of potential corruption.
    And in this case, all I am asking is that the union be treated
    the same as the corporation because essentially it stands in
    the same shoes.
        And with that, I yield back the balance of my time.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on this
    amendment?
        The only issue I have, sir, is that we just got this right
    now, like right now. I understand your concerns are sometimes
    you don't get things too quickly, as you stated, but we just
    looked at this right now to look at section 317(a) in the
    Federal Elections Campaign Act and go through all that. I just
    think that at this particular time we have no problem trying to
    look at this work with you again, and trying to make sure we
    can get it done and trying to be supportive of it. But right
    now, none of us have had any chance to look at this.
        Mrs. Davis.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Mr. Chairman, just quickly, I am
    trying to think through all these big--General Dynamics, for
    example, which contracts with the Federal Government to build
    ships, and they have union steelworkers there. Are you saying
    that you would have difficulty with the steelworkers who, by
    virtue of having jobs, I guess, somehow would be part of the
    contract, that you feel would be included in this bill? Is that
    what you're talking about? Because I am a little confused----
        Mr. Lungren. Yes. What I am saying is this: If in fact the
    underlying proposition is that by virtue of being a government
    contractor, you therefore subject the public at large to the
    possibility of corruption such that we can limit this type of
    political speech that is otherwise allowed under Citizens
    United, that same argument, it seems to me, would be sufficient
    with respect to the labor organization which benefits in like
    manner as the contractor would.
        I mean I think--again, I am not one that necessarily
    believes that this is going to pass the constitutional
    question, but if in fact the concern about corruption is valid,
    then it would be just as valid with respect to the labor union
    that benefits just as directly as the contractor does because--
    --
        Mrs. Davis of California. I don't think it is a direct
    correlation in that sense. I am trying to understand----
        Mr. Lungren. I understand what you are saying but----
        Mrs. Davis of California. Thank you. I think we can look at
    it now that we have it, but if that's your line of thinking I
    wanted to double-check that. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    amendment to the substitute?
        If not, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a roll call.
        The Chairman. Will the Clerk call the roll, please?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady
        The Chairman. No.
        The noes are four, the ayes are three. The noes have it.
    The amendment is not agreed to.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Are there any further amendments?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. I have three amendments. The first one is a
    technical amendment, retitling subtitles A, B and C, and also
    changing the words ``any campaign'' to ``the candidate's
    campaign'' on Page 21, line 17. I think these are technical
    amendments and hopefully we can do it by voice.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, on this side we would support
    these technical amendments.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any additional debate on the amendment to the substitute?
        Hearing none, all those in favor signify by saying aye.
        Opposed, no.
        The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed to.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment, Lofgren
    amendment No. 2, that relates to political Robocalls.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lofgren. We had a hearing in the Election Subcommittee
    in the last Congress, and I will never forget Virginia Foxx
    talking about her wonderful experience of anonymous in-the-
    middle-of-the-night Robocalls from people pretending to be her
    campaign, and undisclosed. And we put together a bill to
    require, at the beginning of the political Robocall who was was
    making the call. We also in the amendment require that major
    funders also identify themselves, using the same definition as
    is the case in the rest of the bill.
        However Mr. Lungren's staff made a good point; that if it
    is a long list, it shouldn't necessarily be at the beginning of
    the bill. And I agree with that. It could be very awkward. So
    that section would not have to be at the beginning of the bill,
    but--of the call, but it needs to be in the call.
        And I wanted to mention Congresswoman Melissa Bean, who
    also has been very active in promoting this, and Mr. Lungren
    and I have talked about this for some time as well. I don't
    know if he--I hope he is in support of the amendment, but
    certainly he has had a great interest in this.
        One of the concerns expressed during the hearing and in our
    brief discussions was we don't want to do anything that would
    have an adverse impact on telephone townhalls. And in talking
    to the lawyers and in looking at the amendment, I am confident
    that this would not have any impact on telephone townhalls
    because it has to do with political campaigns, and the
    telephone townhalls are official speech that we are doing.
        So I offer this amendment. I hope that we can support it. I
    think certainly the mischief that is done is unfair to voters.
    I remember the testimony we had of repeated calls that were
    made at 2:00 and 3:00 in the morning, anonymous calls from
    people purporting to be the candidate. And as you can imagine,
    by the time of the election, you have been woken up three or
    four times in the middle of the night, you are not inclined to
    support that candidate.
        That kind of mischief is really not what elections should
    be about, and this would prevent it. And I think certainly the
    victims of this kind of fraud are on both sides of the aisle,
    but the real victims are the voters who are misled and abused.
    So I hope that this amendment can gain support.
        And I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. I thank the lady.
        Any additional debate on the amendment?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, just briefly. On the floor
    yesterday, I had a chance to look at at least what purported to
    be the amendment at that time. Subsequently, through my staff,
    I indicated my concern about requiring upfront not only to
    identify the source of the call but also the major
    contributors, and I appreciate the fact that I understand you
    have offered it so that that is not the case----
        Ms. Lofgren. That is correct. The maker of the call would
    have to be identified at the beginning, but the major funders
    would be at the end.
        Mr. Lungren. So I appreciate that change.
        I still have two concerns. And one I am not sure we can
    ever get around, and that is, having been subjected to
    suppression calls on Election Day that I believe were effective
    but technically did not state support of a candidate or
    opposition to a candidate, this doesn't really help us with
    that, and I am not sure we can do that. So that is why I would
    like to see if we would work a little more than that.
        But the other thing in terms of tele-townhalls, I was not
    only referring to those of our official, but tele-townhalls are
    also utilized in the political context. And I think they are of
    benefit both to the candidate and to the electorate.
        The definition utilized in this, in your last several
    lines--and, again, I don't have a copy of it in front of me--it
    seems to me would implicate this as covering tele-townhalls;
    and it is just because in doing tele-townhalls, you record two
    messages: one for people who are at home; one for people who
    are not. And the one for people at home, it is a recorded
    message; they can't immediately talk to the recorded message,
    but if they stay on the line, then they engage you, I think,
    under the definition that is included here.
        So I would like to work to try to clarify that, and so I am
    going to withhold support of it at this time. I do understand
    where you are going. I happen to believe that it makes good
    sense to identify people who are calling in Robocalls. I just
    have a problem with some of the language here and some of the
    concepts. So hopefully we can work in the future----
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lungren. I would be happy to.
        Ms. Lofgren. I hope that we can adopt this today, but I
    certainly will continue to discuss this, because I think as it
    is written now, if it is a political Robocall, you would have
    to identify yourself.
        Mr. Lungren. You mean a political--a tele-townhall?
        Ms. Lofgren. Yes. And I think that is not too great a
    burden, but I mean we can continue to talk. I understand that
    there are certain types of suppression Robocalls that this
    would not necessarily cover, and those are bad. But I hope that
    we wouldn't continue not to do something good because we can't
    do everything.
        Mr. Lungren. You see, the whole purpose of the tele-
    townhall is different than a Robocall in that you are trying to
    at least----
        Ms. Lofgren. No. I mean we all do that----
        Mr. Lungren. But I mean you are trying to get people to get
    on. And it is just the format in that situation, it seems to
    me, is somewhat different than a Robocall, because the purpose
    of the tele-townhall is to identify who you are. It doesn't
    necessarily fit that same formula.
        Ms. Lofgren. I understand that, but if the gentleman would
    continue to yield.
        Mr. Lungren. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. On the message that you record--actually the
    real issue is the messages that are left because there would
    not be a dialogue. And in the recording of the message that is
    left, you would have to identify who you are making the call,
    which I think we generally do anyhow----
        Mr. Lungren. Which is what you want to do anyway.
        Ms. Lofgren. Which you want to do anyhow. So I hope that we
    can adopt this. Let's continue to talk if there are refinements
    that can be made. I don't think we are disagreeing on what we
    want to accomplish, honestly.
        I thank the gentleman for yielding.
        The Chairman. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. I was in the hearings last time we did
    Robocalls, too. I would be willing to work with you on this. I
    mean, you may have seen it on the floor, but I am just now
    seeing it. And instead of doing something in a very hurried
    method, I mean I will tell you I will work with you. I think
    people need to identify on these two. And the way technology is
    being used, I would just ask if we could hold this off and move
    forward, and we can work with you on an amendment for the
    floor, doing it jointly, or how we move forward with it.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Any additional debate on the amendment to the substitute?
    If not, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        Opposed, no.
        The ayes have it. The ayes have it. The amendment is agreed
    to.
        Mr. McCarthy. Can we ask for a roll call?
        The Chairman. Certainly. The Clerk will call the roll,
    please.
        Mr. McCarthy. All right, forget it.
        The Chairman. All right, forget it.
        Any further amendments?
        Ms. Lofgren. I have one more amendment.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Ms. Lofgren. The amendment has to do with changing the
    threshold amount for contractors, government contractors, being
    covered under the act. In the measure before us it is
    currently, I believe, at $50,000, and this amendment would
    increase that threshold amount to $7 million. And here is the
    reason why: The amendment--the concern that we have is about
    large corporations having an undue influence--the concern I
    have--in anonymous contributions and impacting campaigns to the
    detriment of the American people.
        I am not actually concerned that small businesses are going
    to engage in that activity for a number of reasons. For one,
    they don't have the cash to do it. And the small businesses in
    America are really part of the mom-and-pop voters. It is not
    the faceless, anonymous large corporations that have caused our
    concern. The $7 million is what is used to define small
    businesses in the SBA. That is why I have suggested that as a
    threshold.
        I think this improves the bill, and I hope that we can all
    support it. And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Is there any additional debate on the
    amendment to the substitute?
        Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair the ayes have it. The ayes have
    it and the amendment is agreed to.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Any further amendments? Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of amendments. I
    may as well start with amendment No. 1, the Fair Elections Now
    Act.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Capuano. This amendment is an addition to the bill. And
    the truth is this bill, though I support it, disclosure is a
    good thing, transparency is a good thing, it really doesn't get
    to the heart of the matter. And the heart of the matter to me
    is the fact that so many of us have to spend so much time
    raising so much money that we leave all kinds of impressions
    with the public----
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, may I reserve the right to
    object on this?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Capuano. We leave so many impressions with the public,
    I think it takes away time that we as Members can be using more
    valuably responding to constituents, learning bills, debating
    and discussing with each other.
        It models on the Connecticut portion. This is a cut-and-
    paste from a bill filed by Mr. Larson. I believe it has over
    100 cosponsors, including myself, that would provide public
    financing for certain qualified candidates. It is a minimum
    level. It is voluntary. It is not required. People can opt out
    of it anytime they want. They don't have to join in.
        And it requires people--if they choose to join, it requires
    people to keep their contributions relatively low so they can
    do other things, and it matches contributions of $100 or less
    at a 4-to-1 ratio. It is not the perfect bill, in my
    estimation. I would like to play with this myself as we move
    forward.
        Nonetheless, the concept of getting us off of the money
    mouse wheel is something that I would pretty much make almost
    any compromise I could to do. I know that some people measure
    their manhood or womanhood by how much money they can raise. I
    have no such self-illusions. I don't worry about those things.
    I am very comfortable with who and what I am. I never raised
    another nickel in my life for my own campaign.
        So, Mr. Chairman, that is what this is. I think most
    members here know what this bill does. They know the concept.
    And therefore I don't think I have to take any additional time
    to explain it, except to state very clearly that unless we do
    this, we will constantly be on the money train; the public will
    always have suspicions about our motivations; and we will not
    be able to focus on the things that I think the founders of
    this country wanted us to focus on, and that was not raising
    money.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
    time.
        The Chairman. The gentleman will state his point of order.
        Mr. Lungren. I will withdraw my point of order, Mr.
    Chairman. I will just ask time to debate the amendment.
        The Chairman. Yes. Any additional debate on the amendment?
    Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Can the gentleman tell me what the cost of
    this would be?
        Mr. Capuano. No way to tell until we have the number of
    people that are involved in it. It may cost nothing if no one
    opts in; but I will, so it is going to cost you something.
        Mr. Lungren. Well, aren't we required to score bills when
    we come to the floor and find out how to pay for them?
        Mr. Capuano. If you vote for this bill and it gets on the
    floor, we will get it scored before you vote on it.
        Mr. Lungren. No, but is there any rough estimate of what
    the cost would be----
        Mr. Capuano. I don't have it at my fingertips, no.
        Mr. Lungren. What is the amount that each candidate could
    get?
        Mr. Capuano. The totals, I believe, are in the 300- or
    $500,000 per general election range. That is at a maximum. It
    wouldn't necessarily be that.
        Mr. Lungren. And this is public funding; correct?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes.
        Mr. Lungren. Is there a specific way to raise the funds in
    this bill?
        Mr. Capuano. Not yet, but I am happy to work with you as we
    get closer.
        Mr. Lungren. But the bill doesn't have a voluntary check-
    off or anything----
        Mr. Capuano. No. Not yet. That portion would have to go to
    Ways and Means when we get there.
        Mr. Lungren. And would it be limited--how does a candidate
    qualify?
        Mr. Capuano. Qualified by, first of all, opting in; second
    of all, raising in $100-or-less increments up to $50,000, which
    is about 1,500 contributors. That is how you would qualify.
        Mr. Lungren. So once you do that, you could tap into the
    program for as much as?
        Mr. Capuano. It is about--I have got the exact numbers
    upstairs. It is actually, I think, $575,000. In that range.
        Mr. Lungren. Would that be both primary and general, or
    just the general?
        Mr. Capuano. That would be primary. I believe the total
    general is a few million dollars per candidate, which is
    exactly what you raised. Don't you wish you could raise that
    little amount of money, Mr. McCarthy?
        Mr. Lungren. And who would administer the funds?
        Mr. Capuano. I don't know. Who would administer these
    things? They set up a whole board on the whole thing.
        The Chairman. Ms. Lofgren,
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, if I could just interject
    because points of order need to be timely made, and I did not
    make one because Mr. Lungren did; but if he is dropping that, I
    would like to be given the courtesy of raising a point of
    order.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the gentlewoman is
    recognized.
        Mr. Lungren. I still have time, my time?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Mr. Lungren. So would a Member be prohibited from raising
    other moneys outside of that initial amount when they
    qualified----
        Mr. Capuano. Once you opt in, yes.
        Mr. Lungren. So your limit is how much?
        Mr. Capuano. The limit is $100 or less contributions. No
    limit on that.
        Mr. Lungren. Oh, so you can continue raising----
        Mr. Capuano. Under those limits, yes. Good luck raising a
    lot of money on $100 or less.
        Mr. Lungren. And that is unlimited and then you qualify for
    the public funds?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes, I believe that is correct.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay. I just want to make clear what this is.
    This is if you have an unlimited amount of funds under $100
    that you raise; right?
        Mr. Capuano. They are not matched.
        Mr. Lungren. Pardon me?
        Mr. Capuano. The match is capped.
        Mr. Lungren. Right. The match is capped but there is no
    limit in the underlying amount under $100; right?
        Mr. Capuano. I believe that is correct.
        Mr. Lungren. So you could raise $2 million under $100 in
    contributions. I realize that is a lot. And then on top of
    that, you could get the public funding. If one party opts in--
    in the general election if the Democratic candidate opts in for
    that, does that put any limitations on the Republican candidate
    or vice versa?
        Mr. Capuano. No. Nothing other than the current limits.
        Mr. Lungren. Is it limited to--is the number of parties
    limited?
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        Mr. Lungren. So as long as you qualify under Federal and
    State law, you would then qualify for that?
        Mr. Capuano. You would still have to raise a certain amount
    of money.
        Mr. Lungren. I understand that----
        Mr. Capuano. You have to raise $50,000 in $100 or less
    contributions, which is 1,500 contributors. And if you can do
    that and not be associated with any entity or group, good luck
    to you. Isn't that the American system? Anybody should be able
    to run?
        Mr. Lungren. Okay. Let me ask you this. What about, I call
    it the LaRouche problem?
        Mr. Capuano. How is it a problem? If they can go out and
    raise this kind of money----
        Mr. Lungren. Have you met him?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes, I met him.
        Mr. Lungren. That is a problem.
        Mr. Capuano. I don't see it as a problem at all. I actually
    think you have more problem with the Tea Party right now, not
    the LaRouches, but that is your problem. And my argument is----
        Mr. Lungren. No. No. As I have said before, Mr. LaRouche is
    a Democrat and you are welcome to him.
        Mr. Capuano. If somebody can raise this kind of money in
    these kinds of numbers, they are going to be on the ballot, and
    they should be on the ballot, and you should be concerned. And
    if they are LaRouches or Tea Parties or Whigs or anybody else,
    God bless them.
        Mr. McCarthy. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Lungren. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman
    from California.
        Mr. McCarthy. You stated earlier your concern that the
    money--money from outside the district. Does this put any
    restrictions if a person ran for office and got all the money
    from outside of the State?
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        The Chairman. I would like to recognize the gentlelady for
    a point of order.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Lungren is not finished.
        The Chairman. He is out of time so----
        But I will let you----
        Mr. Lungren. I will yield back my time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you for hearing me on this point of
    order. I actually----
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, the point of order is not in
    order.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, if the point of order is not
    in--I understand this bill is not germane and I respect that,
    and I am not going to put anybody in a position of having to
    play procedural games. I am more than happy to withdraw this
    amendment without embarrassing anybody or putting anybody in a
    difficult position. That is not my intention.
        My intention was to make sure people understand that this
    bill, the DISCLOSE bill, is a good bill; but it is not going to
    solve the underlying problem. The only solution to this
    underlying problem is to get us off the money train. And the
    only way to do it, unless somebody has a better idea, is to get
    public financing of campaigns.
        Mr. Lungren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Capuano. I certainly would.
        Mr. Lungren. I know the gentleman is going to withdraw
    that. I just ask the chairman, is this bill within our
    jurisdiction?
        Mr. Capuano. No.
        Mr. Lungren. The gentleman's bill? Not germane to this bill
    today, but is this within our jurisdiction?
        The Chairman. Yes. It would come back under us, yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Will the gentleman yield? If I could, I am a
    cosponsor of this bill. We had a hearing in the Election
    Subcommittee. For a variety of reasons, I don't think this is
    the best way to proceed with it. But I do appreciate that you
    are withdrawing it. I agree with it on the substance.
        The Chairman. We already had a hearing on it in our
    committee.
        I understand the gentleman withdraws his amendment?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Any further amendments?
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I have got another one.
        The Chairman. Mr. Capuano is recognized.
        Mr. Capuano.  Mr. Chairman, amendment No. 2, the
    Shareholder Protection Act, and that bill is not within the
    jurisdiction of this committee.
        Ms. Lofgren.  And I raise a point of order.
        The Chairman. The lady is recognized for a point of order.
        Mr. Capuano. This particular provision is a simple
    response, a direct and simple response to Citizens United, and,
    more importantly it protects shareholders.
        The question always comes--and I have asked members of this
    panel and no one has debated it--who owns the money in a
    corporation? Who owns the corporation? The CEO of the
    corporation, the board of directors of the corporation, or the
    shareholders of the corporation? I have not heard anybody yet
    who argues that shareholders do not own the corporation. So
    therefore the corporate money is their money.
        And the Shareholder Protection bill simply says that if a
    corporation wants to exercise what the court says is the
    corporation's First Amendment rights, so be it; then the people
    whose money it is get to say yes or no. Shareholders get to say
    yes or no. Very simple, very straightforward, doesn't prohibit
    anybody's First Amendment rights, doesn't get involved in any
    of these other things. It is a relatively simple bill, a short
    bill.
        No matter how you measure it, no matter how tightly it is
    printed or anything else, it is a short bill. And I think that
    it is a bill that will actually allow people to make their own
    decisions. The worst thing that can happen, I think in
    campaigns or anything else, is for anybody to spend my money
    for me; and if somebody wants to make a political contribution
    on my behalf, I should have a say in the matter if it is my
    money. And that is all this does. It says shareholders own the
    corporation and they get to say yes or no.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard on my point of
    order?
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Ms. Lofgren. I actually--as I mentioned, when we had
    hearing in the questions I asked, I think the situation of
    shareholders and their rights is a very serious one, and I am
    very interested in Mr. Capuano's proposal. I also am interested
    in liability issues and the like. However, it is not germane to
    the underlying bill.
        Mr. Capuano is a member of the Financial Services
    Committee. I am a member of the Judiciary Committee. I hope
    that we can pursue some of these other ideas in those
    committees of jurisdiction, but I don't think this amendment is
    germane to the underlying bill and therefore----
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlelady will yield.
    Again, without trying to put anybody in a box, and also I have
    been told that we are going to be marking this bill up in the
    not-too-distant future in Financial Services. Anyway, I just
    wanted to raise the point. To me I think it is a critical part
    of this whole debate. Disclosure is fine, but if somebody is
    spending somebody else's money, it is never good.
        So with that, Mr. Chairman, with due respect I will
    withdraw my amendment.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Mr. McCarthy. Can I ask you a question before you withdraw?
        Mr. Capuano. Sure.
        Mr. McCarthy. Just a couple. Would the shareholders vote on
    spending a certain dollar amount throughout, or would they have
    to vote by each contribution?
        Mr. Capuano. The bill that we have proposed in Financial
    Services would be one time per year the shareholders would vote
    yes or no on a given amount suggested by the board, like
    everything else. So the board would come out and say, We ask
    you to allow us to spend up to 10 million--pick a number--
    whatever the number is----
        Mr. McCarthy. And they can do whatever they want----
        Mr. Capuano. Whatever they want. And the shareholders have
    an up-or-down vote on it.
        Mr. McCarthy. Because it is the shareholders' money.
        Mr. Capuano. Yes.
        Mr. McCarthy. Okay. Taking that same premise, so if a
    shareholder disagrees with how the corporation spends the
    money, you could do one of two things, right? You could fight
    internally or you could sell the share.
        Mr. Capuano. That is right.
        Mr. McCarthy. So, say I am a union employee.
        Mr. Capuano.  Gee, what a surprise.
        Mr. McCarthy. No, I am just--level playing field. And they
    take my money. Is there anything in your bill that has the
    union vote one time a year to decide how much is spent on
    political endeavors?
        Mr. Capuano. Just as a point of information. The gentleman
    should read a whole bunch of cases, starting with Communication
    Workers of America versus Beck and other related cases back to
    the 1960s. The United States Supreme Court has itself said
    repeatedly that union members can opt out of political use of
    their donations, their union dues. It is not a new concept. It
    has been around for a long time. It has gone to the Supreme
    Court numerous times and has been upheld numerous times. So
    union members already have that option to not have their dues
    used for political purposes.
        Mr. McCarthy. So that is the equivalent of selling the
    share; would it not be?
        Mr. Capuano. I don't think so.
        Mr. McCarthy. Not in your interpretation?
        Mr. Capuano. No. I don't think so, no.
        Mr. McCarthy. You are saying they can opt out.
        Mr. Capuano. You are still related to the union. You are
    still getting benefits of the union. You don't have to leave
    the union. Even if you do leave the union, you still get the
    benefits of that. You still have to pay an agency, which has
    been long settled Supreme Court decisions, which I know that
    some people don't agree with, just like some of the decisions
    of the Supreme Court I don't agree with.
        Mr. McCarthy. Let me ask you this question. When I asked
    you earlier that it was the shareholders' money, right?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes.
        Mr. McCarthy. And that is the premise of why you ask that
    the shareholders be able to vote?
        Mr. Capuano. That is right.
        Mr. McCarthy. Is the money that the union contributes, is
    that not their money?
        Mr. Capuano. Yes. It is the union members' money for
    political purposes; that is correct.
        Mr. McCarthy. The same thing as the taxpayers' money--for
    the shareholders' money, I am sorry. So if the shareholder gets
    the power to say, I only want you to spend this much on
    politics, because you are not asking for an individual, who to
    contribute it to, you are just asking how much to spend, why
    wouldn't we empower that union member to be able to have that
    same say of how much to be spent in politics?
        Mr. Capuano. The union member does it in reverse. They are
    allowed to do it in reverse to a total. The union member is not
    allowed to say--under current law, the member is not allowed to
    say, I don't want to contribute to Mike Capuano, but I want to
    contribute to Kevin McCarthy with my union dues. They say
    either I am happy to go and be part of the union and allow the
    union in the normal course of business to make a decision, just
    like the shareholder would be doing. The shareholder would not
    be making a decision on individual contributions. They simply
    say yes or no on that.
        Union members are already entitled to do the exact same
    thing. It is yes, we are in, or no, we are out on political
    activity, and that has been the case since the 1960s.
        Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Capuano. I certainly would.
        Mr. McCarthy. Just to clarify, it is my time.
        Ms. Lofgren. Oh, I am sorry. Will the gentleman yield?
        The Chairman. Just to clarify, everybody has been out of
    time.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, out of respect for some of the
    needs of my colleagues on this panel, I would respectfully
    withdraw my amendment.
        The Chairman. You are withdrawing the amendment for the
    second time. Thank you. I appreciate it.
        Are there any further amendments?
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I have one more. Amendment No.
    4.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, this is a simple approach. If we
    are going to disclose things on TV ads and other ads, I think
    we should be doing them on radio ads. And in an attempt to
    address some of the concerns that were raised, I think
    legitimate concerns that were raised, not trying to take up too
    much time of a given ad, actually reduce the number of people
    that would have to be identified on an ad to two; not five, not
    42 different CEOs and the like. Simply the top two funders of
    the entity putting the ad there. And, again, it is an attempt
    to be reasonable. Radio ads are shorter. Speech takes longer
    than print. And that is what this amendment does. And with
    that, I----
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman. Is there any
    additional debate on the amendment to the substitute?
        Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. Thank you very much.
        As I understand, is this a new requirement for
    identification on radio ads?
        Mr. Capuano. The current bill does not address radio ads.
        Mr. Lungren. So this would then include radio ads as well
    as TV ads?
        Mr. Capuano. TV ads are already covered with the top five--
    --
        Mr. Lungren. No, that is what I mean. As well as TV ads.
    Okay. So you would require the top funder, the top two funders?
        Mr. Capuano. Two funders, correct.
        Mr. Lungren. Now, what about the question of the time
    involved? I thought the chairman said with respect to his
    manager's amendment that somehow there is a variance that is
    allowed if it would be too much time out of a radio ad.
        Mr. Capuano. It would be subject to the same allowance. I
    don't see how two names would really interfere with a 30-second
    ad, but if it did, the FEC would be allowed to waive it, just
    like they would under the current bill for TV ads.
        Mr. Lungren. Okay. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Any additional debate on the amendment?
    Hearing none, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, signify by saying aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, just as a point of information,
    I would like it noted that I got one amendment passed and Mr.
    McCarthy got two.
        The Chairman. Noted for the record.
        Mr. McCarthy. But the record also shows he said he was
    going to work on my other amendment on the floor, too.
        Mr. Capuano. I was kidding.
        The Chairman. It is agreed to.
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, since I have had no amendments
    adopted, I have one more amendment.
        The Chairman. Taking another shot. The gentleman is
    recognized.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. What I did with this amendment is--this is
    similar to amendment No. 4 that I had before, where I talked
    about the fact that I wanted to use the FEC regulatory language
    in statutory form so that we would be less confused about
    dealing with the problem of American subsidiaries of foreign
    companies.
        It was pointed out by Mr. Capuano that I had added
    something with respect to the clarification of treatment of
    state-owned companies by foreign nationals, and that was in
    fact not part of the FEC language.
        So what I have done is I have removed that from my
    amendment, so that in essence this amendment--which I have not
    asked for a recorded vote for before, and, to my chagrin, Mr.
    Capuano said I should have--I have now offered without the
    language that I think he questioned, or some on your side
    objected to, because it was further than what the FEC language
    was and there was some question about that would be adding some
    vagueness.
        So, again, this amendment replaces section 102 with a
    prohibition on any foreign national directing or controlling
    political activity by codifying current FEC regulations, and I
    withdrew my expanded definition of ``foreign national'' that
    some on your side objected to.
        The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
        Is there any additional debate on the amendment?
        Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Mr. Chairman, I respect the gentleman's
    attempt, but he cut off the part that I liked. I liked the 50
    percent part, the part that you cut out. So I am happy to vote
    against this thing.
        The Chairman. A part is really like a little section of
    something.
        Any additional debate on the amendment to the substitute?
        Ms. Lofgren. Mr. Chairman, if I may just say, this is--I am
    not sure and I am not--because it has been redrafted, it has
    just been handed--I really think we ought to study this between
    now and the floor and see--I am taking a look at the section of
    law, and I want to think about how it works. I am not
    necessarily assuming that it is not a good idea. I just don't
    know yet. I just wanted to say that.
        Mr. Lungren. It is difficult--I put something in there that
    Mr. Capuano suggested, and I heard a complaint that that was
    not the FEC language. So I took it out, and now I have
    complaints on the other side. But I will think about it and
    work with the other side to see if we might be able to resolve
    this one. Thank you.
        The Chairman. No more debate?
        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, could I ask unanimous consent to
    enter into the record a letter by eight former commissioners of
    the FEC where they detail a number of grave concerns they have
    regarding the legislation before us?
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Mr. Lungren. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to enter
    into the record a letter of opposition to the original bill
    sent to this committee by over 85 organizations representing a
    wide spectrum of organizations representing businesses.
        The Chairman. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. If not, the question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        All those opposed, say no.
        In the opinion--you voted against your own amendment.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.
        Mr. Lungren. Oh, my amendment. I thought you----
        Ms. Lofgren. Our staffs ought to talk about this.
        The Chairman. The question is on the amendment.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        All those opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair the noes have it. The noes have
    it and the amendment is not agreed to.
        Are there any additional amendments?
        If there are no additional amendments, the question is now
    on agreeing to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, as
    amended.
        All those in favor, say aye. Those opposed, say no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the
    amendment, as awarded, is agreed to.
        Mr. Lungren. I ask for a roll call.
        The Chairman. Will the Clerk call the roll?
        The Clerk. Ms. Lofgren.
        Ms. Lofgren. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Capuano.
        Mr. Capuano. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Gonzalez.
        [No response.]
        The Clerk. Mrs. Davis of California.
        Mrs. Davis of California. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Davis of Alabama.
        Mr. Davis of Alabama. Aye.
        The Clerk. Mr. Lungren.
        Mr. Lungren. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. McCarthy.
        Mr. McCarthy. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Harper.
        Mr. Harper. No.
        The Clerk. Mr. Brady.
        The Chairman. Aye.
        The Chairman. The ayes are five, the nays are no--in the
    opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the amendment, as
    awarded to the amendment, is agreed to.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chair now moves to report H.R. 5175, as amended,
    favorably to the House.
        All those in favor, say aye.
        Those opposed, no.
        In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it. And the ayes
    have it.
        The bill now, as amended, is reported favorably to the
    House. Without objection, a motion to reconsider is laid on the
    table.
        Members will have 2 additional days provided by the House
    rules to file views.
        The Chairman. Without objection, the staff may make
    technical and conforming changes to the legislation considered
    today.
        The committee now stands adjourned. I thank all of you, and
    have a good flight back, a good travel back, and a good
    weekend. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]